Be honest, have you read about the 25-year-long persecution of Falun Gong in the newspaper? You’ve had a quarter of a century to read about it! If the answer is no, then you have got to the heart of the matter. Newspapers, like The New York Times, have failed to inform readers about anything related to Falun Gong. Why? Because the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wants it so.
If one person in New York City were found killed and dismembered, all local newspapers would probably report about it. If more than a million people in China were found killed and dismembered, it would probably still be covered in the newspapers. But if more than a million Falun Gong practitioners were killed and dismembered—let’s assume for a moment that forced organ harvesting is a form of dismembering—then is it not worthwhile to report? Is that just echoing Stalin that “a single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic,” or is it because 25 years of torture and forced organ harvesting is boring news? Is it just because it is not newsworthy, year after year?
The FDIC report shows that there have been no articles about the persecution of Falun Gong in the NY Times since 2016. Thus, it simply cannot be written off as “news exhaustion.” Instead, it should be counted as “underreporting of news.”
When I pick up a newspaper, my first question is, does the paper report facts and information, or does it “modulate opinions”—in other words, brainwash? Unfortunately, in recent years, many reporters seem to have forgotten the traditional mission of journalism, which is to serve the reader with news and to leave conclusions up to the reader, the customer. The reader expects information. Instead, many news reports are soaked in opinions and appear to reverse the relationship between the newspaper and the reader: The newspaper expects the reader to absorb its version of reality. The newspaper expects obedient customers. In China, the Chinese regime expects its citizens to follow the opinions of state-run news agency Xinhua.
As a reader of newspapers, one has the freedom to choose one’s daily newspaper: Do I want to be brainwashed through others’ opinions, or just hear the facts and then make my own conclusions? Personally, I lean toward the latter.
Today, Ms. Tatlow is no longer working for the newspaper, but Mr. Huang was appointed to the World Health Organization’s task force on organ trafficking in 2018. I am not certain whether his appointment to the WHO task force has been covered in the news, or if it has been reported that his 10-year-plus tenure as China’s deputy minister of health occurred during the time when forced organ harvesting in China caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners, but I wonder if the WHO’s objective of “One Health” can be achieved if forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China continues, while the fox guards the hen house.
Why do newspapers such as the NY Times write about the persecution of Uyghurs and Tibetans in China, but not about the forced organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners? Are the millions of Falun Gong practitioners not considered part of the human family? The China Tribunal didn’t feel they should be excluded and found it worthwhile to review all available texts and pieces of evidence. At two hearings, 50 experts and witnesses testified. The conclusion of the tribunal published in 2019 was unanimous: Forced organ harvesting in China has occurred on a large scale, and Falun Gong practitioners are the main victims. Are these crimes against humanity worth sharing with readers? I am convinced that the most abominable violation of medical ethics in the 21st century is more than worth reporting on by the news media.
For the past 17 years, it has occurred to me that forced organ harvesting and the persecution of Falun Gong has been treated as a taboo topic. There is a thick layer of silence and censorship. If reporting can raise awareness of the dangers and atrocities and subsequently save lives—isn’t that the most noble mission for news media?—then silence and distortion are exactly the opposite. Thus, as the FDIC report rightfully points out, staying silent or distorting information on crimes against humanity is problematic. When it comes to crimes against humanity, silence kills—maybe not directly, but as an accomplice. Why do U.S. news media choose this path?
If the NY Times can report about the persecution of Tibetans, then religious belief does not seem to be a taboo topic. If the NY Times can report about the persecution of Uyghurs in China, then reporting about human rights violations or even genocide does not appear to be a taboo topic. But when it comes to the persecution of Falun Gong—a peaceful meditation practice that embraces the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance—and its followers being subjected to forced organ harvesting, then transplant abuse in China appears to be a taboo topic.
It is a sad revelation that a newspaper will write about certain victims but not others. Do the Falun Gong persecution victims not also deserve our sympathy? Why would the NY Times make itself the judge over life and death, ignoring principles of fair reporting?
The FDIC report highlights distortion in the NY Times’ reporting, such as the newspaper’s characterization of Falun Gong as “secretive.” Would it surprise anyone that people who are persecuted for 25 years and subjected to torture and forced organ harvesting are a bit protective (or as the NY Times labels it, “secretive”), just to have a better chance of survival and to escape harm or death? Honestly, if these peaceful people take precautions to evade torture, I would say that this is pretty reasonable and makes complete sense. They cherish life. Remove the opinion and bias, and replace “secretive” with “protective,” and the NY Times article might be a bit more accurate. Would you agree?
In fact, I would take the bet that if the persecution of Falun Gong ended today, anything that now appears to be protective, or secretive for that matter, would evaporate. Falun Gong is a spiritual practice that is open to everyone and does not require membership or a fee, so it makes little sense to be secretive. Between 1992 and 1999, when 100 million people freely practiced Falun Gong in China, there was no need to be “protective.” Then who is to blame for the “secrecy”? Falun Gong or the CCP, which uses its state apparatus to torture Falun Gong practitioners and harvest their organs? Fair reporting would care about the victims, not about the perpetrators.
Another example referenced in the FDIC report was the NY Times’ labeling of Falun Gong for the belief in “extraterrestrial life.” The topic of UFOs and extraterrestrial beings has fascinated generation after generation. I thought about it in a non-emotional, non-opinionated fashion. I simply used math. The likelihood that humankind is the only living species in this infinite universe is zero. In reverse, the possibility that there is at least one other lifeform unknown to us in this infinite universe is 100 percent. So I find it more reasonable, and rational, to recognize that somewhere in the vast cosmos, there are other beings. Why would a news organization negatively label a group of people for a rational thought or belief?
Every newspaper has the right to choose its own style. It can choose a traditional style, an informative style, an entertaining style, or an opinionated style. It is then up to the reader to choose. However, when the news media fail to report accurately and excessively about a persecution that spans more than a quarter of a century and includes the barbaric practice of forced organ harvesting, then it is no longer a question of style but of the choice of whether to be complicit in a crime against humanity.
This is a question that not only the news media have to answer, but also the reader: Do I choose to be complicit by reading a newspaper that covers up crimes against humanity and costs people’s lives? Since I first read about forced organ harvesting in The Epoch Times in 2006, I have found solid information and fair reporting in this formidable newspaper. When it comes to saving people from the horror of forced organ harvesting, opinionated reporting has no place, and distortion serves the perpetrator, not the victim.
