川普裁减美国之音与自由亚洲：为众人抱薪者，不可使其冻毙于风雪

川普裁减美国之音和自由亚洲，甚至不排除迂回关闭，消息一出，不少人很高兴。这事吧，是好是坏？能不能成？近几年，社交媒体兴起，传统媒体让渡了很多领域，比如很多突发新闻都是社媒首报，抢新闻的速度就落后了不少，在话题和流量上，有时也比不过个人自媒体。但有一点天大的误区，朋友们不要陷进去了——

主流媒体总是撒谎，公信力不如个人账号……

这个论调，在社交媒体上经常看到，有时甚至甚嚣尘上，许多人出于自己的利益考虑或政治目的而宣扬这一点，但如果你真陷入其中，那恐怕离堕入阴谋论的泥沼，已经不远了。

主流媒体会不会犯错，会不会播出与事实不符的报道？当然会！特别是一些管理混乱，甚至有严重裙带和腐败问题的地方。有的大媒体动辄上千人，大机构特有的一些毛病，它们当然也不能免俗。

个人媒体能不能做出公信力？当然能！一个优秀的媒体人，只要能秉持初衷，坚守职业道德，当然能构建出有公信力的节目，甚至比那些混乱腐败的大媒体更有公信力。

但若从整体上下结论，是否主流媒体就是撒谎精，公信力就不如个人自媒体？显然并不是事实。

这就有点像民主政治和个人独裁。民主政治看起来很平庸，但它的下限在那里。个人独裁有时很英明，但它的下限也在那里。

把一切寄望于个人品格，不如寄望于制度和流程。在这方面，个人自媒体的自我约束力显然不可能比主流媒体更完善。用更通俗的常识诠释就是：威逼利诱一个人总是比威逼利诱一个机构更容易。

主流媒体常常被批评的一点，就是意识形态的总体倾向。比如很多人愤愤于某些媒体天天政治正确，左倾严重，进步主义泛滥……

得出这样的直观印象是容易的，有的媒体内部也许确实有某种政治正确的框架，限制了一些观点的表达，但这个很多人认可并传播的结论，并没有任何正式的调查报告或学术研究去证实。而且，主流媒体内部，是不可能一点新闻操守和职业道德都不讲的，就算有意识形态的影响问题，也不至于会让一家主流媒体产出的东西完全成为意识形态宣传品。

那些有年头有历史有荣誉的主流媒体，内部往往都有一套事实审核机制。这套机制大概不能保证百分百的正确，但确实能有效降低出错的概率。对这一点，很多人却完全无视，遇到自己不认可的报道，就只会凭个人经验和认知大喊大叫，觉得自己才是正确的，媒体报道都是狗屎。殊不知个人的局限性，总是无处不在，如果不能认识到这一点，智慧就将与你无缘。

我与大媒体打交道的时间也不短了，这方面也算有点直观印象。之前做我的纪录片，绝非某些人想象的，我提供什么，媒体就采信什么，而是要经过多轮的，反复的，交叉的事实核查，有的东西我都不知道，她们居然能翻出来。这些记者们不是活跃在自媒体上的网络红人，不靠流量炒作，吃的是死工资，也许正因为如此，在深入调查一些问题时，她们能更安静的表现出记者该有的那种低调和专业。到今天，仍有许多专业记者在我的事情上努力工作，他们的严谨细致，令我真正体会到记者的力量，不在于站在台前成为新闻，而在于深入一线挖掘真相。

所以，我对于川普突然裁减并试图变相关闭自由亚洲和美国之音，并不觉得是什么好事，也不认为这是出于公众利益或精简开支的公心，这更多得恐怕还是川普个人混杂着任性和权力扩张的一次攻击，他为此辩解说纳税人的钱不该资助极端主义宣传，可这些媒体有哪些言论是比川普的右翼媒体盟友以及川普自己嘴巴里跑出来的那些火车更极端的呢？倘若这些媒体和那些一贯支持他的右翼媒体一个调调，相信川普绝没有这个心思对它们下手（虽然由于法律原因川普还不能直接关闭它们，但不排除他通过后续立法排除相关阻碍）。

我这么说并非出于什么关心灯塔国的光辉，只是反对让某种声音消失。这种声音即便出过很多错误，走过一些弯路，也始终是挖掘真相的众多呐喊声之一，我们不应对这一声音的消失无动于衷，或幸灾乐祸。

为众人抱薪者，不可使其冻毙于风雪。

Trump Cuts Funding for Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, Even Considering Their Indirect Closure—Is This Good or Bad? Will It Succeed?

As soon as the news broke, many people were delighted.

In recent years, with the rise of social media, traditional media has ceded many areas. For instance, breaking news is often first reported on social platforms, making traditional media slower in terms of speed. In terms of topics and audience engagement, mainstream media sometimes lags behind independent content creators.

However, there's a huge misconception that many people fall into—don’t be one of them:

"Mainstream media always lies and has less credibility than individual accounts."

This notion is frequently seen on social media, sometimes even overwhelmingly so. Many promote this idea out of self-interest or political motives. But if you truly buy into it, you may be on the verge of falling into the abyss of conspiracy theories.

Does mainstream media make mistakes or publish inaccurate reports? Of course! Especially in organizations with chaotic management or even serious nepotism and corruption issues. Large media outlets have thousands of employees, and they are not immune to the bureaucratic inefficiencies and problems that come with such massive institutions.

Can independent media be credible? Absolutely! A dedicated journalist who upholds professional ethics and remains committed to their mission can build a highly credible platform—perhaps even more so than some corrupt or mismanaged mainstream outlets.

But can we draw a broad conclusion that mainstream media as a whole is inherently dishonest and less credible than independent creators? Clearly not.

This is similar to the comparison between democracy and autocracy. Democracy may seem mediocre, but it has a safety net. Autocracy can sometimes appear wise, but its downside is equally evident.

Relying solely on personal integrity is far less reliable than depending on institutions and procedures. In this regard, individual media creators cannot possibly match the self-regulation mechanisms of mainstream media. To put it simply: coercing or bribing an individual is always easier than influencing an entire institution.

One of the most common criticisms of mainstream media is its ideological bias. Many people resent certain outlets for being overly politically correct, left-leaning, and filled with progressive ideology.

It's easy to get such an impression, and some media organizations may indeed have internal political correctness frameworks that limit the expression of certain viewpoints. However, the widely accepted belief that mainstream media is entirely biased is not backed by any official studies or academic research. Moreover, mainstream media cannot completely abandon journalistic ethics and professional conduct. Even if ideological bias exists, it does not mean a mainstream outlet’s content is purely propaganda.

Respected mainstream media institutions with long histories and reputations often have robust fact-checking mechanisms. These mechanisms may not guarantee 100% accuracy, but they significantly reduce the chances of error. Yet, many people completely ignore this fact. When they see a report they dislike, they immediately react based on personal bias, assuming they are right and the media is garbage. They fail to recognize their own limitations, and without this awareness, wisdom will remain out of reach.

I have interacted with major media organizations for quite some time and have gained some firsthand impressions. When I was producing my documentary, the process was far from what some might imagine—where the media simply accepts whatever I provide. Instead, they conducted multiple rounds of rigorous fact-checking, often uncovering details even I was unaware of. These journalists are not internet influencers chasing traffic; they work on fixed salaries. Perhaps because of this, they can remain quiet and professional while conducting in-depth investigations. Even today, many dedicated journalists continue to work diligently on my case. Their meticulousness and rigor have shown me the true power of journalism—not in standing in the spotlight as newsmakers but in uncovering the truth from behind the scenes.

Therefore, I do not see Trump’s sudden move to cut funding and attempt to shut down Radio Free Asia and Voice of America as a good thing. Nor do I believe it is motivated by a genuine concern for public interest or budget efficiency. More likely, this is yet another attack driven by Trump’s personal impulses and power expansion. He justifies it by claiming that taxpayers’ money should not fund extremist propaganda—but are these media outlets truly more extreme than the right-wing media allies of Trump, or even Trump himself? If these outlets echoed the same narratives as his right-wing supporters, he would likely have no interest in shutting them down. (Though legal constraints currently prevent Trump from directly shutting them down, he might push for legislative changes to remove these barriers in the future.)

I’m not saying this out of any deep concern for the "beacon of democracy," but because I oppose the silencing of voices. Even if these media outlets have made mistakes and taken wrong turns, they are still among the many voices seeking the truth. We should not be indifferent to their disappearance, nor should we take pleasure in it.

Those who bring warmth to others should not be left to freeze in the snow.