川普裁減美國之音與自由亞洲：為眾人抱薪者，不可使其凍斃於風雪

川普裁減美國之音和自由亞洲，甚至不排除迂迴關閉，訊息一出，不少人很高興。這事吧，是好是壞？能不能成？近幾年，社交媒體興起，傳統媒體讓渡了很多領域，比如很多突發新聞都是社媒首報，搶新聞的速度就落後了不少，在話題和流量上，有時也比不過個人自媒體。但有一點天大的誤區，朋友們不要陷進去了——

主流媒體總是撒謊，公信力不如個人賬號……

這個論調，在社交媒體上經常看到，有時甚至甚囂塵上，許多人出於自己的利益考慮或政治目的而宣揚這一點，但如果你真陷入其中，那恐怕離墮入陰謀論的泥沼，已經不遠了。

主流媒體會不會犯錯，會不會播出與事實不符的報道？當然會！特別是一些管理混亂，甚至有嚴重裙帶和腐敗問題的地方。有的大媒體動輒上千人，大機構特有的一些毛病，它們當然也不能免俗。

個人媒體能不能做出公信力？當然能！一個優秀的媒體人，只要能秉持初衷，堅守職業道德，當然能構建出有公信力的節目，甚至比那些混亂腐敗的大媒體更有公信力。

但若從整體上下結論，是否主流媒體就是撒謊精，公信力就不如個人自媒體？顯然並不是事實。

這就有點像民主政治和個人獨裁。民主政治看起來很平庸，但它的下限在那裡。個人獨裁有時很英明，但它的下限也在那裡。

把一切寄望於個人品格，不如寄望於制度和流程。在這方面，個人自媒體的自我約束力顯然不可能比主流媒體更完善。用更通俗的常識詮釋就是：威逼利誘一個人總是比威逼利誘一個機構更容易。

主流媒體常常被批評的一點，就是意識形態的總體傾向。比如很多人憤憤於某些媒體天天政治正確，左傾嚴重，進步主義氾濫……

得出這樣的直觀印象是容易的，有的媒體內部也許確實有某種政治正確的框架，限制了一些觀點的表達，但這個很多人認可並傳播的結論，並沒有任何正式的調查報告或學術研究去證實。而且，主流媒體內部，是不可能一點新聞操守和職業道德都不講的，就算有意識形態的影響問題，也不至於會讓一家主流媒體產出的東西完全成為意識形態宣傳品。

那些有年頭有歷史有榮譽的主流媒體，內部往往都有一套事實稽核機制。這套機制大概不能保證百分百的正確，但確實能有效降低出錯的機率。對這一點，很多人卻完全無視，遇到自己不認可的報道，就只會憑個人經驗和認知大喊大叫，覺得自己才是正確的，媒體報道都是狗屎。殊不知個人的侷限性，總是無處不在，如果不能認識到這一點，智慧就將與你無緣。

我與大媒體打交道的時間也不短了，這方面也算有點直觀印象。之前做我的紀錄片，絕非某些人想象的，我提供什麼，媒體就採信什麼，而是要經過多輪的，反覆的，交叉的事實核查，有的東西我都不知道，她們居然能翻出來。這些記者們不是活躍在自媒體上的網路紅人，不靠流量炒作，吃的是死工資，也許正因為如此，在深入調查一些問題時，她們能更安靜的表現出記者該有的那種低調和專業。到今天，仍有許多專業記者在我的事情上努力工作，他們的嚴謹細緻，令我真正體會到記者的力量，不在於站在臺前成為新聞，而在於深入一線挖掘真相。

所以，我對於川普突然裁減並試圖變相關閉自由亞洲和美國之音，並不覺得是什麼好事，也不認為這是出於公眾利益或精簡開支的公心，這更多得恐怕還是川普個人混雜著任性和權力擴張的一次攻擊，他為此辯解說納稅人的錢不該資助極端主義宣傳，可這些媒體有哪些言論是比川普的右翼媒體盟友以及川普自己嘴巴里跑出來的那些火車更極端的呢？倘若這些媒體和那些一貫支援他的右翼媒體一個調調，相信川普絕沒有這個心思對它們下手（雖然由於法律原因川普還不能直接關閉它們，但不排除他透過後續立法排除相關阻礙）。

我這麼說並非出於什麼關心燈塔國的光輝，只是反對讓某種聲音消失。這種聲音即便出過很多錯誤，走過一些彎路，也始終是挖掘真相的眾多吶喊聲之一，我們不應對這一聲音的消失無動於衷，或幸災樂禍。

為眾人抱薪者，不可使其凍斃於風雪。

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.