It is difficult to "join the group" of supervision, and reporters are "kicked"
The reporter was removed from the group chat because of a surveillance report.
A few days ago, the "Qilu Evening News" published a report that disclosed the high prices of restaurants in some parks in Jinan. The reporter who wrote the report was subsequently removed from the media group by the relevant department.
On the evening of November 14, Mr. Xue, director of the Propaganda Office of Jinan City Gardens, Forestry and Greening Bureau apologized to the reporter in question.
He said, "I communicated with the reporter and got his understanding. This is my personal behavior and it has nothing to do with my work."
The reporter in question also stated that Director Xue re-entered him after realizing his mistake.
Supervised, was "kicked"; reconciled, joined the group.
Everyone seemed to be happy and went down to a bunch of questions.
As netizens said sharply in the comments: This is not a question of whether to enter the group.
So, what is the problem?
Obviously, this is a sensitive issue of supervision.
The functional department pulls a media group, and it stands to reason that it is not a "challenger", and it is normal to play and praise.
As a result, the welcome of praise and the "kick" of the supervisors, on the contrary, put the original intention of building the group bluntly.
It seems that if you know your mistakes, you can change and make peace with your handshake, but the problem behind it is still awkward: For example, is the behavior of "kicking" people classified as "personal behavior" a guilty conscience or an instigation?
For another example, even though he was re-entered into the group chat, how big is the "mental shadow" of the reporter after this incident?
Will other media people in the group become "stunned" because of this, and then choose to "nosy" in the future?
Looking back at the incident itself, it is not complicated: On November 11, the "Jinan Park Service Management Regulations (Trial)" was officially released, which clearly stated that it is forbidden to set up clubs, high-end restaurants, tea houses, etc. in the park to serve a small number of people.
On November 12, a reporter from the "Qilu Evening News" visited many parks in the urban area, including Quancheng Park and Baihua Park, and found that the prices of dishes in restaurants in the park were generally high, with a minimum charge of 168 yuan/person or 198 yuan/person.
At the same time, the maximum charge for a small private room in a tea house in the park is 1,580 yuan for two hours, including only a pot of tea and two desserts.
Considering the income level of local residents, it is clear that such a pricing rule cannot be regarded as serving the "majority".
As early as 2013, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development issued the "Opinions on Further Strengthening the Construction and Management of Parks", emphasizing strict operation and management of parks, ensuring that the park is surnamed "public", and it is strictly forbidden to "raise a garden with a park."
Whether the prices of catering in some parks in Jinan are reasonable or unreasonable, and compliance is not compliant, it stands to reason that there should be at least self-examination and self-correction before the implementation of the new regulations.
If there is no problem, you can naturally straighten up and continue to charge; if you have any problems, you can put it on the table for a lively discussion.
Why was the reporter "blocked" as soon as it was exposed?
Although the reporter was kicked out of the group, the problem still lies on the surface.
Today, when public opinion supervision is more diverse and more efficient, this kind of ostrich thinking exposes the confrontational thinking between relevant local departments and constructive supervision, and is a serious shortcoming of local governance capabilities at the grassroots level.
Of course, stories about reporters being kicked out of the group due to public opinion supervision are not new.
On August 12, 2018, the "Zhejiang Daily" reported on the "dirty, messy" phenomenon in tourist toilets in the Jiuxi Scenic Area of West Lake in Hangzhou, and the scenic area immediately carried out special toilet rectification.
Although the newspaper also followed up on the rectification and reforms, the reporter who wrote the above report was removed from the group chat by the administrator of the reporter group of the West Lake Scenic Area Management Committee.
On August 29, 2018, "Southern Metropolis Daily" also published an article titled "Shenzhen Qianhai Administration Bureau was rated as the worst attitude by the Golden Scale Mound Award after reporters were "blocked"."
"Kicking" out of group chats and being blacklisted is still gentle.
Although everyone knows that "the source of bad news is not the messenger, and the tree is sick and it is not because the woodpecker found the bug", but when it comes to their turn, they can't resist avoiding it, and cover it. Subconscious impulse.
The root of this impulse lies in the lack of understanding of the dialectical relationship between "monitoring of public opinion and positive propaganda", and the lack of respect and awe for the news media as a public instrument of society.
In a nutshell, it is difficult for the supervisor to "join the group" and the reporter is "kicked".
Supporting the supervision of public opinion with an attitude of "having heard it, you are happy" is not only a posture that the public authority should have, but also an obligation that the public authority should perform.
Deng Haijian Source: China Youth Daily