文章 Articles

国难当头催生信息畅通

中国政府对四川汶川大地震的快速反应和媒体的深入报道,说明中国已经在信息畅通方面取得了很大进步,但是贾鹤鹏写道,要让信息无阻流通,还有很多方面的工作要做。

Article image

四川汶川爆发的里氏8.0级大地震摧毁了数百万间房屋,已经夺去了4万多条性命。与此同时,信息的流通也大为提高。电视台开设了24小时的抗震救灾直播报道,各种媒体纷纷刊登多个版面的地震专刊,这一切发生在《政府信息公开条例》生效12天之后,它们被学者和国际媒体广泛赞誉为中国在信息开放方面取得了重大进步。

然而,如果要让这一条例长效地发挥作用,促进信息的开放流通(不论这样的流通是否可以被界定为“透明化”),还需要采取更多的措施,付出更大努力。这不仅仅要求政府方面采取行动,也需要信息流通过程中涉及的方方面面都得到改善。

这样的措施之一就是我们需要报道各种信息,而不仅仅是那些能让信息的生产者——通常,政府部门是信息的主要来源——获益的内容。

在汶川大地震中,距离地震发生的下午2:28分不到半个小时,来自中国地震局确认地震的消息就出现在各大新闻网站上。此后,各大网站不间断地实时更新它们的内容。随即,我们在第一批救援者的行列中就看到了记者们的身影。他们报道着坍塌的房屋、被摧毁的村庄、夷为平地的工厂以及让地震扭曲的道路。包括国际媒体在内的记者们深入灾区的各个角落,他们的行动几乎没有受到限制。

我们当然要赞许这种自由,也称道政府对自然灾害采取的迅速应对措施。信息的自由流通和媒体的广泛报道为政府树立了积极正面的形象。上周,在聆听温家宝总理在救灾现场真切而动人的讲话时,笔者不知道有多少次热泪盈眶。

但是除此之外,还有更多内容需要报道,也有诸多教训值得我们反思,其中就包括那些有可能是人为的过失。它们可能包括震区校舍建设质量的低劣,以及岷江沿岸修建的诸多大坝可能加剧地震造成的山体滑坡。

我们现在不知道岷江沿岸的数百座水库是否直接导致了震中山体滑坡频发,尽管震前已经有专家指出,水库延缓了水流,加剧了山体浸泡,而在那些山上修建着多座县城和众多房屋。

但是无论如何,我们都需要对这些问题进行透彻的研究和调查,也需要对这些问题进行大范围的讨论,这都需要畅通的信息。

 

值得一提的是,尽管在地震报道中媒体零星提及水坝可能会对地震破坏造成一定影响,但是现在并没有对此的深度探究。这不仅仅是因为缺乏可靠信息,也是因为在目前这个阶段,在救援工作者和媒体中已经达成一种共识,那就是救人第一,现在不是责备失职者的时候。

在某种程度上,这体现了当信息可以自由流通的时候,它并不一定会导致人们去“制造麻烦”:大多数信息生产和流通者都有必要的伦理标准和实用准则。正因为如此,我们没有必要担心,如果在震后对那些人为过失进行开放的调查,并让公众广泛参与,这会引发混乱。在一个健全的社会,公众通过各种媒体对他们了解到的政府失职的批评会导向建设性的解决方案,这种方案通常会基于对风险和收益的谨慎权衡之上。

更多制度化建设

除了要容忍可能的批评性报道外,我们还需要进行很多制度性的工作,来确保信息的自由流通。

信息的开放政策并不仅仅意味着单方面提供更多信息,以及在灾难中不限制新闻记者们的行动。不仅如此,它还意味着一种制度化的努力来促进媒体和公众合理的质询。这包括但是不限于为媒体记者提供可靠和权威的专家,积极应对和耐心阐释那些有争议的信息,还有培训官员和科学家与媒体打交道的能力。记者们经常要求迅速和简单的解释,而不是一整套理论。

在2003年的非典危机后,政府各个部门和主要的事业单位都建立了新闻发言人制度。这显著提高了政府部门产生的信息数量,但是有时候记者们发现这一制度反而让他们更难获取他们需要的信息,因为他们找到的专家们会简单地把他们打发给新闻发言人,而新闻发言人们经常并不回应记者们的采访申请,或者不能及时回应。

新闻发言人并非万能,他们不能处理各种类型的信息,这也是人之常情。问题是他们应该成为一个沟通记者和他们各自所在部门的科学家与官员们的桥梁,而不是阻碍敏感和艰涩信息的流通。非常重要的是,在一个多元化的社会,媒体以及它们所代表的公众并不仅仅是来自政府的大量信息的接受者,他们也是促进关键信息生产和流通的主要因素,而这些信息往往事关公众利益。

当然,开放的信息流通并不仅仅需要政府和事业单位的努力,包括传统出版物和新闻网站在内的媒体也要发挥作用,确保精确信息的流通。

很多人都不会忘记,5月12日地震后不久,一条出现在互联网上的信息几乎引起北京人的恐慌,这条据说是来自人民网的信息说在当天晚上10点到12点,北京可能发生2-6级地震。权威的中国地震台网中心很快就否定了这条传言,地震学家后来解释。这样的预测不可能来自地震学家,因为专家们把5级以下的地震界定为小震而5级以上的地震界定为大震。专业的地震学家不会并列提及这两种完全不同的地震。

我们现在不能确定这条传言是故意编造还是曲解了科学结论,但是我们知道健全的和负责任的媒体工作者—特别是网站编辑们—在刊登这类关键信息之前,需要与权威部门反复核实。如果当时编辑们这么做了,这种令人迷惑和震惊的信息也就不会轻易出现。

毫无疑问我们的媒体专业化水平需要提高,但是同样正确的是,如果没有官员们积极的努力来处理敏感信息,那么媒体专业化水准也很难在实践中得到提高。

让高层领导接受公开批评并非易事,让涉入信息流通的专家们善于与记者沟通也不是举手之劳,而媒体能精确地判断信息也相当困难。但是,正如汶川大地震已经证明的,开放的信息流通能够带来这样的收益,这值得信息流通过程中的每一个人为之努力奋斗。
 

贾鹤鹏是科学与发展网络 (SciDev.Net)中国区域协调员,SciDev.Net致力于提供有关发展中国家科技的新闻、评论和分析,并促进发展中国家科学传播能力建设。

首页图片由wang qian 02/13/86

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

信息发布

贾鹤鹏在他的评论中提出了有关中国媒体自由发布信息的几个重要问题.在汶川地震后,当局所表现出的公开的姿态非常值得肯定.然而,在允许一些信息正常扩散时,对其他的信息传播要谨慎的控制.中国的媒体已公开讨论了建筑质量低劣的问题,网上的论坛也热烈讨论了所谓”豆腐渣工程”.但是在没有做好疏散计划的情况下发布受损大坝可能带来危险的信息只会造成更多的混乱.在有关洪水的谣言使北川的人们四处奔逃之后,已经出现了恐慌的情况.后来的有关即将发生大的余震的不实报道在一些地方也引发了恐慌情绪.和其他任何政府一样,中国政府需要权衡发布过多信息所带来的风险.水库大坝的状况尚不明朗,评估损坏情况需要时间.仅凭一些无根据的猜测就使数百万的幸存者煌煌不可终日与向他们封锁即将发生危险的消息的罪恶是等同的. 巴金

Information flow

Jia Hepeng raises some important issues with his commentary about the free flow of information in Chinese media. The openness displayed by authorities following the Wenchuan earthquake is indeed commendable. But while some information is rightly disseminated other information should be carefully controlled. Chinese media has openly discussed issues over poorly constructed buildings and internet forums have been buzzing with discussions about so called 'tofu houses'. But releasing information about the possible danger of damaged dams without proper evacuation plans in place would only cause further problems. Panic has already been seen after rumours of floods sent people stampeding away from Beichuan. Later false reports of an impending large aftershock also created panic in some areas. As with any government, the Chinese government has to weigh up the risks of releasing too much information. The status of the dams is far from clear, but it may take time to assess the damage. To worry millions of survivors on unfounded speculation would be as criminal as not letting them know about impending dangers. Ba Jin

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

再说几句

有关信息与虚假信息,错误信息经常由于连续不断滚动播出新闻时效的需要而发生.新闻记者和政府官员及科学家一样会犯错误.现在要分析地震的发生原因,破坏以及追究责任为时尚早. 巴金

More added

Regards information and disinformation, incorrect facts often occur due to the need for speed in a rolling news environment. Journalists are just as fallible as government officials and scientists. It is also too early to make any analysis of the causes effects of the earthquake and to apportion blame.

Ba Jin

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

信息公开的重要性

我完全赞同巴金的上述评论.我不同意在大灾之时公开所有的信息.在提到没有太多的人去考察大坝的受损情况时,我想我在文中表达了同样的意思.但我认为在救灾结束后,我们需要以开放的态度进一步探讨这个问题.重要的是讨论要在公开的气氛进行.实际上,如果读者记得公众对官方最近承认地震可能对三峡工程有影响时的强烈反响,读者就会认识到公开讨论的重要性.但不幸的是,这样的讨论很快就结束了,甚至发布信息的官员和专家都拒绝再同媒体谈论更多有关问题. 贾鹤鹏

Disaster information

I fully agree with Ba Jin's comments above. I do not mean to release all information during the disaster. I think this is what I have expressed in the article when mentioning not so many people exploring the impacts of dams. But I mean we need an opening attitude to further explore this after the disaster when necessary. It is important to have these discussion performed openly. IN fact, when you remember the initial strong response to the Three Dam's new officials' admitting that the dam could have caused problems, you would think how important the open discussion is. But unfortunately, such discussion soon ends, and even the officials and experts who made the comments refused to talk with journalists any more. Hepeng Jia

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

灾难面前舆论的导向很重要

此次地震,新闻舆论的导向是让中国人民振奋,乃至世界人民感动!凸现了人性的光辉!沅水弯弯

Consesus guidance matters in time of disaster

Since the earthquake struck Wenchuan, the guidance of Chinese news report is to galvanize Chinese people, win the support of overseas audience, as well as highlight the shining merits displayed by Chinese people.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

贾鹤鹏

同意沅水弯弯的观点。本人也主张那些体现人性光辉的报道。但是正如本文所指出的,这种人性的光辉其实会在许多媒体同仁的自发报道中得到体现,并不一定需要政府引导。而且本人一再强调,对过失行为的探究应该是在震后开放进行。不是在地震中添乱。同样,我也认为,地震救灾进行得如火如荼的过程中,媒体不去探究可能的过失也并不一定是政府舆论引导的产物,而更多是媒体从业者基本良心和道德底线的体现。

Professional ethics of media

I agree with the points of YuanshuiWanwan above. Actually, I prefer the reports that highlight humanity. However, as the article refers, humanity would be reflected spontaneously from media reports , not necessarily always by the guidance of government. Moreover, I emphasized all the time that the research into negligent act should be started after the earthquake and it should be an open investigation. Messing up the earthquake support is not the purpose of the investigation. Also I believe that in this critical time of supporting earthquake-hit areas, media do not probe into the details of potential fault is not because of government guidance or pressure, but due to media people's conscience and professional ethics.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

地震区的建筑

您谈到把水坝建在地震带的危险以及与产生地震的‘原因’之间可能存在的联系。这次是中国多年来的一场大地震,除了在前几年的一个地震警告说北川附近可能发生一场大地震以外,许多这些水坝是在危险预见前修建的。中国在这些地区建设水坝不是专利的做法。世界上很多大型水坝已建成在地震活跃地区,包括日本,美国西部,新西兰,喜马拉雅山和中东地区。1968年在日本本州地震损坏了93座水坝。

更大的危险可能已经造成的配售核设施附近已知的断层线。位于绵阳市的西南研究所是中国核武器的首要设计实验室,距离震中149公里。中国最大的钚生产反应堆在广元,离震中270公里,但距离一些大的余震只有25公里。这种把这些设备安放在地震区的不负责任的行为不只在中国发生。日本的一场地震引发了2007年7月的核泄漏。巴金

Building in earthquake zones

You talk of the dangers of placing dams in an earthquake zone and the possible link to the ‘cause’ of earthquakes. This is the first major earthquake in China for many years and besides seismological warnings in the last few years that a large quake could occur near Beichuan, many of these dams were built before any threat could be foreseen. China has no monopoly of building dams in such regions. Many large dams have been built in the seismically active regions of the world, including Japan, the western United States, New Zealand, the Himalayas, and the Middle East. In 1968 the Tokachi earthquake damaged 93 dams in Honshu.
The greater hazard could well have been posed by the placing of nuclear facilities near to known fault lines. The Southwest Institute, in Mianyang is the primary design laboratory for Chinese nuclear weapons and was 149 km from the epicentre. The plutonium production reactor at Guangyuan, China's largest, is some 270 km from the epicentre but only 25 km from major aftershocks. The irresponsibility of placing such installations in earthquake zones is not only seen in China. An earthquake in Japan caused a leak in July 2007. Ba Jin [巴金]

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

“自然”灾害

至于修建水坝与其后的地震活动的联系,这听起来象是毫无根据的猜测。实际上整篇文章没有提出任何证据,无论是传闻还是确凿的证据。为什么人们不能接受自然灾害只是自然发生的呢,而不是由于人类使用核弹、建造水坝、使河流改道等活动引起的。历史上人为的活动造成了许多的灾难,但暗示人类要为从诸如地震、飓风和全球气候变暖等一切灾变负责就有些自以为是了。在人类于一千万到一千五百万年前出现之前,我们这个星球已经经历了许多类似的改变了。——巴金

Natural Disasters

As regards the causal link to the building of dams and subsequent seismic activity, this sounds like unwarranted speculation. Indeed no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise is presented throughout the article. Why people cannot accept that natural disasters are just that; natural. Not caused by man's use of nuclear bombs, building dams, diverting rivers etc. 'Mankind' has contributed to many catastrophes throughout history, but there is a kind of arrogance to suggest he is responsible for everything from earthquake to hurricanes and global climate change. The planet has been through such changes well before man's arrival 10-15 million years ago.

Ba Jin [巴金]

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

探讨,而非批评

感谢巴金提供的宝贵建议. 我想再一次强调的是, 这篇文章的重点是关于信息的传播度, 而不是地震与水坝建设之间的个人的科学见解. 正如我提到过的, 如今还没有确切的证据来证明这两者之间的联系,但我们不希望出现有关水坝的负面批评, 关于其利弊的探讨是值得鼓励的.

贾鹤鹏

Thank you for the valuable guides made by Ba Jin. I want to once again stress that the focus of this article is on the open flow of information rather than individual scientific case linking the dam building and the earthquake destruction. As I have indicated, there is so far no evidence for this link and what we hope is not to criticise the dam building now but to have an open environment to discuss the scientific aspects of the case.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

赶快学习[中国环境危机三定律]吧!

谈"信息流通",却不谈耿庆国(4月30日)和陈一文(5月3日)的震前预报,不谈2007年7月[地壳]刊登6位科学家的北川地震预测,不谈[灾害学]2006年的地震预测,....避重就轻.

我去年5月30日发现的[中国环境危机三定律]已经揭示:制度性的官僚层惰性和信息环境的封闭将使人民治理环境恶化的努力归于失败,最终滑向崩溃.

一年来已经出现了由于制度化信息封闭引发的灾难:猪蓝耳病,拉尼娜雪灾,手足口病,粮库疑云,地震漏报.

taodax
2008-05-25

China’s environmental crises stem from institutional failures

Speaking of “free flow of information”, you fail to mention either Geng qingguo and Chen yiwen’s prediction of earthquake (respectively made on April 30 and May 3), or the prediction of earthquake in Beichuan by six seismologists published in the July 2007 issue of “Tectonics”, or the earthquake prediction in one issue of “Journal of Catastrophology” in 2006. You just skipped events of importance. I discovered “three principles of environmental crisis in China” on May 30 last year. It showed that China’s institutional bureaucratic inaction combined with information blocking has thwarted efforts to check environmental degradation, and will finally lead to total failure. In the past year a series of disasters, including in turn blue-ear pig disease, snow disaster, hand-foot-mouth disease, controversy over state grain reserve, and Wenchuan earthquake prediction failure, are all due to institutionalized information blocking. --taodax

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

针对taodax的回复

就taodax所说的《地壳》的地震预测一事,转贴从网上一段反驳文字,希望对澄清事实真相有帮助:

据四川新闻网记者调查获悉,所谓《地壳》杂志其实是国际著名地质构造学专业刊物《构造》的误译。而这篇题为《青藏高原东缘北川和彭灌断裂活动构造》的学术论文,作者包括瑞士苏黎士大学的阿里克斯邓斯摩、美国孟菲斯大学地震研究和信息中心专家麦克阿里斯、成都理工大学博导李勇教授以及四川地震局的周荣军研究员等。对于网上断章取义攻击中国政府漠视科学家研究成果而导致汶川地震中生命遭受重大损失的说法,中方两位论文参与者都愤慨地给予回击,认为这种指责我国漠视地震研究成果的说法毫无根据。
  周荣军研究员回忆说,通过中美欧三方的专家研究后集体形成的学术论文《青藏高原东缘北川和彭灌断裂活动构造》,确实得出了北川映秀断层是活断层的结论,某些地断在全新世有过活动,断层是以逆走滑为特征。“我可以负责任地说,论文通篇没有做出任何地震预报。只是在结论中指出这些断层有足够的长度,足以发生振动地面的地震,成为这些地区地震危险性的潜在震缘。简单地说就是我们知道这些地方容易发生地震,但何时会地震我们无从知晓,因为这个时间跨度可能数十甚至上百年。”
  李勇教授则表示,论文中没有“地壳撞击的能量在四川北川县积累,并将以地震的形式释放出来”这句原话。“我们在论文中只提到了北川断层存在地震发生的可能,至于什么时候地震,会发生多大级别的地震根本没有涉及”,李勇教授表示,对青藏高原东缘和四川盆地西部活动断层的地质研究中国政府一向重视, “中国政府对这一地域的地质研究保持着高度重视的态度,国家自然科学基金委连续六年拿出资金专题来进行龙门山逆冲和走滑作用的研究。说我们国家不重视科学家的研究成果,那绝对是不负责任的说法。”
  “地震预报是世界性的难题,像北川映秀断层这样的活断层在世界各地比比皆是。归根到底,我们知道这类地方早晚肯定会地震。但就目前人类的科技水平来说,何时地震我们却无从知晓”,周荣军研究员遗憾地说道。——Yang bin

Reply to comment by taodax

Regarding the earthquake forcasts published by Tectonics magazine as mentioned by Taodax, I would like to cite a blog to help clarify these arguments.

The academic paper in the magazine, which is entitled "Active tectonics of the Beichuan and Pengguan faults at the eastern margin of the Tibetan Plateau," was written by a number of authors, including Alexander Densmore from Durham University, UK; Michael Ellis from university of Memphis, USA; Professor Yong Li from
Chengdu University, China; Researcher Rongjun Zhou from Seismological Bureau of Sichuan Province.

Blaming the Chinese government for the Wenchuan earthquake due to ignoring scentific reports is baseless, the two Chinese researchers have said.

Researcher Rongjun Zhou says, the academic paper, a joint effort by China, the US and EU, did draw the conclusion that the fault in Yingxiu, Beichuan is active.

He says: "I can responsibly say, the thesis does not make any earthquake prediction. Only in the conclusion it says that these faults have sufficient length to lead to ground vibration.
That is to say that we know that these places are prone to earthquakes, but when will the earthquakes happen, we do not know, because this might happen in a decade or even a hundred years."

Prof. Yong Li says the paper does not mention that the energy as result of tectonic movement was accumulated in Beichuan and released by way of earthquake. It says only that there is possibility that an earthquake might happen along the Beichuan fault, but it does not mention when and how strong the tremor might be.

Yong Li says that the Chinese government has been attaching great importance to the geological research of the active faults at the eastern margin of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and Sichuan basin. So it is irresponsibile to claim that China does not pay attention to research results.

Earthquake prediction is a worldwide challenge, it is common to have active faults similar to that of Beichuan elsewhere in the world.

That is to say we know earthquakes will happen in these areas sooner or later. However, we don't know when they will occure with current technology and scientific levels, says Yong Li.

Yang bin