主题：伪自由主义者的学术专制：安替辱骂新闻系学生"五毛” -- alpen
家园 伪自由主义者的学术专制：安替辱骂新闻系学生"五毛” 为“伪自由主义者”画像：
只有赞扬西方的自由，没有质疑西方的自由。口头信仰言论自由，却拒绝容纳不同的声音。
外链图片需谨慎，可能会被源头改安替,1995年毕业于南京师范大学动力学院工业电气自动化专业。1996年开始写作，第二年初在《三联》发表处女作。1998年 12月入西祠，取网名安替(Anti)，建立言论自由、梦的解析、圣保罗教堂、锐思评论等讨论组，走上网络评论的公共写作之路。三年后的7月，偶然接受邀请成为《华夏时报》评论员，从此职业事业合一。2002.5被邀成为《21世纪环球报道》记者,同月写下《新新闻人自学手册》，从追求观念完全走向保持 “沉默”的新闻专业主义，也几乎停止网络发言。2003.3 伊拉克战地报道，6至7月成为《华盛顿邮报》北京研究员，同年8月至2007年到《纽约时报》任北京研究员，协助同事Joe和Jim获得普利策国际报道奖。2004.12按照政治专栏的标准建立安替博客， 2005.11 世界博客大赛国际评委，同年12月其微软博客被封，造成重大影响。2007年，安替申请Harvard的Nieman Fellowship.安替同时为中国以及美国媒体工作，在哈佛和剑桥做研究。
以下是安替近日在新浪围脖发布的一条信息，附上一些网民评论及本人感想：
@安替：刚刚一个新闻系的学生和我讨论论文选题，说要做西方媒体的偏见，我憋了半天，骂了一句“五毛”，然后过来RT推了。这种思维叫无视"房间里的大象”，在中文媒体普遍撒谎的情况下，你重点研究西方媒体偏见，是当自己外星人？
@听风灌雨: 这个强大的逻辑啊！完全没有一点做学问的客观性。难道学生连选题的权利都没有了？要是有人想写欧洲福利制度中的弊病，那这人是不是该直接被踢出去？再说，西方媒体难道没有偏见？(今天 14:09)
@独树西风： 看见了吧，什么叫伪自由主义！
@草原雄鹰刘媒婆:中文媒体普遍撒谎，是否能得出西方媒体没有偏见的结论？因此研究西方媒体偏见就是不可理喻？我脑子转不过来。
奔向粮站：英美的媒体即便专业，因为对中国乃至其他国家文化、习俗的不够深入了解，采访受到诸多制约等因素，报道出现偏见（最新的案例是CNN等媒体对以色列军人枪杀国际人道主义救援船土耳其志愿者的报道），也可理解。学生论文探讨下，应该有利于他的专业成长。(今天 13:20)
魏泓飞 ：中文媒体撒谎，西方媒体的偏见就不能研究了？什么思维？国家之内和国家之间明明是不同的范畴。别搞得自己动不动就极尽讽刺之能势。要不你把清华大学的新闻传播学院取消好了。他们就是主要要就西方媒体的。
我的评论 :
安替的思维可以归纳为“你有什么资格批评西方媒体”？让我想起有位南方报系记者义正词严的说，“你有什么资格批评西方民主国家？”莫非西方民主国家和西方媒体是神圣不可侵犯的玉女？这种宗教式的膜拜，本质上和文革年代对毛的神化没有区别。毛已经走下了神坛，西方民主和西方媒体呢？不知道这个可怜的学生是谁？我倒是可以给他出个主意，既然安替老师对学生研究西方媒体的偏见很不爽，那就重新定选题呗，改为研究（亲）南方报系的偏见报道，前段时间腾讯对波兰总统坠机的报道就很有研究价值吗，也是很有分量的选题啊。安替老师该如何应对？我猜肯定还是勃然大怒，大骂一声“五毛”！当然，作为指导老师，愿不愿开题，这是安替的自由，但动辄对研究方向不同的学生斥之以“五毛”，则见其学术专制心态。非常可惜，今天活跃在中国的自由主义文人、学者、媒体人士，大部分都是狭隘的伪自由主义者，他们口口声声的说要追求自由、平等、民主，但是在亲身实践中，却又屡屡践踏自己追求的价值观。
通宝推：fighterbruno,大眼,读书点com,
本帖一共被 1 帖 引用 (帖内工具实现)家园 安替说别人五毛 大家到是可以看看他拿的是几毛，呵呵。这事情其实就是推销员不愿意让别人看看实际货色，只允许别人听他吹嘘自己推销的货色如何如何了得。
家园 因为他们有“伟大”的“是非观”做武器 人挡杀人、佛挡杀佛
无往而不利也
这反面教员做的，怪不得太祖要感谢日本的侵略、感谢艾奇逊、感谢杜鲁门呢
还好中国尚有，许多自带干粮的“五毛”
遍观中国大地，这自带干粮的“五毛”众，不知该夸之，还是入之。。。
家园 贴一篇google来的anti的文章 The Freedom of Chinese Internet Users is Not a Slave Girl of the Americans
A statement regarding the proposed information bill to be submitted to the U.S. Congress
TOOLBOX
Resize Print E-mail
COMMENT
0 Comments
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED
Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging Links to this article
Translated by The Washington Post Beijing Bureau
Sunday, February 19, 2006; 6:54 PM
The following was posted on "Anti's Blog" on Feb. 17, 2006, by Zhao Jing:
Before the U.S. Congressional hearings on the cooperation of four large Internet companies (Microsoft, Google, Yahoo and Cisco) with the Chinese government opened, I stated that I thought this had nothing to do with us, that it was the Americans' own affairs. When those of us who deeply love freedom use ourselves to promote freedom of expression for our compatriots, we never think that the Chinese people's right to free speech needs the protection of the U.S. Congress. I write all of my blog entries in Chinese. Each sentence is directed for my compatriots to understand. I have no interest in playing to the interests of foreign readers.
I have always had a kind of strong belief: A country is great because even in its darkest and most trying days, there are young people who love this land, and who are absolutely unwilling to give up their pursuit of the dream of freedom, democracy, peace and prosperity for the nation. This kind of dream is not bestowed upon us by some United States. We can only realize this kind of dream ourselves. Only Chinese people can preserve the hope of struggling in the face of a hopeless political situation. Only Chinese people can continue to have faith that the polluted river will be cleaned.
This is our country; this is our land. We must make China free, democratic, peaceful and prosperous because this is where we and our children belong. The failure of China is the failure of our entire lives. Fortune has no favorites in troubled times. A citizen of a failed country, no matter where he or she goes, will suffer the discrimination of others. When foreigners use "autocratic" to describe China, I feel deep humiliation as a Chinese. This kind of shame, one remembers for the rest of his life.
This is the reason for the explosion of free expression by Chinese journalists and bloggers. Since we lack freedom of the press, we as individuals need to make great efforts to help our compatriots believe that we have a beautiful future.
This emotion and pain might not be understood by foreigners. For the U.S. Congress to hold a hearing on the freedom of Internet information of Chinese, this is indeed an issue for the American people. But the bill to be submitted about freedom of Internet information treats the freedom of Chinese Internet users as a slave girl to be dressed as you please.
The bill includes the following: American companies will face large fines if they assist in blocking information broadcast by the U.S. government (such as the Congressional human rights report, Voice of America and Radio Free Asia), and the people responsible will be imprisoned. People with the least bit of common sense know that this immediately implies the withdrawal of the Internet services of companies like Google and Microsoft from the Chinese market. Then we could only use wretched Baidu, domestic blog service providers brimming with keyword censorship and email boxes that can be monitored at any time.
I can't help but ask: Mr. Congressmen, this bill of yours, is it meant to protect the freedom of information of Internet users, including the Chinese, or is it meant to protect the freedom of information of the U.S. government? If it is the former, why is it that after being "protected" we will be deprived of freedom? If the latter, why are you using the freedom of information of Chinese Internet users to make your point?
Companies like Microsoft and Google have won much freedom of information for Chinese Internet users in recent years. That today they have begun to compromise is not only humiliation for Americans, but also for the Chinese people. The way for Americans to solve this problem is that these companies must observe a moral bottom line and shoulder greater responsibilities, because not only do you need the Chinese market, but China also needs American companies. Your negotiating position is not weakening but strengthening. What Chinese Internet users need is the gradual increase of freedoms.
But Capitol Hill gentlemen who see things in black and white dredged up an absurd "compromise means withdrawal" bill, treating the freedom of Chinese Internet users for a slave girl to dress up however you please. This again proves: The Chinese themselves are the only people who can fight for their rights and freedoms.
The real way to resolve the situation of the blocking of the Chinese Internet is for all Chinese youth with a bit of conscience to exercise and expand our freedoms every day, and protest blocking and suppression in any sense. Because this is the country we love, no one hopes for her freedom more than we do. I am proud to be your compatriot.
Finally, at the end of this statement, I will explain again: the American companies mentioned above are companies like Microsoft and Google. I am absolutely not referring to Yahoo. For a guy that sells out information like Yahoo, the crime cannot be pardoned. If the company collapsed immediately, or beat it from China forever, that would be the good fortune of Chinese Internet users.
家园 中国人和西方人的最大区别就是 西人对自己一点都不了解的话题，照样敢于提出教训似的观点，而中国人对于自己理应发表观点的话题，都觉得没有资格……
家园 骂人五毛，就可以堂而皇之的封杀别人的权利 这难道就是某些人追求的普世价值？我看他们其实要的只是自己的自由民主，对于侵犯他利益的人，扣个帽子合理封杀，这样就不违背他们追求的普世价值，然后著书论说为自己的行为辩护：“那些人都是咎由自取，全是左棍、五毛、推手、愤青，所以我要封杀他们的一切权利”。
这样搞下来，他们的行为不就跟他们所反对的是一路货色了么。
家园 这种“你有什么资格批评……”的说法很流行啊 从民主、经济、人权、公平这些本来争议就多的话题，到飞机、技术这些本来应该不用争议的话题，只要对西方或者发达国家有所质疑，就引来一堆“你有什么资格批评……”。这多见于中国网络，但“从追求观念完全走向保持 “沉默”的新闻专业主义”的安替也不能免俗。这首先从逻辑上讲就是不通的，如果人家不是在做中西方关于某一方面的比较，就不存在“你有什么资格批评……”的问题；其次，“憋了半天，骂了一句五毛”是彻底的非专业主义，简直就是堕落，他还好意思出来说？