The New York Times Should Do a Little Self-Reflection

The New York Times, Bloomberg News and other Western media outlets are anxious about their journalists’ Chinese visas. These organizations know that China did not accept some of their reporting, so they associated their visa-renewal troubles with such reports. The Nov. 13 New York Times editorial announced that “the Times has no intention of altering its coverage to meet the demands of any government.”

The influence of The New York Times is self-evident. The editorial broadcast its confidence as one of the premier Western public opinion platforms. It had two messages: One, The New York Times was not polite to the American government either, so the Chinese government should accept its treatment; two, its Chinese reporting was serious, honest, and beneficial to China: It is what China deserves.

Western media often clashes with non-Western governments. Recently, CNN announced the end of its news broadcast in Russia due to changing Russian laws about foreign media. In this kind of conflict, Western news organizations often promote themselves as “saviors,” with high values and professionalism, while their loyalty to their home countries and the pursuit of their own organizations’ special interests are hidden.

America’s system is different from China. The New York Times did not have to care about the American government’s feelings, but it could not ignore how most Americans felt. Even with the American government, The New York Times had to collaborate more than it fought. Protecting the American national interest was a strict boundary for The New York Times.

However, The New York Times would not cooperate with the Chinese government on major issues; its reporting was often in conflict with the Chinese national interest. It should not be surprised that its reporting and comments have repulsed most Chinese people.

In addition, The New York Times is also highly concerned with its own interests. The close alliance of such interests with American national interests is much more so than their adherence to Chinese national interests. We believe this stance is normal; we are only pointing it out here to remind The New York Times that it should not see itself as being so compassionate and high-brow. It should know its innate limitations and weaknesses: Only then, can it be motivated to reflect on its potential mistakes when there is a conflict with the Chinese government.

The world is changing. If an organization dares to think it is always right in any type of conflict in this era, and never needs adjustment, that is not a praise-worthy attitude. In fact, The New York Times is using its slogan of “never altering” as a slogan to make China change. Slogans make one passionate, but this type of behavior is bound to lead to obstacles in the modern world.

While China is accelerating its reform, a lot of Western media are trying to interfere in China’s political progress, making up issues for China, and impacting China’s focus and direction. At least their behavior looks this way, overstepping the role of foreign media in China.

As fellow media colleagues, we hope that New York Times journalists can continue to work in China. It is a good thing that there are a lot of foreign journalists in China, which is the same belief held by the Chinese society, and perhaps, the Chinese government. When Western journalists find themselves outside this circle of understanding, maybe, they need to ask themselves why, and not just question the Chinese government.