Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)delvpublished in(发表于) 2013/10/27 10:43:48 Zoomlion correspondent materially misrepresent communication after the invalid report
"The new Express Reporter Chen Yongzhou was criminal detention" a cause for concern. 23rd, the State press and publication administration Press Secretary to coordinate the departments concerned to ensure that fair and properly handle the matter.
Yesterday, Guangzhou Tianhe District Court informed Chen Yongzhou, Guangdong new Express newspapers complain Ko Fai and zoomlion Corporation reputation infringement dispute case and dismissed the Ko Fai, Center, zoomlion was incorporated in the case of disputed jurisdiction.
On the front page of the new express direct appeals to "release". Changsha police said reports Chen Yongzhou have fabricated false fact situations, zoomlion says not directly interviewed Chen Yongzhou, experts say press reported an official conduct does not constitute a crime of damaging business reputation.
Zoomlion shares both dropped for h-share stocks.
Express News said reporter didn't violate ethics
On October 18, the new Express Reporter Chen Yongzhou zoomlion financial fraud of listed companies reported problems, Changsha police on suspicion of crime of damaging business reputation away from Guangzhou, and detained the next day.
Yesterday, the new letters on the front page of the published full page reviews, Changsha police to let them, and inside Edition reported extensively on Chen Yongzhou reported zoomlion. "For damage to business reputation," charges, the Express News newspaper checked Chen Yongzhou zoomlion all 14 articles criticizing the report, only fallacy is "513 million advertising and hospitality" written by mistake "advertising 513 million", and the rest all reported content is error-free, in line with the basic requirements of public opinion supervision and news reports. The Express News said, economic centers have been that police suspect.
Yesterday, the new express response to media, newspaper survey, Chen Yongzhou reported zoomlion finance in the event of problems, there is no breach of journalistic ethics and violations.
Both sides reputations in court
Guangzhou Tianhe district people's Court on 23rd's external communications, the August 6, 2013, respectively accepted the plaintiff's new newspapers complain Ko Fai Chen Yongzhou, Guangdong and zoomlion Corporation reputation infringement disputes in both cases. After objection to jurisdiction raised by the defendant, request moving the case to the yuelu district people's Court in Hunan province, has been dismissed by the Court. At present, the case is still at the trial stage.
According to informed the Tianhe District Court, zoomlion, Chairman of the two plaintiffs to defendants Ko Fai Assistant in July 2013, several times in fact, certification of continuous release on plaintiff's personal attack on SINA weibo microblog, caused great harm to their physical, mental and social reputation, Tianhe district people's Court fame dispute proceedings.
Defendant raised objection to jurisdiction
Defendants Ko Fai, zoomlion Corporation submitted pleadings presented during the objection to jurisdiction.
The two defendants said as honorary dispute in the present case, plaintiff Chen Yongzhou, domicile are outside the new newspaper in Guangdong Tianhe district, Ko Fai's habitual residence and zoomlion corporation domiciled in yuelu district, offices under the law can be regarded as infringement, non-road, Tianhe district, Guangzhou City. Therefore, yuelu district, Changsha city, Hunan province, requesting the case to be transferred to the people's Court for trial.
Each defendant asserts that: first, the principle of territoriality, Ko Fai's domicile, Tianhe district, Guangzhou, Tianhe District Court having jurisdiction. Second, in accordance with the principles of tort litigation jurisdiction, Guangzhou Tianhe district results for violations, to have jurisdiction in the case. Third, from the nature of the infringement by the defendant, any computer terminal or other electronic equipment terminal can be a result of violations took place, plaintiff domiciled in Tianhe district, governed by the district as a case not only in conformity with the law, is one of the easiest cases.
Guangzhou dismissed the objection to jurisdiction
Tianhe District Court after trial says: infringement proceedings brought by, or domicile of the defendant in a people's Court according to law violations jurisdiction. Violations to include violations committed and infringement results. When the peoples Court accepts the case concerning the right of reputation, infringement of the domicile of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, results can be identified as the infringement took place. Civil domicile refers to citizens ' domicile. Legal person's domicile is the seat of the legal person's principal place of business or principal office.
In the present case, the plaintiff as infringement of citizens, their place of residence or domicile "yuancun erheng, Tianhe, Guangzhou" can be identified as the result of infringement occurred. The plaintiffs presented its new express business in Guangdong Province, Tianhe district, Guangzhou City, and the offices are located. Provide signed a labor contract with employees and published in some newspapers, the rental contract and the new express street view photos and other evidence to confirm that the address as No. 533 Tianhe Road, Guangzhou City. Therefore, Tianhe district, Guangzhou City for violations.
Tianhe District Court on October 22 Ko Fai shall be rejected in accordance with the defendant, zoomlion company limited in the case of disputed jurisdiction.
-Three perspectives
Changsha police
Make up a story
1. the new express and Chen Yongzhou in spite of zoomlion's request, continues to publish negative articles on zoomlion.
23rd morning, Changsha Public Security Bureau to reporter said, is criminal netted new express under reporter Chen Yongzhou, is because: by survey, from September 26, 2012 to August 8, 2013, the reported and reporter Chen Yongzhou, people in not to in the joint heavy branch for field survey and verified of situation Xia, fabrications false facts, through its media platform published on in the joint heavy branch of negative articles total 18 article, which Chen Yongzhou signature of articles 14 article. In June 2013, zoomlion has held special staff to communicate with the new Express newspaper, asking it to zoomlion investigation and understanding of the real situation on the ground, stop fudging, libel and slander actions. But the new letters and Chen Yongzhou regardless of zoomlion's request, continues to publish negative articles on zoomlion.
2. journalists make up a story by criminal detention, other major damage caused.
Changsha City Public Security Bureau found that Chen Yongzhou fabrication involves zoomlion's three main facts: first, the fudging in the heavy section indemnification of the management buyout of its good assets, resulting in loss of State assets privatization. Two are fabricated zoomlion advertising 513 million a year spent, "monstrous marketing". Third, fabrications and slander zoomlion sales and financial fraud. In the course of reporting, Chen Yongzhou no concrete basis, nor to the relevant regulation, audit and accounting firms to consult on their own judgment.
Changsha City Public Security Bureau reported that on September 17, 2013, Changsha, Hunan Public Security Bureau employed flute young forensic zoomlion published in Guangdong and its new journalist Chen Yongzhou, who identified the 18 articles of the damage caused. Reviewed by the municipal Bureau of supervision of law enforcement detachment, finds suspect Chen Yongzhou fabricating and spreading falsehoods to harm the business reputation of zoomlion, zoomlion caused heavy losses, its conduct in breach of the People's Republic of China No. 221 of the Penal Code stipulates that crimes of suspected damage to business reputation, approved on October 19 by the suspect, Chen Yongzhou imposition of criminal compulsory measures.
Zoomlion
No direct interview
Reported no direct interviews with journalists, "chronic and serious untrue reports to us", following communication report.
23rd at noon, reporters got in touch with zoomlion Assistant Du Feng. He said, zoomlion in the new letters and disputes, stems from "each other on our permanent and serious untrue reports". He said that during the past year, the Express News reporter Chen Yongzhou was published on zoomlion heavy, involving more than 10 articles in the section, which contains a lot of false information.
"Before these reports are done, the journalists and the media, we were not direct interview, did not come to our unit, no interview request over any phone, SMS or email. "Du Feng said, after seeing these" false reports ", the attitude against each other not around, no way to prove, zoomlion in June 2013, the head of a top newspaper led to new communication exclusively, wishes to clarify the facts, stop false reports, but without success. Zoomlion also made announcements to clarify, but successive "false reports".
Du Feng lifted has several each other "not real reported" of example, such as in the joint heavy branch annual report Shang wrote of 513 million Yuan advertising fee and business fee was each other written has "advertising fee 513 million Yuan"; in the joint heavy branch of restructuring was each other no base called "State-owned assets loss"; each other reported pointed out that in the joint heavy branch executives in stock high sets are 1.2 billion yuan, completely no according to.
Du Feng told reporters that Chen Yongzhou zoomlion does not exist and I personal conflicts or disputes. Events unfolded, zoomlion justice departments have reported case details will be announced by public security organs.
Express News
Should intervene with the newspaper
1. coverage only factual mistake is to "advertising costs and operating expenses $ 513 million worth of" written by mistake "advertising 513 million dollars".
Relevant responsible person of the new express to 23rd, an interview with reporters.
The official said, "we've checked Chen Yongzhou zoomlion issued by all reports, are generally more objective, we seem to be no particular problems, did not find Chen Yongzhou contrary to professional ethics and legal thing. He only reports on zoomlion's factual errors is to ' advertising costs and operating expenses of 513 million dollars ' written by mistake ' ad 513 million dollars. ”
2. has sued Ko Fai against the express news and reputation of Chen Yongzhou, the Court has accepted the case.
The official disclosed that the new letters for publication after a critical report on zoomlion, zoomlion Vice President was communicating through the newspaper, later, zoomlion Assistant Ko Fai in real name publicly on Twitter named denunciations of the express news and Chen Yong
Chau "discrediting zoomlion". The new Express newspaper asked Ko Fai and withdraw, but Ko Fai made no response. The new letters subsequent to the Tianhe district court proceedings, sued Ko Fai against the express news and reputation of Chen Yongzhou, Tianhe District Court has accepted the case.
3. the report is the official conduct of the journalist, the other side should intervene with the unit.
The responsible person said, the new express see Chen Yongzhou is reported to be normal office behaviour, he's all about zoomlion's comments are published on the new Express, rather than on their personal micro-blog, micro-appeared on the letter. "Is said to be September Chen Yongzhou have been registered by the police in Changsha, a pursuit-evasion online order in October, but we don't know a bit of news. Chen Yongzhou during normal work, escape is not an issue on the objective. "This head emphasized," if Chen Yongzhou reported that there were problems, we very much welcome the zoomlion through normal channels and procedures to deal with us. Can sue us, if a case is lost, are we going to pay for compensation, the close we came close. ”
The official final statement said: "the principle of the matter the new express maximum is, hopefully resolved under the framework of the law. ”
Journalists are required to ensure journalist safety
State press and publication administration charge of Press Secretary in an interview, said the Administration had taken note of the Express News reporter is criminal detention and highly concerned about the development of the situation. At present, the Administration has passed the local administrative Department of press and publication information, and coordinate the relevant departments to ensure that fair and properly handle the matter. Administration will strongly support the media interview and report on its activities normally, resolutely safeguard journalists interview with legitimate and lawful rights and interests, while also firmly opposes abuse of journalistic practice of the right to, hope that objective and rational about the media coverage of this matter.
On October 22, the China Journalists Association learned of this event from the new letters, then from Hunan and Guangdong's propaganda about the situation, and involved in the investigation. China Journalist Association official said in an interview with a reporter, journalist contact has been with the Ministry of public security, requirements to ensure journalist safety and fair treatment in accordance with law.
-Expert
Vice President of the Sun Yat-sen University School of communication and design, Zhang Zhian
Journalists reported a job practice
Zhang Zhian, Deputy Director Sun Yat-sen University School of communication and design, interpretation, news reports on the CMEC is divided into local details main facts untrue, false, and fabricating facts subjectively, "Chen Yongzhou is essentially an open series, if inaccurate newspaper should also bear responsibility, but overall, which also fit the facts. ”
Said Zhang Zhian, Cheung Sha police across the province, this case was captured, was a violation of the legitimate rights and interests of journalists. "The media report not unblemished, partial misrepresentation may occur, but was unable to prove that subjective malice, for media monitoring and reporting is to be protected. Otherwise, faced such a large risk, no media and journalists who dare to come back for these negative reports. ”
Dean of school of journalism and communication studies, Jinan University Fan Yijin
Inaccuracy is not the same as "damage business reputation"
Reaction to the incident, Jinan University School of journalism and communication Director, former President of the Journalists Association of Guangdong Province Fan Yijin said judge news reports inaccurately or not, must go through research, not all inaccuracy is equivalent to "harm the business reputation". Suspected Chen Yongzhou "also have their own problems", which belongs to the plunge came, if Chen Yongzhou police suspected evidence of extortion or bribery, criminal detention, he should use both offences, and not "caught".
South China University of technology school of law Professor Xu Songlin
Negative report does not constitute an offence of the
South China University of technology school of law Professor Xu song-Lin told reporters that the damage business reputation generally takes place between the rivals, generally negative reports of journalists count does not necessarily constitute the second crime of damaging business reputation is an intentional crime, which he knows to be false and intentionally spread or make up a story, if not deliberately fabricating false news reporter news report, it cannot be said journalists were arrested for offences in this regard.
Stock market reaction
Zoomlion share on class a shares closed down
Yesterday, zoomlion shares jumped lower, after falling over, closed at 5.61 Yuan per unit, representing a decrease of 2.94%. Zoomlion h downtrend fierce, although edged but shares tumbled, or nearly 7% midday, closed at HK $ 6.82/unit, or 6.07%.
Datong securities analyst Zhang Cheng said, zoomlion and new disputes between the letters have influenced stock prices, before entering the judicial process should have a description. "Listed companies when dealing with the media or industry studies raised questions about should be even more active communication, openness and transparency, and to crush doubts and rumors with facts. "" If it was against company interests, referred to by the listed company must prove that it is not his problem, then cite evidence that police arrests. "In his view, the goodwill impairment mentioned deserves elaboration.
Zoomlion told reporters that questioning for financial fraud has made a statement clarifying several times before, but previously has reported negative effects to communicate with the new letters, but they did not respond, reported the result of police intervention the matter. "As already entered judicial proceedings, we have more inconvenience, and subsequent advances should be disclosed by public security organs. ”
Integrated, Xinhua
(Original title: Express News with zoomlion honorary dispute to court)
“《新快报》记者陈永洲被刑拘”一事备受关注。23日，国家新闻出版广电总局新闻报刊司已协调有关部门确保公正、稳妥处理此事。
昨天，广州市天河区法院通报陈永洲、广东新快报社诉高辉及中联重科股份有限公司名誉侵权纠纷两案，驳回高辉、中联重科股份有限公司对本案管辖权提出的异议。
《新快报》在头版直接呼吁“请放人”。长沙警方称陈永洲报道存在捏造虚假事实情形，中联重科称陈永洲没有直接采访，有关专家称记者采访报道属职务行为，不构成损害商业信誉罪。
中联重科A股H股股市双双报跌。
新快报称记者没违操守
10月18日，广州《新快报》记者陈永洲因报道上市公司中联重科财务作假问题，被长沙警方以涉嫌损害商业信誉罪从广州带走，并于次日刑事拘留。
昨天，《新快报》头版刊发整版评论，请求长沙警方放人，同时在内版详细报道了陈永洲报道中联重科。对于“涉嫌损害商业信誉”的罪名，《新快报》表示报社核查过陈永洲对中联重科的所有的14篇批评报道中，仅有的谬误在于将“广告费及招待费5.13亿”错写成了“广告费5.13亿”，其余所有报道内容均无事实差错，符合舆论监督类新闻报道的基本要求。《新快报》同时透露，该报经济中心主任也曾被警方怀疑。
昨天，《新快报》回应媒体采访称，经报社调查了解，陈永洲在报道中联重科财务问题的事件中，不存在有违新闻职业操守和违法违规行为。
双方因名誉对簿公堂
广州市天河区人民法院23日对外通报，该院分别于2013年8月6日、8月7日受理原告陈永洲、广东新快报社诉高辉及中联重科股份有限公司名誉侵权纠纷两案。后被告提出管辖权异议，请求将案件移送至湖南省长沙市岳麓区人民法院审理，现已被法院驳回。目前，案件仍在审理阶段。
据天河区法院通报，两原告以被告中联重科股份有限公司董事长助理高辉于2013年7月多次在其实名认证的新浪微博上连续发布对原告人身攻击内容的微博，对其身心及社会名誉造成极大伤害为由，向天河区人民法院提起名誉权纠纷诉讼。
被告提出管辖权异议
被告高辉、中联重科股份有限公司在提交答辩状期间提出管辖权异议。
两被告称：本案为名誉权纠纷，原告陈永洲、广东新快报社的住所地均不在天河区，高辉的经常居住地和中联重科股份有限公司的住所地在长沙市岳麓区，以上地点根据法律规定可认定为侵权行为地，均非广州市天河区。因此请求将本案移送至湖南省长沙市岳麓区人民法院审理。
两原告答辩称：一、根据属地管辖原则，高辉住所地为广州市天河区，天河区法院有管辖权。二、按照侵权行为诉讼管辖地原则，广州市天河区为侵权行为结果发生地，对本案有管辖权。三、从被告侵权行为的性质来看，任何计算机终端或其他电子设备终端均可成为侵权行为的结果发生地，原告的住所地在广州市天河区，由该区作为案件管辖地不仅符合法律规定，也最方便案件审理。
广州驳回管辖权异议
天河区法院经审理认为：因侵权行为提起的诉讼，依法由侵权行为地或者被告住所地人民法院管辖。侵权行为地包括侵权行为实施地和侵权结果发生地。人民法院受理名誉权案件时，受侵权的公民、法人和其他组织的住所地，可以认定为侵权结果发生地。公民的住所地是指公民的户籍所在地。法人的住所地是指法人的主要营业地或者主要办事机构所在地。
本案中，原告作为受侵权的公民，其住所地即户籍所在地“广州市天河区员村二横路”可认定为侵权结果发生地。原告广东新快报社提出其营业地和办事机构所在地是广州市天河区。其提供与员工签订的劳动合同及其出版的部分报纸、租赁合同以及《新快报》的街景照等证据以证实其地址为广州市天河路533号。因此，广州市天河区为侵权行为地。
天河区法院已于10月22日依法裁定驳回被告高辉、中联重科股份有限公司对本案管辖权提出的异议。
□三方观点
长沙警方
存在捏造事实
1.新快报社及陈永洲不顾中联重科的要求，仍然继续发表关于中联重科的负面文章。
23日上午，长沙市公安局向记者表示，之所以刑拘《新快报》记者陈永洲，是因为：经调查，从2012年9月26日至2013年8月8日，该报及其记者陈永洲等人在未到中联重科进行实地调查和核实的情况下，捏造虚假事实，通过其媒体平台发表关于中联重科的负面文章共18篇，其中陈永洲署名的文章14篇。2013年6月，中联重科曾就此事专门派员前往新快报社进行沟通，要求其到中联重科进行实地调查和了解真实情况，停止捏造、污蔑和诋毁行为。但新快报社及陈永洲不顾中联重科的要求，仍然继续发表关于中联重科的负面文章。
2.被刑拘记者存在捏造事实情形，造成对方重大损失。
长沙市公安局认定，陈永洲捏造的涉及中联重科的主要事实有三项：一是捏造中联重科的管理层收购旗下优质资产进行利益输送，造成国资流失，私有化。二是捏造中联重科一年花掉广告费5.13亿，搞“畸形营销”。三是捏造和污蔑中联重科销售和财务造假。在报道过程中，陈永洲没有具体依据，也未向相关监管、审计部门和会计师事务所进行咨询，只是凭自己的主观臆断。
长沙市公安局称，2013年9月17日，长沙市公安局聘请湖南笛扬司法鉴定所对中联重科因广东新快报社及其记者陈永洲等人发表的18篇文章所造成的损失情况进行鉴定。经市公安局执法监督支队审核，认定嫌疑人陈永洲捏造并散布虚伪事实，损害中联重科的商业信誉，给中联重科造成重大损失，其行为触犯《中华人民共和国刑法》第二百二十一条之规定，涉嫌损害商业信誉罪，于10月19日批准对犯罪嫌疑人陈永洲采取刑事拘留的强制措施。
中联重科
没有直接采访
记者进行报道没有直接采访，“对我们长期严重失实报道”，沟通无效后报案。
23日中午，记者联系上了中联重科董事长助理杜峰。他表示，《新快报》与中联重科的纠纷，源于“对方对我们长期的严重失实报道”。他介绍说，在过去近一年里，《新快报》刊发了记者陈永洲关于中联重科的大量报道，涉及10多篇稿件，其中存在大量不实信息。
“在做这些报道之前，这个记者和媒体，没有对我们进行过直接采访，没有来过我们单位，没有来过任何电话、短信或邮件提出采访请求。”杜峰说，在看到这些“不实报道”后，针对对方不实地采访、不求证的态度，中联重科一位高层负责人曾在2013年6月专门带队前往新快报社沟通，希望澄清事实、停止不实报道，但未果。中联重科也发过公告作出澄清，但对方依然连续进行“不实报道”。
杜峰举了几个对方“不实报道”的例子，比如中联重科年报上写的5.13亿元广告费和业务费被对方写成了“广告费5.13亿元”；中联重科的改制被对方没有根据地称为“国有资产流失”；对方报道指出中联重科高管在股票高位套现12亿元，完全没有根据。
杜峰告诉记者，陈永洲本人和中联重科不存在个人矛盾或纠纷。关于事件的进展，中联重科法务部门已经报案，案情的具体情况将由公安机关对外公布。
新快报
应与报社交涉
1.报道唯一的事实性差错是将“广告费及业务费5.13亿元”错写成了“广告费5.13亿元”。
《新快报》相关负责人也于23日中午接受记者专访。
这位负责人表示，“我们核查过陈永洲对中联重科所发的所有报道，总体上是比较客观的，在我们看来没有什么特别的问题，没有发现陈永洲有违背职业道德和法律的事情。他关于中联重科的报道中唯一的事实性差错就是将‘广告费及业务费5.13亿元’错写成了‘广告费5.13亿元’。”
2.已起诉高辉侵害了《新快报》和陈永洲的名誉权，法院已经受理此案。
这位负责人透露，在《新快报》刊发关于中联重科的批评性报道之后，中联重科有一位副总裁曾来过报社进行沟通，后来中联重科董事长助理高辉在个人实名微博上公开指名道姓指斥《新快报》及陈永
洲“诋毁中联重科”。《新快报》登报要求高辉撤销不当言论，但高辉没有反应。《新快报》随后向广州市天河区法院提起诉讼，起诉高辉侵害了《新快报》和陈永洲的名誉权，天河区法院已经受理此案。
3.记者的报道是职务行为，对方应与单位交涉。
这位负责人说，《新快报》认为陈永洲的报道属于正常的职务行为，他所有关于中联重科的言论都刊登在《新快报》上，而没有在其个人微博、微信上出现。“据说长沙警方9月份就已对陈永洲立案，10月发出网上追逃令，但我们一点消息都不知道。陈永洲在此期间正常上下班，客观上不存在逃的问题。”这名负责人强调，“如果陈永洲报道有问题，我们非常欢迎中联重科通过正常渠道和程序跟我们交涉。可以和我们打官司，如果官司输了，我们该怎么赔就怎么赔，该关门我们就关门。”
这位负责人最后表态说：“《新快报》处理此事最大的原则是，希望在法律的框架下解决。”
记协要求确保记者人身安全
国家新闻出版广电总局新闻报刊司有关负责人在接受记者采访时表示，总局已注意到《新快报》记者被刑拘的事情，并高度关注事态的发展。目前，总局已通过地方新闻出版行政部门了解情况，并协调有关部门确保公正、稳妥处理此事。总局将坚决支持新闻媒体开展正常的采访和报道活动，坚决维护新闻记者正当、合法的采访权益，同时也坚决反对各种滥用新闻采访权的做法，希望有关媒体客观、理性地报道此事。
中国记协已于10月22日从《新快报》得知此事，随后从湖南、广东两地宣传部门了解了相关情况，并介入事件调查。中国记协有关负责人在接受记者采访时表示，记协目前已与公安部联系，要求确保记者人身安全和依法公正处理。
□专家说法
中山大学传播与设计学院副院长张志安
记者采访报道属职务行为
中山大学传播与设计学院副院长张志安阐释，新闻报道失实分为局部细节失实、主要事实失实和主观编造事实，“陈永洲的行为属于公开的系列报道，如果失实也应该由报社来承担责任，但总体来说，其报道还是符合事实的。”
张志安表示，这种情况下被长沙警方跨省抓捕，是对记者合法权益的侵犯。“媒体报道不可能无瑕疵，可能会出现局部失实，但是无法证明其主观恶意性，对于媒体监督的行为和报道还是要予以保护的。否则的话，面临如此大的风险，没有媒体和记者敢于再来做这些负面报道了。”
暨南大学新闻与传播学院院长范以锦
报道失实不等同“损害商业信誉”
针对这一事件，暨南大学新闻与传播学院院长、曾任广东省新闻工作者协会主席的范以锦表示，判断新闻报道失实与否，必须经过调查研究，并非所有的报道失实都等同于“损害商业信誉”。至于怀疑陈永洲“本身也有问题”，这属于偷换概念，如果警方掌握了陈永洲涉嫌敲诈勒索或受贿的证据，应使用这两个罪名刑拘他，而不能“先抓后审”。
华南理工大学法学院教授徐松林
负面报道不构成这个罪名
华南理工大学法学院教授徐松林告诉记者，损害商业信誉行为一般发生在竞争对手之间，一般来说记者的负面报道并不至于构成这个罪名；其次损害商业信誉罪属于故意犯罪，即明知是虚假事实而故意散布或捏造事实，如果不能证明记者的新闻报道故意捏造虚假消息，就不能说记者涉嫌这方面的罪名。
□股市反应
中联重科A股H股均收跌
昨天，中联重科A股跳空低开，此后呈现出跌跌不休态势，报收于5.61元/股，跌幅为2.94%。中联重科H股则跌势凶猛，虽然小幅高开，但此后股价暴跌，午盘跌幅接近7%，报收于6.82港元/股，跌幅达6.07%。
大同证券分析师张诚说，中联重科与《新快报》之间的纠纷已经影响了股价，进入司法程序之前应该有个说明。“上市公司在应对媒体或者行业研究人士质疑时，更应该主动沟通，公开透明，用事实来击碎质疑和传言。”“如果真的公司利益被侵害，上市公司必须要证明自己没有他提到的问题，然后举出证据，才可以报警抓人。”他认为，商誉受损说法值得推敲。
中联重科方面告诉记者，对于财务造假的质疑已经多次发声明澄清过，而且此前已就其报道的负面影响与《新快报》沟通过，但对方没有理会，所以才报案，有了公安机关介入此事的结果。“由于已经进入司法程序，我们也不便多说，后续进展应该由公安机关来披露。”
综合新华社报道
(原标题：新快报与中联重科 因名誉纠纷对簿公堂)
赞