(Beijing = Yonhap News) Correspondent Jong-gu Han = The video filmed at the Keelung border checkpoint in China's Tibet Autonomous Region on August 26 was horrific.
As people hurriedly ran away, huge mud and rocks poured down from the mountain valley behind them, instantly covering the roads and buildings.
The car was swept away by the current, and the area around the border facility quickly turned into ruins.
It was a large-scale debris flow and flood that hit the border area between Nepal and Tibet, China.
It has been over a month since the accident occurred.
In Nepal alone, as of the 24th of last month, the death toll exceeded 1,450, and about 5,600 people are still missing.
Large-scale DNA testing is also underway to confirm the identity of the body.
On the other hand, the damage tally in Tibet, China has been stagnant for nearly a month.
The latest figures released by Chinese authorities are 43 dead and 519 missing as of the 5th of last month.
It is said that about 2,500 rescue workers and 500 vehicles were deployed, and drones were also flown about 1,000 times, but there was no announcement about what happened to the missing people.
On the other hand, the authorities successively punished netizens who posted unconfirmed damage figures on charges of 'spreading rumors.'
The purpose was to prevent the spread of false information taking advantage of disasters.
The problem is whether the control target is limited to false information.
International human rights groups and foreign media reported that videos and posts from the accident site were deleted from social media and that there were restrictions on reporting on residents and families of the missing.
Covering Tibet is a particularly high barrier for foreign reporters. Separate permission is required for reporting visits.
If the authorities do not open the door, you have no choice but to rely on official announcements.
In recent reports of large-scale accidents in China, an unfamiliar sequence stands out.
There are successive cases where 'important instructions' from the top leadership are first widely reported prior to the announcement of when, where, and what kind of accident occurred.
Looking at four large-scale accidents that have occurred since last July, including a shoe factory fire in Fujian Province, a landslide in Chongqing, a landslide in Tibet, and a cargo ship fire in Qingdao Shipyard in Shandong Province, the top leadership's instructions for all-out rescue efforts were ahead of the accident summary.
In a typical disaster report, the accident summary and damage situation should be announced first, followed by instructions from the authorities, but the order was reversed.
Coincidentally, President Xi Jinping emphasized at a Politburo group study on disaster response capabilities last April that “relevant information must be announced accurately and in a timely manner.”
The great Tangshan earthquake 50 years ago comes to mind.
More than 240,000 people died in the Tangshan earthquake that occurred on July 28, 1976, but the first official death toll was reported in China in November 1979.
It was about three years later.
The Chinese media community also evaluates this as a representative case of ‘late news’.
In a disaster situation, information is a public good that families and citizens waiting for missing people should know before it is a means of promoting the government.
Recently, there was a strange scene in Washington, DC.
During President Xi's recent state visit, U.S. President Donald Trump is said to have said, "How did you end up with such a friendly press corps" after seeing Chinese reporters asking President Xi for the opportunity to ask questions.
At the time, the White House Broadcasting Joint Reporting Team was refusing to cover the story as a protest against the Trump administration's ban on some media outlets, including CNN and Politico, from entering the White House.
President Trump’s remarks leave a strange lingering effect.
A ‘friendly media’ that writes good stories loudly and does not ask uncomfortable questions will always be attractive to those in power.
Of course, we cannot compare Chinese state-run media, which operate according to the will of the authorities, with American or Korean media on the same lines.
The media environment and institutional conditions are fundamentally different.
Nevertheless, in any society, there is a need to guard against the temptation for those in power to welcome reports that are friendly to them and reject reports that are uncomfortable.
The media's misinformation and biased articles must be criticized and corrected.
However, the story is different if you think that if you write an article that is good for you, it is good journalism, and if you criticize it, it is a target for reform.
The media that is most friendly to power and the media that citizens need most are not necessarily the same.
