评论 | 英国通信管理局对CGTN的禁令公理何在？

A scene from a programme on CGTN. /Getty

Editor's note: Jonathan Arnott is a former member of the European Parliament. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN. 

编者按：乔纳森•阿诺特（Jonathan Arnott）是欧洲议会前成员。本文仅代表作者观点，不代表CGTN的观点。

Jen Bricker is an inspirational figure. Growing up without legs, her attitude towards life was always that “can’t is a four-letter word” – to be treated in exactly the same way as all kinds of swear words which in the English language seem too often have four letters. The story, of triumph over adversity and overcoming the most difficult of challenges, is one which offers hope to many people struggling in their everyday life. That story, told on a screen under the title “When can’t is a four-letter word”, won an Emmy award for CGTN. In other words, there is a level of quality from their productions which has long been recognized.

珍妮弗•布里克（Jen Bricker）的经历非常励志。她天生没有双腿，却从不服输。她从不说“不能”二字，认为它就如同其他的禁忌词一样，应该被避开。她战胜逆境，克服最困难的挑战，给许多在日常生活中挣扎的人带来希望。CGTN将她的故事以《当“不能”是一个禁忌词》（When can’t is a four-letter word）为题搬上银幕，并获得了艾美奖。换言之，CGTN作品的质量水准早已得到了认可。

I was therefore surprised to read that the British regulator Ofcom has decided to remove CGTN’s broadcasting rights in the United Kingdom. It turned out that they’re unconcerned about the quality of programmes, but rather about editorial control. Ofcom apparently claims they cannot establish that there isn’t a chain link which eventually leads back from the UK television company to the Chinese government in Beijing.

因此，我看到英国通信管理局（Ofcom）决定吊销CGTN在英国的落地许可时，感到非常惊讶。原来，英国监管机构并不关心节目质量，而是在意编辑控制。Ofcom声称，他们无法确认这家在英媒体机构和中国政府之间会不存在联系。

I don’t know about that. I cannot speak to the technicalities. I can speak only to what I’ve seen, and to my own perception of CGTN’s editorial output. I watch and read the news from all political perspectives. Left-wing or right-wing, capitalist or communist, authoritarian or liberal, I want to develop a nuanced opinion on whichever topic I happen to be writing about. So yes I’ve watched CGTN, just as I’ve also watched CNN and Fox, France24 and RT, Sky and the BBC, precisely because I want to see the full spectrum of reporting on any issue. 

我不懂这些，也不懂技术性细节。我只能说说我所看到的，以及我自己对CGTN的节目的看法。我一直是从各个政治角度观看和阅读新闻，不论是左翼还是右翼，资本主义还是共产主义，自由主义还是其他威权主义。我总是想通过这种方式对我要写的任何一个主题形成比较深入的意见。因此，没错，我是CGTN的观众，正如我也是美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）、福克斯（Fox）、法兰西24（France24）、今日俄罗斯（RT）、天空新闻台（Sky）、英国广播公司（BBC）的观众一样，完全是因为我想看到对任何问题的全方位报道。

There’s a note at the top of this article. It explains that what I write represents my opinions, not the opinions of the outlet which happens to be publishing the article. My views may, or may not, accord with the views of CGTN on any given issue. That’s because CGTN does publish content which it doesn’t endorse, because it is interested in hearing both sides of the argument. My views also may, or may not, agree with the views of any other media outlet which I happen to be writing for at the time. 

在这篇文章的标题下面有一句说明，声明文章只代表我的观点，而不代表发表文章的媒体的观点。对于任何一个问题，我的观点与CGTN的观点可能一致，也可能不一致。对于与自己观点相左的内容，CGTN也会予以发表，这是因为CGTN有兴趣倾听不同的观点。我所供稿的其他媒体机构也是一样：我在当时所写文章中表达的观点与媒体的观点可能一致，也可能不一致。

The OFCOM (Office of Communication) logo at its headquarters in London, England. /Getty

If there’s something which I believe, which goes fundamentally against the editorial principles of the outlet which I happen to be writing for, then a bit of common sense tells me not to send the piece. For example, I have serious concerns about the TV license fee, which requires any British household wishing to watch television to pay £157.50 (US$215) to the BBC even if they never watch the BBC. I would rather see the BBC part-privatized, sold to raise money for the nation, and the remaining “public interest” journalism such as local and regional radio being funded through general taxation. I’d have to be a complete fool, on the other hand, to go live on the BBC and argue on-air using their platform that the BBC should be “defunded”. 

如果我文章中的由衷之言跟投稿目标媒体的编辑原则背道而驰，那么我的一点常识会告诉我不要把文章投给该媒体。举例来说，我对电视的收视费很有意见，因为每个想收看电视的英国家庭，即使从来不收看BBC，也要向BBC交157.50英镑（215美元）。我宁愿看到BBC部分私有化，卖掉为国家筹集资金，剩下的地方和地区电台等“公益性”新闻事业则通过一般税收来筹集资金。不过，我去上BBC的直播节目，却在直播中论证不应该为BBC提供经费，该是个十足的傻瓜了。

Before Brexit I took a similar attitude towards companies like Euronews, which is partly state-funded by the European Union. I didn’t want British taxpayers’ money funding a TV channel that promoted a particular political agenda. But, now that Brexit has happened, I no longer live in the European Union. Frankly, how it spends its money is none of my business – I no longer have any right to quibble about how Euronews is funded.

在英国脱欧之前，我对像欧洲新闻台（Euronews）这样的媒体机构也抱有类似的态度。Euronews的部分资金是由欧盟政府资助的。我不希望英国纳税人的钱资助了一个推广某个特定政治议程的电视频道。不过，现在英国已脱欧，我不再生活在欧盟了。所以，欧盟现在如何花钱就不关我的事了，我没有什么权利去争论Euronews的资金来源。

Frankly, my experience has been that CGTN provides a broader range of perspectives than it is often given credit for. The reason I was asked to write articles for CGTN in the first place was to provide some political balance: when Brexit was dominating the European political agenda, they had more pieces from those who were pro-Remain than pro-Brexit. By commissioning opinion pieces from a Brexit supporter, they were able to ensure that a full range of views was represented. My belief in the power of business and free trade has not proved to be a problem; articles along those lines have been published.

坦率地说，据我的经验，CGTN提供的观点多样化程度非常高，可惜人们通常对这一点的认识还不足。CGTN之前向我约稿，首先是因为CGTN想提供一些政治平衡：当时欧洲政治议程的热点是英国脱欧，CGTN收到的文章中支持留欧的很多，而支持脱欧的很少。因此，邀请一位脱欧支持者撰写评论文章，CGTN就可以确保能够呈现各种不同观点。我相信商业和自由贸易力量，事实证明，对于CGTN来说这不是问题；与此相关的我的文章也在CGTN发表了。

My Christian beliefs and values have never caused an issue, nor has my support for religious freedom in general. My belief in freedom of speech has not been a problem either: indeed, it is on that very basis that I have serious misgivings about the UK regulator’s decision to ban CGTN television from its airwaves. It is ironic that those who shout in British politics the loudest about “freedom of speech” often lose that belief when it comes to views they disagree with. Anyone can defend free speech when they agree with the opinions expressed. That costs nothing.

我的基督教信仰和价值观从未引起过问题，我对宗教自由的支持也没有引起过问题。我对言论自由的支持也没有问题：事实上，正是基于这一点，我对英国监管机构吊销CGTN在英落地许可的决定有严重的疑虑。讽刺的是，在英国政坛上把“言论自由”喊得最响的那些人，在涉及与自己意见相左的观点时，却往往忘了自己对言论自由的支持。对于那些自己认同的观点，任何人都大可以捍卫其言论自由，因为这是不需要任何成本的。

When I’ve written opinion pieces on CGTN in the past, nobody has ever tried to twist my words or to force me to say anything which I did not believe in. If writing a piece would go against my values, I wouldn’t write it. Crucially, there has never been any pressure on me to do so. I can only speak to my own experience, and that experience does not sit comfortably with Ofcom’s decision.

在我为CGTN写评论文章的过程中，从来没有人试图扭曲我表达的意思或强迫我写任何言不由衷的东西。如果写一篇文章会违背我的价值观，我就不会去写。最关键的是，从来没有人给我任何压力。我只能说说我的亲身经历，可惜英国通信管理局却是做了另一番决定。