刚才看了看纽约时报和卫报在发表绝密外交文件时作的读者说明，有点意思。一感叹政府和媒体的制衡，二感叹媒体的法律意识，有些章节感觉像是出自律师之手。
其他法、德、西三家的谁来补充补充吧
这篇是纽约时报的
A Note to Readers: The Decision to Publish Diplomatic Documents 其中提到了事情的处理经过
“ After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.”
说他们在发表前先把将要发表的内容发给了白宫的相关官员，请他们就他们认为任何可能有损美国国家利益的内容的发表提出不同意见。相关官员在看过之后，另外提出了一些编辑要求，同时也对发表绝密文件一事进行了谴责。报方采纳了一些编辑要求，但没有全部采纳。报方还向其他媒体转达了政府所关心的问题，另外按照国务部的建议，还转达给了WikiLeaks。纽约时报计划在网站上公布约100份文件-有些经编辑，有些全文刊载。
Editors try to balance the value of the material to public understanding against potential dangers to the national interest.
编辑们会努力平衡公众获得信息的权利与潜在的对国家利益危害。
On the other hand, we are less likely to censor candid remarks simply because they might cause a diplomatic controversy or embarrass officials.
对于一些可能会招致外交风波或者让官员蒙羞的直率言辞，我们不会进行审查。
Of course, most of these documents will be made public regardless of what The Times decides. WikiLeaks has shared the entire archive of secret cables with at least four European publications, has promised country-specific documents to many other news outlets, and has said it plans to ultimately post its trove online. For The Times to ignore this material would be to deny its own readers the careful reporting and thoughtful analysis they expect when this kind of information becomes public.
大意是：就算我们不发表别人也会陆续发表的。纽约时报要是不发表那就是当这类信息被公诸于众时，拒绝为自己的读者做深入的报道及分析。
But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They shed light on the motivations — and, in some cases, duplicity — of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.
更重要的理由是，这些文件真实反映了政府是如何做重大决策的，这些决策事关这个国家在人力和金钱上的巨大投入。文件还透露了一些美国盟友在接受美国资助时的真正动机或暴露出来的表里不一。在政府的反对下发表这些内容是项很艰巨的任务，但认为认为美国人民没有权利知道以他们之名所行的事情是很自以为是的。
这篇是卫报的
大致意思差不多，摘录几句有意思的.
There are some cables the Guardian will not be releasing or reporting owing to the nature of sourcing or subject matter. Our domestic libel laws impose a special burden on British publishers.
鉴于信息来源的性质以及话题的性质，有些文件卫报不会发表或做报道。英国的诽谤法对于英国媒体的要求甚为苛刻。
All the publications involved have given early warning to the US government of our intention to publish. Government officials, who are aware of the general subjects we intend to cover, have not disputed the authenticity of the overall material. They have flagged up some specific, and some general, concerns.
事先也给过美国政府预警。美国政府官员清楚我们所要发表的话题，他们并没有质疑所报道材料的真实性。他们提出了些一些具体的，以及一些笼统的要求。
No comments:
Post a Comment