[Compile/Observer Network Guo Han]

An independent organization in the United States that monitors media news reports found that although street demonstrations occurred frequently around the world this year, the mainstream media in the United States "took extra care" of Hong Kong and spared no effort to favor the demonstrators and ignore the violence they created.

On December 6th, an American non-profit organization named FAIR revealed that compared with other countries and regions, the mainstream media in the United States used a disproportionate amount of space to report the demonstrations in Hong Kong.

Screenshot of FAIR website "When people all over the world take to the streets, the (American) media only pay attention to Hong Kong"

The organization was founded in 1986, headquartered in new york, with a left-wing position. Its goal is to supervise the accuracy, bias and audit of American media reports, and call for the split of large media companies.

The article believes that these media companies build a stereotype by reporting a lot and covering up the shady details of the demonstrators, that is, "a group of Hong Kong people who are democratic are fighting Beijing for freedom."

Therefore, this paper counts the number of times that The New York Times and CNN reported street demonstrations in Hong Kong, China, Ecuador, Haiti and Chile. These two media are chosen because they are the most representative and good at setting the agenda in print and TV media.

Since the start time of protests in different countries and regions is different, it ends on November 22, 2019 statistically. The reporting time on Hong Kong lasted for eight months, from October when protests broke out in Ecuador and Chile to July last year in Haiti.

As far as the total number is concerned, the two media reported 737 articles on Hong Kong (325 in New Times and 412 in CNN), 12 in Ecuador, 28 in Haiti and 36 in Chile. The number of reports on Hong Kong is nearly 10 times that of other topics.

The New York Times and CNN reported on the demonstrations in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region far more than the screenshots of other countries and regions:FAIR

Although the duration of demonstrations in different regions is different, it is impossible to generalize, but comparing the reports in the same period can still support this conclusion.

For example, October 3-14 is the most intense period of street protests in Ecuador. During the period,"New Time" only published 6 related reports, and CNN3 articles; However, the two media reported 33 and 38 articles on Hong Kong respectively in the same period.

Since the demonstration broke out in Chile on October 4,New Time and CNN reported 14 times and 22 times respectively; In the same period, there were 59 and 92 reports on Hong Kong respectively.

It must be pointed out that many reports on the demonstrations in the above three countries are classified as "protests around the world", and sometimes only one or two sentences are mentioned in each article. CNN has only two special reports on Ecuador, and half of its reports on Haiti are concerned about the impact of demonstrations on American citizens.

But when it comes to Hong Kong, most of them are long exclusive reports. This has not included articles such as demonstrations affecting Asian stock markets.

New york’s report on street demonstrations in Chile with photo: Reuters

On the other hand, the difference in the number of reports between Hong Kong and the other three countries is so obvious that it cannot be understood according to the scale of the protests or the degree of the means of maintaining stability by powerful departments.

For example, a week after the demonstration, eight people have died in Ecuador. The United Nations has confirmed that 42 people have been killed in protests in Haiti in the past two months. Chilean right-wing President Piniella simply sent tanks to the streets, and the military arrested more than 26,000 people, during which 26 people died.

In contrast, no one died because of the law enforcement of the Hong Kong police. Over the past six months, a student accidentally fell off the building, and another 70-year-old cleaner, Rob, was hit by a stone from a demonstrator and died unfortunately.

When reporting on Hong Kong, the language of the two media is also very "Be particularThe negative words used to describe demonstrators in Ecuador, Haiti and Chile are rarely used in Hong Kong. And we should highlight the so-called "democratic" characteristics of the latter and ignore its violent behavior.

For example, CNN reported on August 30 and October 15, and New Times reported on October 15 and November 21, all of them described the thugs who created violence and destruction on the streets of Hong Kong as "pro-democracy demonstrators".

However, street demonstrators in Chile who have similar behaviors have become "robbery and arson" and "riots" in the mouth of the two media. "Violent demonstrations swept through Quito (the capital of Ecuador) … The demonstrators took military members hostage."

Screenshot The New York Times

The article points out that even if it is actually very appropriate, such words are rarely used in Hong Kong’s demonstrators. Apart from causing damage, they even lit gasoline on a dissident citizen in broad daylight, leaving him in a coma for 10 days.

In a report on November 17th, The New York Times used a passive tone to lightly describe that a police officer was shot in the leg by a mob bow and arrow, and did not forget to emphasize that "the demonstrators were’ resisting’ the police attack’".

Even after reporting that mobs made and intended to use "hundreds of incendiary bombs", the newspaper still called them "pro-democracy activists" in the article.

On October 17, CNN also announced a gas tank-sized mob homemade bomb, and got news that they planned to attack the police with it. The shape of this bomb is very similar to the bomb used in the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.

The article questioned whether CNN and New Times would continue to call them "pro-democracy activists" if members of organizations such as "Black Life Expensive" and "Antifa" used such bombs to attack the police.

This article is an exclusive manuscript of Observer. It cannot be reproduced without authorization.

Special feature of 1905 film network In the spring festival movies, the box office has exceeded 800 million yuan, breaking the cumulative box office record of family films in China film history during the spring festival. As the first film on the theme of the rule of law focusing on "justifiable defense" in China, the popularity of the film Article 20 has also aroused public concern and heated discussion.

"Today’s Film Review" invited Sun Peng, director of the Second Inspection Department of Haidian District People’s Procuratorate and a first-class prosecutor, as a guest program to interpret the meaning behind Article 20 for the audience from a professional perspective.

Vivid image of prosecutor

The film "Article 20" restores the real prosecutors, who are serious and responsible about their work, but also have daily trivialities in their lives. Prosecutors also have ordinary people’s joys and sorrows, which are truly presented in the movies in a slightly humorous way.

Han Ming, the prosecutor, is sometimes overwhelmed with work, sometimes slack, and passive to his wife, Nuo Nuo. Such a prosecutor doesn’t seem to be in line with the image of a prosecutor in everyone’s mind, but this is actually the work and life of a real prosecutor. In many previous political and legal dramas, the image-building of prosecutors was a little too "Gao Daquan", and it was always a feeling of putting on airs. But in fact, prosecutors are ordinary people and have their own lives, and they will make jokes with colleagues after work and leisure, which does not affect the bottom line of objectivity and justice.

As the prosecutor Lu Lingling, the portrayal of the role in the film is more reflected in the work. In the film, Lu Lingling’s "stubborn" investigation of the case impressed many viewers deeply, not only because of the straightforward personality of the characters, but also because of Lu Lingling’s respect for her career.

The case was hosted by Lu Lingling, who was responsible for her own case for life. Therefore, Lu Lingling has been struggling with whether Liu Wenjing had this knife in her car. This knife is the key evidence to finally determine whether Wang Yongqiang is self-defense or revenge. In the case of unclear facts and evidence, how to make a correct judgment is to constantly pursue the integrity of the evidence and the authenticity of the facts.

However, whether Lei Jiayin plays Han Ming or Gao Ye plays Lu Lingling, there is no difference between them in their pursuit of legal profession, and their insistence on fairness and justice has never wavered. Sun Peng, the prosecutor, highly recognized the prosecutor’s image in Article 20, saying, "It is often said on the Internet that people of any profession can’t watch dramas of any profession, such as doctors can’t watch medical dramas and white-collar workers can’t watch workplace dramas. As a judicial officer, there are many times. When I go to see these political and legal dramas, I actually choose to watch them, but this movie has a strong sense of substitution, the case itself is very real, and there are enough drama conflicts. I am willing to regard it as it.

Popularization of Law in "Self-defense"

"Self-defense" is the key word that runs through the narrative of the film Article 20. Han Yuchen stopped bullying on campus, but was framed for deliberately hitting people; Zhang Guisheng, the bus driver, saw that the female passenger was harassed by a strange man and helped him. In anger, he injured the man, but in the end he was sentenced to intentional injury. Wang Yongqiang’s family was deeply bullied by the bully in Kangcun, and Liu Yongjing was stabbed in grief and indignation … … These three cases all have one thing in common, that is, they will all bring about discussions on self-defense, excessive defense and intentional injury. The film takes the realistic theme and the perspective of the little people as the incision and tells the justice and human feelings behind the law.

The contents of Article 20 of the Criminal Law of People’s Republic of China (PRC) are as follows:

Article 20 In order to protect the state, public interests, the person, property and other rights of oneself or others from ongoing unlawful infringement, the act of stopping unlawful infringement, which causes damage to the unlawful infringer, belongs to self-defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

If justifiable defense obviously exceeds the necessary limit and causes great damage, criminal responsibility shall be borne, but the punishment shall be mitigated or exempted.

Taking defensive actions against crimes of assault, murder, robbery, rape, kidnapping and other violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety, resulting in unlawful infringement of human casualties, is not excessive defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.

In fact, Article 20: Self-defense has existed since the beginning, but before, due to the inability and awareness of obtaining evidence, many cases of self-defense have not been applied accordingly.

Therefore, this film uses a number of cases to show and vivid stories to guide, which makes the most meaningful legal education work on the legal content of Article 20, and also makes more people understand self-defense.

The Supreme People’s Procuratorate also issued a document saying, "The reason why Article 20 is concerned is because it really happens to our people. It seems far away, but it may happen to us from time to time, so it is easy to resonate." Therefore, it is very valuable to let everyone know how the law stipulates and then prevent other illegal violations, which is worthy of publicity and promotion.

At the end of the film, Han Ming made the clearest analysis and explanation of the incident in front of all legal professionals, made clear the legal and moral standards that should be met, and made a profound statement, and also told all human laws not to give in to lawlessness. When we face illegal infringement in the future, we should also bravely take up legal weapons and defend our legitimate rights!