Qiao Zhifeng
The much-discussed case of a female employee of CCTV.com who was subjected to a "nose-cutting" attack has been declared solved. According to information obtained by the reporter from the Haidian police, officers worked continuously for 21 hours and apprehended the suspect Xu at 11 a.m. on June 10 in Miyun County. On June 9, Xu attacked a female employee of CCTV.com with a fruit knife near Junbo West Road. The suspect confessed to the crime, but the police are still investigating the motive for the crime. (Beijing Morning Post, June 12)
I think this news report issued by the media is very good and should be included in journalism textbooks for many media professionals to study and learn from. Despite being only a few hundred words long, the report is comprehensive and appropriately detailed: first, there's "leadership emphasis"—"the Haidian police gave high priority to the case, and Fu Zhenghua, member of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Committee and Director of the Municipal Bureau, personally directed the investigation"; then, there's "effective measures"—"the criminal investigation department and local branch formed a special task force, immediately broadcasting an alert throughout the bureau, issuing a control notice, and initiating regional police cooperation mechanisms to coordinate joint control operations with neighboring public security organs"; next, there's "hard work"—"meticulous investigation, following clues, the special task force worked continuously for 21 hours"; finally, there's certainly not lacking "remarkable results"—"after preliminary review, Xu confessed to the crime of attacking the victim with a fruit knife and striking her head." As for the motive most concerning the public, the report casually brushes it aside with "as for the man's motive for the crime, the police are currently investigating."
Since the suspect has already "confessed without reservation," why is the motive for the crime still "under investigation?" Perhaps, it's because the facts have not been fully clarified, and out of caution, the police must conduct further investigations and verifications? Or perhaps, this "motive" is somewhat "sensitive" or even "hides some hidden circumstances," requiring consultation with superiors and careful study before it can be made public? But regardless, phrases like "under investigation" and "XX has intervened in the investigation" are increasingly appearing in news reports, which is no longer anything new.
When talking about the subtlety of domestic news writing and the delicacy of wording, one cannot help but think of the two terms "CCTV" and "CCTV.com" that appeared in the "nose-cutting" case. The earliest microblog post about this incident on the internet went something like this: "Shocking: around 1 p.m. today, at the east gate of CCTV, a woman came out of the station, and a man approached asking if it was CCTV. The woman nodded, and the man immediately pulled out a knife and attacked her, cutting off her nose, and blood kept flowing from her neck." Consequently, many people referred to this incident as involving a "female CCTV journalist" in various ways. If this microblog post is true, I have a "hypothesis": assuming when the man asked "is it CCTV?" the woman replied "I am from CCTV.com," would the tragedy have still occurred?
Although "CCTV" and "CCTV.com" differ by only one character, they feel very different to many people. The former is synonymous with authoritative mainstream media, even a symbol; the latter, however, is just perceived as a website. After checking online, I found the following content in the "encyclopedia card": "CCTV.com is the website of China Central Television, with the domain name CCTV.com, and is one of the earliest websites to release Chinese information in China. Currently, CCTV.com has the right to conduct news interviews, reports, and comments, and has become an inseparable part of CCTV's multimedia dissemination, becoming the national main force in online reporting of major news and events." —— From this, it seems clear that CCTV.com is subordinate to CCTV; therefore, since the female journalist is a "CCTV.com employee," calling her a "CCTV employee" also seems not entirely inappropriate —— for example, if someone is from Beijing, saying they are "a Beijinger" is correct, and saying they are "a Chinese person" is also not wrong. Subsequently, I noticed that many media outlets used the latter term in their reports on this matter, which is naturally more accurate because the woman indeed works at CCTV.com. As for whether this usage also deliberately downplays the connection between this incident and "CCTV," I do not know.
A short news article and the subtle difference between "CCTV" and "CCTV.com" have caused me to analyze and interpret this for quite some time, making myself feel rather tired and uninterested. Sometimes, however, this is an unavoidable effort. Who could blame the profound depth of the Chinese language? Who could blame the profound implications of our propaganda work? Without such analysis, how could one deeply understand its "spiritual essence"? The suspect "confessed without reservation" to the crime, yet the "motive for the crime is still under investigation by the police"; while others have already crossed the bridge, we must still grope for stones in the river... Only those well-versed in China's national conditions can truly appreciate the subtleties involved.
Related articles:
CR-V's victory in 08 was without a doubt.
Ying Jianren Wu Jianzhong
Tong Feng Zhongtai Baidu Encyclopedia entries are for reference only.
Jinma Zhongtai [1]