|
媒体腐败的侵蚀作用 《纽约时报》近期（2012年4月5日）的一篇文章报道说，中国媒体对业内普遍存在的腐败及不道德行为早已见怪不怪，但这种行为对国际媒体的影响却很重大。 文章列举了一些常见的恶劣行径——例如公关公司给参加新闻发布会的记者塞“车马费”红包、有偿撰稿（软文）、有偿创作旅行等——此外还给出了一些出版社和公关公司的名字。这些被点名的单位都有员工承认曾经参与过上述类似行为。 对被点名的美国公司来说，后果可能是致命的，因为美国实行《反海外腐败法》（简称FCPA）。近年来，美国政府着力调查FCPA违法案件。该法不仅适用于美国公司，也适用于它们的海外办事处、分支机构以及授权经营单位，一旦证实出现违法行为，将会面临刑事处罚的严重后果。 各家企业都对此格外重视，这也在情理当中。因为在美国总部负责中国（及其他国家）运营的人员可能会因为海外员工或办事处的行贿行为而承担刑事责任——有可能遭受牢狱之灾。 根据近几个月我和美国律师事务所的对话了解，与FCPA相关的咨询和行动已呈明显上升趋势。美国公司不仅要依法行事，还要通过组织培训和大力宣传来表明自己对这一目标的支持。 一些非美国人对FCPA冷嘲热讽，认为腐败比比皆是，美国也不能免俗。即使是美国媒体，在内容选择上也不可能对商业影响完全免疫。 当然这种说法也有对的地方，但程度还是有所不同。例如：知名新闻及商业出版机构一般标准较高，在编辑部（有时被称为“教堂”）和业务部（“官方”）之间常设有较高的壁垒。但其他的媒体类别（比如B2B或消费类的媒体）在这方面就比较宽松。 新媒体平台和形式的涌现，以及消费者消费模式的转变都对传统做法形成了冲击波，也带来了挑战，但相关的基本准则仍然保持不变。 FCPA对美国公司在全球的经营行为加以管辖，以往的执行力度都不如近几年大，但那些日子已经一去不复返了。外国公司无论情愿与否，都必须顾及这个现状，否则就需另觅合作伙伴。 至于和付费媒体内容相关的不道德行为，消费者是首当其冲的受损害方，因为媒体内容在采编过程中被悄悄打了折扣，消费者最感兴趣的部分被商业考量所取代。时间一长，消费者都足以看出这其中有猫腻了。 而这种行为长期持续下去，媒体品牌才是真正的输家。由于公信力和信赖感受到侵蚀，媒体品牌的真正价值不升反降，竞争差异逐渐减弱，甚至不堪一击。在“牧师”受到准垄断保护，媒体市场异常火爆或高度活跃的状态下，这种失败可能不会马上显现，但一段时间过后必然暴露无遗。这明显是一种竭泽而渔，只顾眼前的做法。 媒体或其他任何机构的品牌信誉和个人声望一样，都是百年累之，一朝毁之。而品牌信誉一旦受损，所需的修复时间比新建一个品牌要长很多。 要解决大陆媒体的道德违规，很重要一部分在于媒体高层管理人员。倘若连他们都不能洁身自好，认可并展现出良好的价值观，又怎能指望下属编辑和业务人员奇迹般地一清二白呢？ 这种价值观和原则应该自招聘和面试伊始就予以明确，再通过行为准则贯彻实施，并利用薪酬福利作为保障，以减少收受红包或其他优厚条件的诱惑。 而直到媒体职业道德风气焕然一新以前，大批中国媒体还将继续受到消费者信任危机的困扰，同时滋生的还有越来越深的无力感：找不着合适的人才来提升媒体实力。 |
The Corrosive Influence of Corruption in Media A recent article in the New York Times (April 5, 2012) on widespread unethical and corrupt practices in Chinese media ("Good Press in China for Those Able to Pay") may have contained nothing very new to China media hands, but it had quite an impact among international media owners. Apart from outlining examples of common bad practices -- such as PR firms giving red envelopes containing "travel allowances" to journalists who attend press conferences, paid editorial coverage (a.k.a. "soft advertising"), paid editorial travel, etc. -- the NYT piece named names of publishers and public relations companies whose employees admitted to engaging in these or similar practices. For U.S. companies named, this has potentially dire consequences, because of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). In recent years, US government agencies have been much more aggressive in investigating and enforcement of alleged FCPA violations. FCPA binds not only US companies, but also their overseas agents, distributors, and licensees to compliance, with criminal consequences in cases where violations are proven. It's no wonder that companies are taking this seriously. An executive sitting in the U.S. head office who has responsibility for operations in China (or other countries) is potentially criminally liable -- ie eligible for a jail term -- for bribes paid by employees or their agents in country. Conversations I've had in recent months with US law firms indicate that inquiries and activities related to FCPA are clearly on the upswing. US companies not only need to be compliant, but they are anxious to be seen to be engaged in training and communications in support of that goal. Some of my non-American friends are cynical about FCPA, maintaining that there is corruption everywhere, including the US, and that US media is not immune to the exertion of commercial influence over content decisions. Of course there is truth in that, but it's also a matter of degree. Leading brands among news and business publications, for example, generally have high standards and high walls between the editorial department (sometimes referred to as "church" in this context) and the business department ("state"). Some other categories of media (e.g. business to business, consumer special interest, etc.) are a bit more relaxed in this respect. The explosion of new media platforms and formats, and paradigm shifts in consumer consumption patterns, have unleashed waves of change and challenge to traditional practices, but the fundamental principles involved remain unchanged. FCPA is a binding law which governs the operations of US companies around the world. There was an era when it was not as aggressively enforced as it has been in recent years. That era is past. Companies of other national domains need to take this reality into account, whether they like it or not. Or choose other partners to do business with. With regard to unethical practices concerning paid content in media, the consumer is the first loser, because the content generation process is invisibly compromised, with the consumer's best interests overridden by commercial concerns. Over time, consumers are smart enough to figure this out. The real loser in the medium to longer term is the media brand, because its real value shrinks rather than growing, as its credibility and trust are eroded. The brand's competitive differentiation becomes weak and vulnerable. In an overheated or hyperactive media market where quasi-monopolies protect incumbents, this doesn't become obvious overnight; but in due course it must and it will. It's clearly a case of short term benefit, long term loss. Like individual reputation, a good brand reputation takes a long time for media or any other organization to build and nurture; but only a short time to damage. A damaged brand can take much longer to repair than the time which would be required to build a new one from start. An important part of the solution to ethical malpractice in mainland media lies with top management of the media organizations. If they don't endorse and showcase a set of good values, how can their editorial and business staff be expected to miraculously come clean? Those values and principles should be enunciated starting with the recruitment and interview process, reinforced by codes of conduct, and buttressed by compensation and benefits packages which reduce the temptation to take red packets or other inducements. Until the professional ethical landscape is cleared up, big swathes of Chinese media will continue to suffer from a credibility problem among consumers, as well as a growing inability to hire the right kind of talent to take them to the next level. |
订阅