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

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.