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) 2013/10/29 2:01:01 Changsha police to disclose criminal detention causes the Express News reporter Chen Yongzhou
Xinhuanet, Beijing, October 23 (reporters Ding Wenjie and Liu Liangheng and Zhan Yijia and and)-23rd, "the Express News reporter Chen Yongzhou criminal detention" cause for concern. The official conduct of journalists is applicable "damage the reputation of its crimes," whether I could go beyond its units directly to be hotly debated issues such as arrest triggered. In this regard, the staff at the China Journalists Association to accept "Site in China," Xinhua said in an interview, the Express News 22nd will inform China Journalist Association, China Journalists Association from the Hunan, Guangdong's propaganda about the situation, and has been involved in the investigation.
Police in Changsha: the punishment of journalists were caught fabricating facts, causing other significant loss
23rd morning, Changsha PSB to Xinhua News Agency "China network thing" reporter said, is criminal netted new express under reporter Chen Yongzhou, is because, by investigation, from September 26, 2012 to August 8, 2013, the reported and reporter Chen Yongzhou, people in is not to in the Alliance heavy section for field investigation and verified of situation Xia, fabricated false facts, through its media platform published on in the Alliance heavy section 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.
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. B was fabricated zoomlion advertising spent 513 million a year, "deformity of marketing". Third, fabrications and slander zoomlion sales and financial fraud. During the reporting process, Chen Yongzhou has no concrete basis, nor to the relevant regulation, audit and accounting firms to consult just by virtue of the judgment.
Changsha City Public Security Bureau reported that on September 17, 2013, Public Security Bureau of Changsha hired flute raised in Hunan zoomlion forensic Guangdong newspaper and its reporter Chen Yongzhou published 18 articles, such as the identification of 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: reported no direct interviews with journalists, following communication report
23rd at noon, Xinhua "Chinese Site" reporter 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 that after seeing these" false reports ", the on-site interviews, not against each other, not attitude of verifying, zoomlion, a senior leader in specialized communication led to the new newspaper in June 2013, wishes to clarify the facts, stop the false reports, but to no avail. Zoomlion also sent a bulletin to clarify, but the other party is still ongoing, "false reports".
Du Feng lift has several each other "not real reported" of examples, like in the Alliance heavy section annual report Shang wrote of 513 million Yuan advertising fee and hospitality fee was each other wrote has "advertising fee 513 million Yuan"; in the Alliance heavy section of restructuring was each other no base called "State assets loss"; each other reported pointed out that in the Alliance heavy section executives in stock high sets now 1.2 billion yuan, completely no according to.
Du Feng told Xinhua that "China Site" Press Conference, Chen Yongzhou zoomlion does not exist and I personal conflicts or disputes. Regarding the progress of the event, zoomlion departments have made merits depending on the police disclosed.
The new letters: report is the official conduct of the journalist, the other side should intervene with the unit
The new express 23rd at noon, head of Xinhua News Agency China "Site" exclusive interview with Xinhua. This head emphasized, the newspaper reported Chen Yongzhou belonging to their normal duties, "if Chen Yongzhou reported that there were problems, we very much welcome the zoomlion through normal channels and procedures to deal with us. With our litigation, if it loses the lawsuit, how are we supposed to pay compensation, we closed the doors. ”
The official said that "Chen Yongzhou zoomlion we've verified all the reports are generally more objective, in our view there is no special problem, Chen Yongzhou was found there are contrary to professional ethics and legal matters. He reported on zoomlion is only one factual error in the ' advertising and hospitality of 513 million dollars ' written by mistake ' advertising fee of 513 million Yuan. ”
The official disclosed that the new letters for publication after a critical report on zoomlion, zoomlion Vice President was communicating through the newspaper, later Assistant zoomlion Ko Fai real name publicly on Twitter named Chen Yongzhou and denunciations of the new express "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.
The responsible person said, the express news that Chen Yongzhou reported one of the normal duties, he was all about zoomlion's remarks were published in new letters, rather than on his personal Twitter, micro appeared on the letter. "Chen Yongzhou Cheung Sha police in September, is said to have been incorporated October online pursuit-evasion orders issued, it a bit of news is not known. Chen Yongzhou during normal working hours, objectively, no question of escape. ”
He finally said: "the maximum principle is to handle the new Express, hope resolved under the framework of the law. ”
In response to this event, Dean of school of journalism and communication studies, Jinan University, a former President of the Journalists Association of Guangdong Province Fan Yijin said that judge news reporting untruthful or not is subject to investigation, not all inaccuracy is equated with "damage to business reputation". Suspected Chen Yongzhou "also have their own problems", which is a disguised replacement of concept, if Chen Yongzhou police evidence of alleged extortion or bribery, you should use these two criminal detention on charges that he, not "caught".
South China University of technology school of law Professor Xu song-Lin told reporters that harm the business reputation generally occurs between competitors, generally negative reports of the journalist does not constitute an offence in this second offence of damage to business reputation of intentional crime, that is known to be deliberately spread false facts or fabricate facts, if no proof Xinhua News deliberately fabricated false news, cannot be said to reporters suspected of offences in this regard.
新华网北京10月23日电 (记者丁文杰 刘良恒 詹奕嘉 罗争光)23日，“《新快报》记者陈永洲被刑拘”一事备受关注。记者的职务行为是否适用“损害商业信誉罪”、是否可以越过其单位直接对本人进行拘捕等问题引发热议。对此，中国记协相关工作人员在接受“中国网事”记者采访时表示，《新快报》22日已将此事告知中国记协，中国记协随后从湖南、广东两地宣传部门了解了相关情况，并已介入调查。
长沙警方：被刑拘记者存在捏造事实情形，造成对方重大损失
23日上午，长沙市公安局向新华社“中国网事”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。
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：记者进行报道没有直接采访，沟通无效后报案
23日中午，新华社“中国网事”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5.13亿元广告费和招待费被对方写成了“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。
杜峰告诉新华社“中国网事”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》：记者的报道是职务行为，对方应与单位交涉
《新快报》相关负责人也于23日中午接受新华社“中国网事”记者独家专访。这名负责人强调，该报记者陈永洲的报道属于正常职务行为，“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‘广告费及招待费5.13亿元’错写成了‘广告费5.13亿元’。”
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。
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。”
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。
赞