On the afternoon of november 13th, a news report was released on a well-known brand of milk powder suspected of tampering with research paper data for product promotion, with claims of irregularities on the part of the anchor。
More than an hour after the publication of the report, complaints were lodged from unknown sources that the news report had been found to be in violation of the right to portraits and that the video news report had been “shielded”. In accordance with article 1020 of the civil code, in order to give effect to news reports, it is inevitable that a portrait of a person entitled to portrait may be produced, used and made public without the consent of the person entitled to it. The platform became an “automated editor-in-chief” and, regardless of whether the content was true or illegal or whether the complaint was justified, was directly “blocked”。
In this way, it is light to say that some violators have abused the complaint mechanism and used the opportunity to interfere in the presentation of news messages; it is heavy to say that commercial platforms have grossly interfered in the ideological sphere. The deliberate construction of a “information cocoon” to give its audience what it wants and what it doesn't, cannot be ruled by a platform of information convergence。
The news is monitored, but supervision is not a “descript key”. Press reports can certainly be challenged, refuted and pursued. But it is the law, the professional ethics, the authorities, and not the platform's simple complaints review mechanism that monitors the news. (news chirping)
