People's daily fast play "the tone"? Want more! -Fast play, fast play, the people's daily-IT information
Central media is impossible and not necessary for specific case "tone," and deliberately "tone" in the new media field also throws people off. If someone is a stark reality, exaggerating his feathers, are fooling themselves.
Not known for fast play in open court and live the Haidian Court, there is no surprise, in short, public hearing public discussions, broadcast over the Internet faster 2016 opened the first case. Performance in court by the prosecution, completely inspired public passion for openness and transparency. No matter how the final verdict, we to the Haidian District people's Court showed "visible procedural justice" like, this is what a vivid image of the Franco-Prussian class!
Around the case itself, fast play and their managers whether or not convicted how sentencing, and already there are many opinions on the media market. Several central-level media published the statements because their "authority" is particularly interesting. Daily client the fast play defense eloquently, is not worthy of applause, and published by the Xinhua News Agency, the client regardless of whether the broadcast is guilty, to "justify right" was greeted with applause, and comments from different aspects, the title appears to be tit-soon online there have been two major central media "pinch each other" argument.
Different from the General news, news comments on the news Express, unequivocally show opinion and not shy away from view, is the basic requirement for a review. The same news, people observed from different angles, to the fact that the tendency to judge different interests different footing, it will have a different point of view, the central media is no exception. If one or more central media's attitudes towards one and the same case is surprisingly consistent, it is dubious whether they "prior ventilation", or "prompt". There are differences now comment on the people's daily and Xinhua News Agency, is a sign of media ideas back to normal.
Because first of all that people's daily commentary published online newspaper appeared to quickly broadcast case "tone" argument, then it was "bold" guess fast play result has already been fixed, defendants have been lost. If there is no later, Xinhua News Agency published the article "cross-pinch", which may have a very large market. During the rule of law today, people still believe in one or two articles from case "tone" is undoubtedly inappropriate. In this regard, we should thank the two major central media offer different points of view to the public, their differential expression that no broadcast of who tried to "tone".
However, we did experience one or two articles for justice "tone". Published articles for the case of "tone" used to be one of the leading cadres of the ignorance of the law means of interference in the administration of Justice. Party newspapers and journals should be the mouthpiece of the party and the people, in the eyes of some officials, you become their mouthpiece. Arrangements published an article to a case in point, pressure on the judicial institutions should not, cannot adhere to the principle of judicial independence of judges, from the "mouthpiece" of the "tone" implicit understanding trial results in the article "will" go in the direction of.
Just because one or two articles on the case "tone" phenomenon, historically long-standing, still worries about the media's idea would give the case "tone". This fear even without real basis, but still have reason to pay attention to. A is, part people on judicial just of confidence still insufficient, think many case still is through from superior of "tone" to trial of; II is, despite objective Shang has no has "tone" of possibilities, but some traditional media of editing personnel by inertia effect, articles read up also is to people feel to "tone"; three is, trial personnel not consciously to was some source "authority" of views by effect.
As the mouthpiece of the party and the people, Central media attitudes towards national policies is, of course, to be consistent, but for specific events, including court cases, there is not the same as the view is normal. Different views on the mainstream media, and indeed there are different opinions of the masses of feedback. Central media is impossible and not necessary for specific case "tone," and deliberately "tone" in the new media field also throws people off. If someone is a stark reality, exaggerating his feathers, are fooling themselves.
人民日报给快播案“定调”？ 想多了！ - 快播案,快播,人民日报 - IT资讯
央媒不可能也没必要给具体案件“定调”，而且刻意“定调”在新媒体场域还会引发人反感。至于如果有人假戏真做，拿着鸡毛当令箭，无疑是自欺欺人。
不知道对快播案公开庭审并全程直播的海淀法院，有没有感到意外，总之，各界对庭审沸沸扬扬的讨论，把快播案推上了互联网2016年开年第一大案。控辩双方在法庭上的表现，彻底激发了民众对司法公开与透明的热情。无论最后的判决结果如何，我们要为海淀区人民法院展示的“看得见的程序正义”点赞，这是一场多么生动形象的普法课！
围绕案情本身，快播及其管理者究竟该不该判罪，该怎样量刑，舆论场上已经有许多观点。几家中央级媒体刊发的言论，因为其“权威性”尤为引人关注。人民日报客户端发表的《快播的辩词再精彩，也不配赢得掌声》，与新华社客户端发表的《无论快播是否有罪，都要对“狡辩的权利”报以掌声》，因为评论角度不同，标题制作似乎争锋相对，很快在网上出现了两大央媒“互掐”的说法。
区别于一般新闻报道，新闻评论是对新闻的态度表达，旗帜鲜明地展示观点而不是回避意见，是对一篇评论的基本要求。对同一件新闻，人们观察的角度不同，对事实判断的倾向性不同，利益立足点不同，就会产生不同的观点，央媒自然也不例外。如果几家央媒对同一件个案的态度出奇地一致，则不免让人怀疑它们是否“事先通气”，或者是“授意而为”。现在人民日报与新华社发表评论存在差异，则是媒体观点表达回归正常的标志。
因为人民日报的那篇评论首先发表，网上出现了党报给快播案“定调”的说法，进而有人“大胆”猜测快播案结果已定，被告方已经输了。如果没有后来新华社发表的那篇文章与之“互掐”，这种观点可能会有很大的市场。在全面推进依法治国的当下，还有人相信凭一两篇文章就能给案件“定调”，无疑是不合时宜的。对此，我们应该感谢两大央媒为公众提供不同的观点，它们的差异化表达，说明没有谁在试图为快播案“定调”。
但是，我们的确经历过一两篇文章为司法审判“定调”的年代。发表文章为案件“定调”，曾经是一些不懂法的领导干部干涉司法的手段之一。党报党刊应该是党和人民的喉舌，在一些官员眼中，则成为了他们个人的喉舌。安排人发表一篇文章，对案情指指点点，让审判机构承受不该承受的压力，一些不能坚持独立审判原则的法官，对来自“喉舌”的“定调”心领神会，审判结果就朝着文章“旨意”的方向走了。
正因为凭一两篇文章对案件“定调”的现象，在历史上长期存在，所以至今还会有人担心媒体的观点会给案件“定调”。这种担心虽然没有什么现实依据，却依旧有理由重视。一是，部分民众对司法公正的信心仍然不足，认为很多案件依旧是通过来自上级的“定调”来审判的；二是，尽管客观上已经没有了“定调”的可能性，但是一些传统媒体的采编人员受惯性影响，文章读起来还是给人感觉要“定调”；三是，审判人员不自觉地被一些来源“权威”的观点所影响。
作为党和人民的喉舌，央媒对国家大政方针的态度当然是要一致的，但是对具体事件，包括司法案件在内，出现不一样的观点很正常。不一样的观点能够在这些主流媒体上呈现，实际上也是对群众中存在不同观点的反馈。央媒不可能也没必要给具体案件“定调”，而且刻意“定调”在新媒体场域还会引发人反感。至于如果有人假戏真做，拿着鸡毛当令箭，无疑是自欺欺人。