Mr Viral
Late last year, an unusual dispute broke out between a major Chinese magazine and a prominent scholar over the authorship of an influential 2020 investigative report that detailed the harsh realities faced by the country’s food delivery drivers. In a statement, People magazine accused the scholar, Sun Ping, whose research had been cited in the report, of misrepresenting herself as its “original author” while promoting her book on the subject. The magazine’s statement went on to accuse Sun of failing to credit the reporter as well as the newsroom’s months of investigation into the issue.
My initial reaction to the controversy was disbelief. How could anyone confuse an interviewee for the author of the article? But I came to realize that I had perhaps overestimated the public’s media literacy — especially their awareness of the work that goes into investigative reporting.
Media consumption in contemporary China is fragmented: Audiences are just as likely to skim social media posts or watch short video summaries as read the full report, and few of those digests credit the reporter appropriately. Meanwhile, many newsrooms have responded to budget cuts by pivoting from original reporting to recycling popular content, a trend that has done real damage to the reputation of Chinese journalists.
Academics, on the other hand, continue to enjoy significant cultural capital, especially those known in Chinese as “star scholars” for their expertise in a given field — a fact which helps explain why a scholar or publisher might overstate their contributions to an influential story in promotional materials.
But what most pains me — a journalist-turned-scholar — is how the controversy reflects the continued divide between academia and journalism. People’s 2020 report is a sterling example of the potential positive impact investigative journalism supported by academic research can have on society. To see this achievement eclipsed by an authorship dispute — a win-win become a zero-sum game in which both parties attack the other — is disappointing.
There are many reasons for academics and journalists to work together. Both groups are knowledge producers. Both share a responsibility to inform and educate the public, provide quality information, and foster a well-informed citizenry. When they work together effectively, it contributes to a healthier information ecosystem and promotes social justice. The People report, for example, resulted in real improvements in the rights and well-being of Chinese gig workers. More such collaborations can foster trust, as both parties gradually iron out issues involving intellectual property and proper crediting.
Achieving this goal will require a mindset shift on the part of academics, who must become more willing to engage in public discourse. Academics have long seen their primary mission as conducting research, followed by teaching. Their responsibility to disseminate knowledge through public engagement — to translate academic work into practical societal benefits — has long gone overlooked.
If anything, Chinese scholars who engage with the public too actively are often treated with contempt for allowing themselves to be distracted from their real mission. But in the social media era, when academic research is often dishonestly cited to advance political or economic interests, it is vital for academics to make themselves accessible to the media, participate in community outreach, and deliver public talks. That doing so will also help them establish their reputations with the public and earn fair credit for their research is just a bonus.
Universities can promote this mindset shift by providing better support for their scholars and by recognizing public engagement in their hiring and tenure decisions. Of course, academics should still have the option to focus on research and theory. But those who are willing and able to engage with the public should be supported and given media training. Universities can also work with media organizations on joint initiatives, such as academic-journalist podcasts or maintaining databases of interview-friendly scholars.
Newsrooms, too, should invest in deeper cooperation with academics. Such cooperation not only helps improve a report’s credibility, but can also help serious newsrooms differentiate themselves and establish their value to readers. The more a given news organization invests in original, investigative, and science-based reporting, the more trust they’ll accumulate, creating a virtuous cycle that benefits journalists, outlets, and the public as a whole.
Reflecting on the People magazine controversy, I can’t help but wonder if the whole thing could have been avoided with better communication. What matters now is for outlets and academics to start having open, honest discussions about credit and collaboration. At the end of the day, what is at stake isn’t the intellectual property of a single news outlet or the fame of a few celebrity scholars, but the public’s right to know. By fostering stronger ties between academia and journalism, we can move one step closer to a public sphere that promotes truth, science, and progress, rather than doubt or misinformation.
Editor: Cai Yineng.
(Header image: Visuals from Cosmaa/VectorStock/VCG and WeChat, reedited by Sixth Tone)
