On July 4, Zhao Hejuan, a senior reporter for Caixin Media, took to Sina Weibo to question the announcement. She said, "This is a serious violation of the ethics of the industry, there is a professional conflict of interest, right ...... In the future, any company want to buy media people can not have a bright and open way?"
Zhao Hejuan herself probably did not expect that this 100-word microblogging, triggered a big discussion about the ethics of journalism, participants from the media industry to the real estate industry, public relations, law, from the industry to the academic experts, lasted nearly a week, July 7, Yuan Yihong himself issued a statement to resign as an independent director, won the debate on both sides of the unanimity of the affirmative and respect.
Reviewing the debate, although there are some angry words and even attacks, abuse, but, filtering out these impurities, we see that both sides of the debate on the basic value of agreement, the party Mr. Yuan Yihong made a choice rich in moral courage. Throughout the process, not only did no official come forward, not even the media organization came forward, a group of media people after public discussion, under the supervision of all walks of life, relying on their own strength to carry out an independent construction of the industry's morality, which shows the valuable ability of industry self-governance. Therefore, it is a very meaningful thing to record and sort out all aspects of this microblogging discussion.
I. Is there a conflict of roles for journalists as sole directors?
This is the core issue of this controversy, Zhao Hejuan clearly put forward the reporter as the sole director, and the professional identity of the reporter, there is a serious conflict of interest, against the industry's ethics, but Yuan Yihong himself and the 21st Century Business Herald many colleagues, as well as other people put forward a number of different points of view:
(1) Yuan Yihong and many people emphasized that the independent director of Hong Kong's H-share with the domestic A-share directors are different. For example, Li Zhenhua, director of the financial section of the 21st Century Business Herald and director of its Beijing news center, argued that there is no role conflict at all between a journalist's identity and a company's independent director. He wrote in his microblog, "The independent director itself represents an independent third party to fight for the interests of minority shareholders, so why can't journalists serve as such? Why can only lawyers, professors, social sages as ?" And Yuan Yihong said, "I have consulted a well-known barrister, as to whether serving as a sole director of a Hong Kong listed company belongs to what is usually referred to as part-time behavior, it is worth discussing, pending the interpretation of the provisions of the maker. This is because the sole director of a Hong Kong listed company is given the role of a social watchdog." He also emphasized, "I have read their handbook for sole directors and there is a certain degree of overlap between this role and the monitoring role of media people. It is in this sense that I don't think being a media person and being a sole director, are incompatible."
(ii) Yuan Yihong himself, as well as those who argued that there was no identity conflict, also emphasized that the 21st Century Business Herald has hundreds of internal editorial staff and a complete editorial supervision mechanism, not a one-liner, and that an individual could not sway the overall tendency of reporting. In other words, even if Yuan Yihong has no opportunity to use the media to collude with the company's interests due to his role as an independent director of Sunac China.
And the skeptical side can't agree with that statement. Challenge initiator Zhao Hejuan directly emphasized: "All I know is that both parties are clearly paying you a salary, and one party is a possible target of the other's supervision, especially for the news media, which is of course a professional conflict of interest. As to whether or not any benefits will be funneled should be avoided. Otherwise this can really become a back-room paid reporting bright channel."
Ling Huawei, deputy editor-in-chief of Caixin Media, said in a microblog, "It should be clarified that the independent director is first of all a member of the board of directors, and the board of directors is the brain of the company, the interests of the company should be paramount, and even prioritized over the interests of the shareholders; the design of the independent director, although the design of the company contains a fiduciary responsibility to minority shareholders, but can not be contradicted with the primary duties of the director. Independent director status and media functions do exist conflict of interest."
Li Honggu, deputy editor-in-chief of Sanlian Life Weekly, believes that there is a conflict between the information available to independent directors and the role of journalists' reporting obligations. Essentially, the sole director and the reporter are both information "cash" to survive; respectively, the buyer of information - the company and the public are different, but also a conflict. Thus, the two roles are united, inevitably split, and conflict of interest.
Lawyer Liu Chunquan, a senior partner at Shanghai Pan Ocean Law Firm, also believes that it is not appropriate for journalists to serve as independent directors: journalists' duty is to record and disclose, and the independent director is also a director, whose duty is to serve the company, as well as advocate for the interests of minority shareholders, and counterbalance and supervise the major shareholders, to prevent infringement on the interests of minority shareholders, so lawyers and accountants can be appointed as the independent director, but it is not appropriate for journalists.
And a call @silverella netizen said: the duties of the sole director is not only to open a board of directors, but also for the listed company to make suggestions to help its development. So, when you learn in advance as a sole director of a listed company of a major event, shoulder news sensitivity and reporting responsibility of the identity of the reporter and how to deal with themselves? Do not report, against the nature of journalists; report, may be detrimental or beneficial to the listed company. It's a clear dilemma.
Dr. Zhang Zhian, an associate professor at Sun Yat-sen University's School of Media and Design, is one of the academic experts most concerned about the debate. He raises the question: Why should listed companies hire financial media executives to serve as independent directors? He called on some of his colleagues in the 21st Century Business Herald to ask and reflect on this question: Is the listed company inviting journalists to monitor and constrain the major shareholders, or is it hoping to establish a close and friendly relationship in order to dilute and shield negative reports? The invitation is to the news director, will not affect the reporting of reporters and editors under the staff?
Second, how do we deal with flawed industry regulations?
During this debate, one side of the questioning, such as Zhao Hejuan, cited Article 7 of the Press and Publication Administration's "Regulations on the Management of News Editors and Producers in the Profession," which states, "News editors and producers shall not take part-time jobs for pay in other news organizations or economic organizations that are not affiliated with them."
Yuan Yihong himself emphasized that serving as an independent non-executive director of a Hong Kong-listed company was an act of social supervision on behalf of an independent third party, and could not simply be interpreted as a kind of "part-time" remuneration, while on the other hand, they emphasized that the "Regulations on the Management of News Editors and Their Work" of the Press and Publication Administration itself was flawed, and that many of the provisions were simply not true. On the other hand, they emphasized that the Press and Publication Administration's "Regulations on the Administration of News Editorial Staff" itself is flawed, and that many of the regulations are not operational at all, so it is a selective law enforcement action to take such a seriously flawed regulation to require the 21st Century Business Herald and Yuan Yihong to do the same.
In this regard, Li Huifeng, content director of 365 Real Estate and Home Furnishings Wuxi, is the strongest supporter of Mr. Yuan Yihong, and he believes that the critics of Yuan Yihong are the same as those who hold on to the old ways and do not think about change. He wrote in his microblog, "Support Mr. Yuan! Instead of embracing change and advancing with the times, certain scholars are like Song Mingxiology: killing, degrading and screwing people with so-called morality, hindering innovation and development of the industry. The premise and context of the distortion of the news system has not been raised and vocalized by them. It's ridiculous." He further emphasized, "May I ask, back then, at the beginning of the reform and opening up, if they were all those who abided by the established regulations, would they have achieved what they have today? Was the private economy developed according to the regulations? Was it according to the regulations that the contracted production reached the households? Did the self-employed come into being only according to the rules? The promotion of society is the process of constantly questioning, challenging and changing bad laws. Exploring the rationality of regulations is a prerequisite and foundation for making judgments."
But many of the participants in the discussion were not convinced by this view, with netizen @Coolwant saying that that regulation is considered by some media people to be a bad law and a bad rule. But its current role is to restrain media practitioners, in addition, before there is no new explanatory document out, it is reasonable to assume that that Hong Kong company is an economic organization, that Sunac China as a sole director does not belong to the part-time job in the economic organization of the act is not justifiable. The netizen added that "unreasonable regulations can be challenged, but they need to be complied with."
Another netizen, @lesnar2010, also emphasized: "I can't just violate the rules for journalists because I disagree with them, or I can use them as a justification for anything I do. Although the securities industry does not restrict the occupation of sole director, but of course when the regulations of this industry have this restriction, the regulations of this industry should prevail."
Some people, in questioning the reasonableness of Yuan Yihong's role as a sole director, cited and introduced the relevant regulations in foreign countries and Hong Kong and Taiwan, such as the "U.S. Code of Conduct for Financial Editors and Journalists," there are provisions to "avoid the emergence of conflicts of interest, do not abuse the power of the media must become the principle that we have to be careful to abide by in all aspects of our lives. " Reuters' Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, provided by Jinxin Ma, a Reuters data news product assistant, also states clearly, "No employee may serve as a director of another publicly traded company unless approved by the Corporate Governance Committee of the Thomson Reuters Board of Directors." These rules also indicate that it is inappropriate for journalists to serve as sole directors of listed companies, which is a common rule in the international media industry. The Board's (Draft) Regulations on the Management of Newsgathering and Editorial Staff Practices may have many imperfections, but with respect to this provision, it should be said that there is no unreasonableness. Some people call this provision of the bad law, bad rules, seems to be a little too much.
Third, who is qualified to make moral criticism?
At the beginning of the debate, many of Mr. Yuan's colleagues at the 21st Century Business Herald were unanimous in praising Mr. Yuan for his good character. Netizen @Apple Peeler Gnawing on an Apple said, "People familiar with Mr. Yuan understand that Mr. Yuan has always been upright and stood up straight, and is modest and has a backbone. Sunac chose him precisely because of his independence and his insight and judgment of the industry!" Mr. Yuan Yihong himself said in response to a question from a netizen, "There are too many people around me who use their media status to gain benefits, and they are safe and hidden, so why would I want to openly use my status as a sole director to gain benefits?" Yuan Yihong has also repeatedly clarified for Sunac China Holdings Ltd. chairman Sun Hongbin, emphasizing that Sun's appointment of him as a sole director is in no way a bribe to media people. Yuan Yihong said, "It's too easy for Sun to use the media to do anything, so there's no need to use this kind of way that's known to the world."
Meanwhile, Yuan and his colleagues have raised many questions about the initiator of the controversy, Caixin reporter Zhao Hejuan, and some of her top executives at Caixin and Caixin, such as Hu Shuli and Wang Shuo. These counter-questions focused on one opinion, that is, Chinese media, including Zhao Hejuan's own Caixin Media, have serious flaws in professional ethics and system construction, and that Zhao Hejuan's own and Caixin's senior management's own professional conduct is not without criticism, so Zhao Hejuan's questioning of Yuan Yihong is unfair, and Zhao is not in a position to question other people's professional conduct. Yuan Yihong himself published a long tweet on July 9 after announcing his resignation as sole director, focusing on the above opinions.
In the author's view, as Gao Yu, deputy editor-in-chief of Caixin New Century Weekly, said, "The reason why this matter is worth discussing is not to question Yuan Yihong's own virtues, but as a system and journalistic ethics must be regulated. "And it should also be particularly emphasized that the realization of justice in our society, whether it is a fair trial or fair reporting, can not unilaterally rely on the personal character of the practitioners to ensure that, but rather need to improve the construction of the system.
And the author has always emphasized that mutual supervision among the media based on competition is a reliable guarantee to enhance the overall ethical level of the media industry. Mr. Yuan Yihong and his colleagues at the 21st Century Business Herald are perfectly free to challenge Caixin Media and its executives, but with two caveats: first, the challenge must be based on sufficient evidence and cannot be a witch hunt; and second, the other party's inadequacies cannot be used as a reason to legitimize one's own misbehavior, nor can one assume that the other party is unqualified to criticize one's self just because it has inadequacies.
Wang Feng, now online news editor at Hong Kong's South China Morning Post, who worked at Caijing magazine, where Hu Shuli is editor-in-chief, is also concerned about and involved in this debate, and his microblogging, which I consider to be a balanced argument, concludes this article: "1. Wrong is wrong, and resignation is a respectable gesture, but sophistry is not good. 2. On the issue of other organizations sponsoring their own reporters and editors to go abroad for training and reporting, Caixin does need to do some soul-searching. I worked in finance and economics dipped a lot of such light, in the professional ethics is inappropriate. 3. people and institutions are not perfect, but not only perfect people have the power to criticize and monitor others. Otherwise we can all shut up can all change careers."