Should the individual chaos of the Sanya epidemic be reported?
2022-08-08: [Article Link] The paper’s coverage of the Sanya epidemic triggered a backlash from Hainan’s media. Using this euphemism, Hainan’s newspaper’s new media matrix transmits a critical text, a clear expression of resistance to outside public opinion monitoring. Media coverage of the Sanya epidemic in The Paper and other institutions focused on the six-day-old experience of the Tartarus, the most common way to deal with breaking news, with a large number of visitors living in their own homes. In dealing with specific information points, the Paper cross-checked, with the visitor's side saying, and the hotel's response, the source of the message being treated in a balanced manner. The Paper's first stories followed the basics of reporting and were in keeping with journalistic ethics, and it later gave positive publicity to Sanya's resistance to the disease, to name a few. Criticism suggests that taking Sanya as a headline is an omission of other issues. If such words are generally made out of the media, it can be understood that, after all, it is precisely the provincial party-driven and subordinate media that say it, and the media culture it displays does make the Hainan press look down on, thinking that the Hainan press is unattended, which is bad. There may be two grounds for an honest discussion of the “motivation” of the story: the news is the basis for the news, the “newly changed story” and Sanya is the epicentre of the Red City outbreak and its importance, and the media is no exception to the headlines. The second basis is Shanghai’s inter-city connection with Sanya. On 22 June this year, the Sanan Brigades dedicated to attracting tourists from Shanghai, using the tempting “Sunshine Reboot, the Sea Thinks of you.” Shanghai is home to a large proportion of the population affected by the current south-east epidemic. The Sanya epidemic has a high prevalence, the Paper is located in Shanghai, and the news is close. Shanghai tourists are a major group of tourists before the outbreak, and since the outbreak, the Shanghai media have been very routine in their coverage, both in terms of the nature of the news and in terms of the nature of the news, but in the eyes of the Hainan media, this has become “evidence” of thought. As Hainan’s local media, much of the story can be perfected if the paper is perceived to be inaccurate. Given the difficulties of the island’s media in this regard, it is natural to wait for policy coverage to counter the side effects of off-island news. After questioning The Paper's motives and without picking out the “false” reports, the critical text began to use such large hats as “neglecting the epidemic” as a “negative rhythm”. Once the phrase “no big picture” such as “pacing” is said, it is basically a sign that he is not prepared to speak reasonedly, and the criticism is self-proclaimed with a long, single sentence. Under the umbrella of “no big picture”, a small hat has been placed on critical texts, “in general” “headlines” and “coloured glasses” — the island media have difficulty in making a difference in reporting on the epidemic to the extent that they are unable to use the news against the news model, and it is still understandable that “sticks” are the only way to be used, albeit rather weakly. Rather than being hostile to the supervision of public opinion on the island, the Hainan media found themselves finding “many thousands of phantoms” — tourists who made what they saw as unjustified demands — and then considered “some media” with negative rhythms to be “things”. It appears from the screenshot that some of the remaining tourists have made demanding demands, but this fact has not been verified, but merely comments from the comment area, and it would be better for the island media to verify them before they are used as critical material. Second, the demands of the stranded tourists do not mean that they will be satisfied. There is a conflict of interest between the stranded tourists and the island’s vaccinations, which can be negotiated, but verbal abuse is not an option. Criticism seems to distinguish between most and individual, but it is only a small technique of criticism, which creates a trap: it classifies any insubordination as “some” “minorities” and then divides “individual” “minorities” and their claims into other categories, which it considers unreasonable, and which can then be shortened. It is certainly not all right for tourists to go to the off-island media, but it is chilling if the islanders think that if they do not want to do so, they can do so. As tourist destinations for Sanya and Hainan, tourists are inevitably counterproductive to local businesses and even to ad hoc policies, such as “ghosts” in the event of complaints by daily-priced seafood slaughterers? In the case of Hainan Island, where the tourism industry has in fact been vigorously developed, where the tourist economy is of great importance, there are sudden concerns about the vital interests of tens of thousands of tourists, and where the local party media are so hostile to public opinion supervision and so tarnishing the image of tourists, it is extremely rare that such facts are counterproductive and shaming. Many readers are laughing at the performance of the Hainan media in diluting public opinion, reading the criticism of beating the stick, saying that its language, words and logic are all a joke. But if the interests of Hainan are really taken into account, or if Sanya and Hainan are treated as tourist destinations, they will feel fear and sadness. As a tourist, his greatest fear is not that there is a natural risk to his destination, but rather that he travels to the region to be bullied without the help of the local government. Criticism, which points to what he considers to be “many thousands of blunders,” seems to solve the problem, strengthens the kind of tourist environment that tourists fear most of falling into, the kind of isolation that should not be called incompetent. The challenge is to cope with the disease in the south of the country, and it is human and financial for so many tourists to be housed. But, as Sanya attracts tourists with the sun, he should have the energy of “sunshine” and the energy of “sea” to deal with it properly. The efforts of Sanya and even Hainan in the fight against the disease, as well as the hard work of party cadres and the emergence of human resources, are not in contradiction with the complaints of the remaining tourists and the reports in the off-island media. Criticism sets the two sides against each other, reflecting an outmoded mindset that treats tourists as guests. The tourism economy is not the economy that tourists take, and there is sufficient goodwill and stability on the ground. Reporting on Sanya, criticizing Sanya does not mean that they do not understand, support, or believe in Sanya. Criticism has had a bad effect on Sanya’s public opinion. The early and understandable temporary disruptions of the Sanya epidemic did have some public opinion effects. But, by contrast, the criticisms of stigmatizing social surveillance created a much larger and more negative public opinion effect. The voices on the island that demanded the Paper’s “Apology” have the same intentions as their enemies, but none of the islands of Heinau have the same interest. Such voices, together with the values revealed by such criticisms, will continue to reduce tourists’ social appreciation of Hainan and increase tourists’ anxiety about the tourist ecology of the island, and no one will be attacked as a “silence” after all.