Brothers and sisters, let's talk about the beating of Degang Guo's apprentice. To be fair.

In the past ten days, except for the Southern Newspaper Department, almost all the media in the north and south of the country (especially some media in Beijing) are trying their best to deal with an artist's wrong words and deeds. The results of the Degang Guo incident so far seem to satisfy some people's wishes. However, this incident reflects many problems, involving all aspects, and is worth studying.

Origin of the incident: At the end of July, the daily entertainment broadcast of Beijing TV revealed that Degang Guo was suspected of occupying the public green space of the community privately. On August 1 day, two BTV reporters (another protagonist in this incident, Zhou Guangfu and her female colleagues) went to Degang Guo's villa in Daxing County for an interview.

Are Beijing TV reporter Zhou Guangfu and others suspected of burglary?

Housing is the last bastion of psychological security, and disrespect for housing is one of the most serious ways of thinking that despise human rights. Therefore, whether to break into houses or not is a very important issue in this incident. If journalists are allowed to harass Degang Guo, a celebrity without public power, tomorrow, don't blame anyone, including journalists and police, and don't treat yourself as an outsider. Some people worry that the discussion on this issue will endanger the information collection of officials involved in public affairs. However, firstly, there is a great difference in privacy between those who hold public power and those who do not. Second, even public officials, no country's laws deprive them of all their privacy rights. They also enjoy basic human rights, and their civil rights are limited to those involving public interests. When discussing public affairs, many people often confuse the civil rights of two kinds of people who should be treated differently, regardless of whether the people involved are officials or individuals, which leads to the unproven rape of civil rights by "public interests" (even not public interests at all)-they easily forget that maybe they will be raped next.

When the media was full of accusations against Degang Guo, there was a heated debate in online forums (especially in Weibo), and they were not so one-sided against Degang Guo. The reason is related to whether Zhou Guangfu and his female colleagues broke into Guo Zhai.

From the full version of pirated data circulating on the Internet (data from the website of Deyun Society, which has been hacked at present), the details are as follows:

The female reporter went up the stairs and knocked at the door. Security guard: This community is not allowed and will not. Zhou Guangfu: Who said that? Did you say that? Security guard: I didn't say that, but our property said so. Zhou Guangfu: When did you say that? We were here the day before yesterday. Female reporter: No photos.

It can be seen that Zhou Guangfu and his female colleagues evaded the rule that strangers are not allowed to enter the community from the beginning, and knocked at the door regardless of the security guard's stop. After coming out, the two sides talked a few words and questioned the significance of the certificate written by the property to the Guo family. Li Hebiao was so angry that he began to hit Zhou Guangfu. It can be seen that the initial illegal invasion was established, but what happened later changed this nature (see point 3 below).

Second, the nature of BTV reporter Zhou Guangfu's illegal recording

There is no doubt that Zhou Guangfu and his female colleagues are suspected of breaking into houses, and they are provocative and fishing-like "interviews" to find a fight. There is only one explanation for such a hostile interview posture, relying on stealing records. Usually, audio and video recording without the permission of the parties is an act of infringing on the privacy of others, but it is not illegal in all cases, and it is often related to the nature of the matters involved. If the public interest is involved and it is difficult to record it publicly, it is reasonable to record the contents related to the parties and the public interest in secret. However, in this incident, whether Degang Guo's occupation of community public green space belongs to the category of private property disputes and does not involve public interests, and Degang Guo himself has no special personal safety threat, so there is no reason to record it illegally. Unless Zhou Guangfu estimated that he would be defeated, why did he steal the camera? Why treat the interviewee with such provocative language?

In addition, some people think that it is justified for paparazzi to sneak shots of videos, because the whole world does so. It is not logical to argue that the whole world is doing this. Paparazzi exist because they infringe on the private interests of stars, not the public interests. Therefore, stars have the right to decide whether to give up some of their interests. Stars usually hate paparazzi and can't live without them. Without them, no one will publish their information, and it is difficult to have a fame and fortune market. If we tolerate them, the privacy of stars may be violated. For this reason, there are frequent disputes between stars and paparazzi all over the world, and verbal abuse and even violent conflicts are common. In a word, paparazzi exist not because they have this right, but because stars give up some rights. Whether it is legal for paparazzi to spy on the privacy of stars depends on the will of the spy, not anything else.

Therefore, BTV bootlegging has no justifiable reason and is suspected of infringing privacy. Degang Guo can solve this problem through litigation.

Third, the nature of Li Hebiao's beating.

If Li Hebiao goes out, refuses to interview and drives two journalists away, but they don't leave, Li Hebiao may also be self-defense. However, because Li Hebiao opened the door, talked to the female reporter, and went back to the house to get the certificate, it was equivalent to accepting the interview by default, which was equivalent to turning the suspected illegal intrusion of two journalists into legal ratification afterwards.

The video shows that after the female reporter knocked on Guo's door, the two sides had a few words of oral sex at Li Hebiao Station. Li Hebiao returned to the house and took out a letter to the effect that the developer allowed Degang Guo to circle the green space. Zhou asked: Who wrote this? Female reporter: written by the property. Zhou: What does the property say? Li Hebiao replied rudely, What do you mean? Hit Zhou Guangfu while talking.

It can be seen that the beating took place during the interview with Li Hebiao. Li Hebiao violated the public security punishment law and beat others. Now he has been detained and fined, and he has to bear legal responsibility. In fact, Zhou Guangfu's unusually provocative interview was an important reason for angering Li Hebiao-Zhou Guangfu even said, "What happened to my trespassing?" Of course, this kind of words can be regarded as angry words in a specific context, but isn't this kind of angry words especially aimed at fighting? Li Hebiao later denied that he had hit anyone and dared to, but he was a hooligan. If it weren't for this bootlegging, it would be hard for him to admit it.

Four Degang Guo this mouth.

The night after the beating, Degang Guo made a comic dialogue about the beating: "Today, my apprentice hit someone, so I hit him. Give him a special performance in a couple of days, a special performance of gangster national heroes. " This kind of words is too much even if it is just ridicule, but it is obviously exaggerated by the media regardless of the context. After all, this is said when talking about cross talk.

In addition, he also said, "I am also very helpless to Beijing TV. Over the years, it has been a dirty unit to talk big and earn small money. " Judging from BTV's behavior this time, I think it's right. "Reporter, it is better to be a prostitute. I have been thinking that this prostitute is active in the red light district, and the reporter is in the green light district. She can go wherever she wants. " This passage depends on the context, not that he is scolding every reporter. Degang Guo explained at the media briefing on August 3rd that it was not unreasonable-he had the right to treat Zhou Guangfu and other journalists like this.

"At the beginning, the developer promised me that this was my backyard. When the developer left, there were several poor people in our yard and a owners' committee was set up. There is no wonder in the world, and there are people who are urged by this wave. "These words are obviously offensive to the public, but in that context, it is mainly his dislike of the industry Committee, not specifically for the poor, but it will be regarded as arrogance anyway-this is inevitable.

The sarcasm to reporters and BTV is especially reflected in his blog post "I won't give you medicine" on August 4, with the same meaning as above. In the blog post, Degang Guo responded to the question of "enclosing the green space": "When buying a house, the developer enclosed the yard with wooden stakes, but I didn't expand the area, just replaced the old piles with new ones. Some people don't believe it, please find the developer theory, I am always waiting! " However, the media has not verified this issue.

Many people are extremely disgusted with Degang Guo's blog and think that Degang Guo is full of hooliganism. But if you think about it from a new perspective, BTV uses his right to speak to edit the video materials that have been secretly recorded, but by sympathizing with him and telling lies with unknown addresses, misleading and mobilizing the whole public opinion against himself, how can he swallow this tone and why? He strongly supports that it is wrong for Li Hebiao to hit people, but it is not unreasonable-it is just that he has difficulty in understanding too complicated legal issues. Who is more rogue than BTV this time? Why can BTV break into people's homes and record without apologizing, and my family must apologize for hitting people? This kind of psychology is in line with people's basic fair needs, and I believe many people will refuse to admit their mistakes in this situation. When there is a conflict between the strong and the weak, if both sides have their own mistakes, the strong will not admit their mistakes, and the weak will not bow their heads with a little dignity. If the weak take the initiative to admit their mistakes first, the strong will not admit their mistakes.

Media Meeting of Five Beijing TV Stations

On August 2nd, Zhou Guangfu told a lie at the BTV conference. What camera is broken, people are knocked down and rolled down the stairs, etc., are all fake. Degang Guo later clarified the matter with the surveillance video. BTV edited the recorded materials and deleted the contents of two journalists' private interference with Guo Zhai. Briefing and news broadcast, BTV misleading the audience and the media, framing Degang Guo's behavior, have all been completed.

This behavior of BTV is completely unprofessional.

6. Degang Guo and his audio-visual products were taken off the shelves by the media and self-examined by Deyun Society.

From August 2nd to now, many media in China (mainly in Beijing) are shelling Degang Guo, especially on 4th and 5th. To name a few, Degang Guo can't be too wicked (Beijing Evening News), Banning unscrupulous actors may be the best way (Xinhuanet), Guo Wang, you'd better accept the magical power (Beijing News), Who will make up lessons for Degang Guo (Beijing Times), Degang Guo staged hard violence and soft violence (Beijing News), Degang Guo, you can't afford to make moral jokes (. Even CCTV denounced Degang Guo as a representative of the three customs with double-row sentences without names, while People's Daily and Xinhua News Agency also published comments criticizing Degang Guo. At the same time, Jiang Kun, a veteran of the phonograph industry, also stood up and claimed that Degang Guo was the "three customs" they had opposed since 2007.

Then things took a turn for the better: On August 5th, Li Hebiao was detained by the Public Security Bureau of Beijing Economic Development Zone for seven days and fined 200 yuan. On the same day, Degang Guo accepted an exclusive interview, saying that it was completely reasonable for disciples to hit people; On August 6th, Disciple He He and his younger brother announced that they would withdraw from Deyun Society from now on. In the early morning of August 7th, Deyun Society issued a statement in official website, saying that Degang Guo's books and audio-visual products were removed from the shelves of major official bookstores, and the Journalists' Association made a speech, saying that it would safeguard journalists' legal right to interview. In the early morning of August 9, the website of Deyun Society was hacked.

At this point, Deyun Society suffered the most serious crisis since its establishment.

It is extremely rare for the media to attack a crosstalk performer so consistently, and it is hard to guess why-whether more than a dozen media have unfairly attacked Degang Guo because of being blinded by BTV, or whether they are connected in series or even directed by public power, all of which are unknown for the time being.

Finally, on August 7th, after the "self-inspection" of Deyun Society and the removal of Degang Guo's audio-visual products, Economic Observer published the first comment questioning whether the media was fair in the Degang Guo incident: "The media was unfair in the Degang Guo incident". Subsequently, Southern Metropolis Daily, Southern Daily.com and other media also questioned whether BTV and other media were fair to Degang Guo, and questioned the legitimacy of public power to ban Degang Guo. , Li, etc. Everyone directly commented on the excessive public power, and artists such as Xiaogang Feng, Zhao Lihua and Hao Lei also stood up to support Degang Guo and protested against the interference of public power.

7. Right to interview and issuance of press cards

Degang Guo questioned whether Zhou Guangfu and his female colleagues had press cards at the media briefing on August 3rd. In August 1 Zhou Guangfu was beaten, and Zhou Guangfu believed that the right to interview was given by the state. There are problems with both views. The right to interview comes from the freedom of speech and press of citizens in society, not from the state. If the state does not give it, the people have this right. The reporter's right to interview is nothing more than a right that should be protected more than ordinary people under some very special circumstances. The right to interview usually requires the voluntary cooperation of the interviewee, and it cannot be realized if the interviewee refuses.

Eight men * * *.

When the media criticized Degang Guo for supporting his disciples to beat people, he usually mentioned that Degang Guo was a public figure (or public figure) and should face the public with a more decent public image, but he openly supported his disciples to beat people, failing to fulfill his obligations as a public figure and ruining the social atmosphere; Others believe that Degang Guo has the obligation to show the purchase agreement and property right certificate to prove the legality of occupying green space.

Of course, Degang Guo is a public figure, so if we study Li Hebiao's beating, the former condemnation is generally valid, but it is not completely fair. Everything is not isolated, especially Li Hebiao's beating. Before the fight, he said that BTV took the wrong house in the previous TV report and took other people's home as a gift (but BTV has not verified and responded to this matter so far)-it can be said that the Guo family is already furious. And Zhou Guangfu's hostile and provocative "interview" is simply "looking for a fight"-but since Li Hebiao accepted the interview by default, as long as he started hitting people, Li Hebiao was wrong. Later, the communication between BTV and agent Wang Hai, the unconfirmed "50,000 yuan" given by BTV and the threat to expand the situation without giving it may be the important reasons for writing "I won't give you medicine" and beating BTV up.

Degang Guo's mistake is that he confuses the merits and demerits of this matter and refuses to admit his mistakes. This is similar in nature to many opinions sitting on BTV's legs, but not as bad as BTV's. Degang Guo's correct approach should be to remain silent. If he wants to speak out, he must criticize Li Hebiao's beating and comment on other rights and wrongs.

As for some people's view that Degang Guo has the obligation to show the purchase agreement and property certificate to prove that he is wrong, it remains to be discussed. Public figures have no obligation to explain everything they care about to the public. The key is whether the matter involved involves the public interest. Degang Guo is suspected of occupying green space in residential areas. This is a typical civil neighboring relationship, which belongs to private property disputes and does not belong to public interests. People have no inalienable right to know about this matter. This matter should be settled by the parties involved in the dispute themselves. If it can't be solved, it should be solved in accordance with civil judicial procedures, not by the public. Therefore, Degang Guo is not obliged to show his real estate license and purchase agreement, but he is obliged to show enough evidence to prove his suspicion.

Although the stars in the entertainment circle are public figures, they are different from those in the fields of public power and education, medical care, religion, charity and justice. The history of ancient and modern China and foreign countries tells people that people in the entertainment or art circles are often the most maverick among human beings, and this maverick is often manifested as an offense to many traditional ethics and life norms. Therefore, if people from all walks of life are required to be moral models, the stars in the entertainment circle have never been human "moral" models. The private lives of film and television stars and singers in different countries are very different from those of the public, but people often tolerate them, and will not tolerate public figures who are too divorced from ordinary norms in the above six priesthood fields.

For the stars in the entertainment circle, there is no need to ask them to be moral models, just ask them to keep the moral bottom line of being a man. The reason why Degang Guo should be criticized this time is that he supports Li Hebiao in beating people. He supported Li Hebiao in beating people on the grounds that "it is impossible to sneak shots without being beaten!" Although this is not true, some people say that Li Hebiao's default interview made Zhou Guangfu and other two people's trespassing into houses be considered legal, and Li Hebiao didn't know that Zhou Guangfu was secretly recording when he hit someone, but it was really difficult for a crosstalk performer to make a slightly complicated legal issue so clear. How many critics who have made the harshest moral comments on Degang Guo have clearly analyzed this issue? Therefore, Degang Guo's support for Li Hebiao's beating is not as evil as some people imagine or distort.

9. Lessons of the media in this incident

In this incident, the most serious problem is not the mentoring relationship between Degang Guo and Li Hebiao, but the media and the subsequent ban on public power in Degang Guo. The media has the following problems.

First of all, Zhou Guangfu, a reporter from Beijing TV Station, and his female colleagues were suspected of breaking into houses. Although they were interviewed by Li Hebiao by default and regarded as legally collecting information, they also laid the foundation for Li Hebiao's beating. Second, Zhou Guangfu and her female colleagues used the camera unreasonably, and secretly recorded their words and deeds without the consent of the interviewee, instead of turning on the camera after being beaten, which constituted a suspected invasion of privacy; Third, Zhou Guangfu lied a lot at the BTV news conference. In addition to Li Hebiao's overall plot, many other details are far from the situation reflected in the complete video. The so-called camera is broken, and he started shooting when he rolled down the stairs with the camera to check it, and his left arm was dislocated (there is a shot in the video in which he put his left hand on the shoulder of a bystander). Is it possible if his left arm is dislocated? ) and so on are all fake things;

Fourth, BTV acted as both a plaintiff and a judge, taking out of context, misleading other media and the public with the candid photos edited in a way that was beneficial to him, and swearing at Degang Guo and his disciples in this program;

Fifthly, the media involved in criticizing Degang Guo acted rashly when the basic facts were unclear, especially forgetting that BTV cannot be both a plaintiff and a judge. These media lack the minimum professional spirit and ethics; It is not clear whether Degang Guo really occupies the public green space in the community, so it is considered that its occupation is real. This level of comment is obviously extremely unprofessional; At the same time, only one or two media involved in criticizing Degang Guo questioned whether the reporter broke into the house (but you can't blame them because the biased audio and video edited by BTV can't be analyzed accurately), but almost no one questioned the problem of illegal recording (this is also the result of basically not discriminating Zhou Guangfu's obviously contradictory lies, because he favored BTV, saying that the camera was broken, and after inspection, he said that he took it, but he didn't lie);

Sixth, the media that criticized Degang Guo, from national CCTV, People's Daily, Xinhua News Agency to ordinary local newspapers, spent more than a week bombarding an artist with false remarks, using all kinds of moral condemnation and personal attacks, but said nothing about whether BTV trampled on journalistic ethics and abused the right to speak;

Seventh, when it becomes clear that BTV is faking and Zhou Guangfu is lying, the media involved in criticizing Degang Guo should realize that they have been cheated, but in order to protect their face and the hidden rules of the media, they have kept silent and never apologized for their injustice. Even though many media continued to follow up, they still attacked Degang Guo when he was down.

Undoubtedly, Beijing TV and other media that blindly criticized Degang Guo and treated Degang Guo and Li Hebiao unfairly should make a serious apology to Degang Guo, Li Hebiao and the public.

Unknown department suspected of abusing public power

This is the most serious problem in this incident. Public power has no right to decide whether the works of crosstalk performers are "vulgar", and the public has its own evaluation and choice. An open society is one in which people can choose freely without hurting others. People can choose elegant spiritual products or lifestyles, or they can choose so-called "vulgar" spiritual products and lifestyles without resorting to public power. It can even be said that people are not allowed to be indifferent to the degeneration of others, and such a society must be a degenerate society. Degang Guo's statement that his apprentice was beaten, if viewed from the cause and effect, is not so wrong, does not mean that his works have no right to be sold in bookstores, and no authority has the right to order his works to be removed from bookstores without any due process. So far, there is no official statement that Degang Guo's audio-visual products will be removed from the shelves of major bookstores at the same time. This undocumented procedure is an extreme manifestation of the abuse of public power, depriving people of the basic means of relief after their rights are violated, burying their rights alive, and it is also the most obscene and shameful act of public power.

The involvement of public power in this event, which originally belonged to the free discussion of citizens, not only violated human rights, but also destroyed the public discussion that might have been normal, which led to all criticism that might have been normal had to show the premise of defending Degang Guo's basic rights in a moral way, otherwise the criticism that might have been correct would have become a tragedy that supported the abuse of public power.

In any normal society, the basic characteristics of civic spirit include "being alert to public power and being kind to citizens". There is almost no limit to the criticism of public power, because even if it is wrong, its self-repair and clarification function is extremely powerful, and there is no need to worry about being wronged and causing substantial damage, so it is necessary to "maliciously infer public power"; However, citizens should be presumed in good faith and should be as cautious as possible. Once they are wrongly approved, it will do great harm to weak citizens. What's more, in China, which lacks freedom of speech, the media lacks freedom on the one hand and self-discipline on the other. In particular, some semi-public media often abuse the right to speak. Once ordinary citizens abuse the right to speak, it is even more difficult to relieve them.

In addition, there is another reason why we should "presume power maliciously and citizens in good faith". On issues involving public affairs and human rights, public power should be better understood than ordinary citizens. People have the right to assume that all the evils of public power are knowingly committed, but we can't ask so much of citizens. As mentioned above, if critics can't clearly analyze whether Zhou Guangfu and others broke into houses privately, why do they ask a crosstalk performer to be so knowledgeable?

Therefore, it is best to leave room for criticism for ordinary citizens on the basis of finding out the truth, which is also part of the media professional ethics.

I hope this incident will not only help Degang Guo, Li Hebiao, Zhou Guangfu and their female colleagues to reflect on their professional and civic awareness, but also encourage Beijing TV and other media to strengthen self-discipline. As for public power, you don't have to expect them to limit yourself-only institutional power restriction and separation and true civic spirit can balance them.