Huanxin Zhao
Reporter, China Daily
Beijing, China

What is the "stuff of daily life" in American newsrooms has turned out to be the "struggle of daily life" for the media in developing democracies. The First Amendment, the 45-word afterthought added to the Constitution 210 years ago, is still a great beacon in the 21st century. It helps to illuminate the good, expose the evil, and enlighten the masses.

It seems to me that actor Kevin Costner's gripe over a gossip item about his relationship with the wife of a baseball player had more to do with "yellow journalism" than with the First Amendment. The two live side by side, but the one should not cancel the other out.

For me, an honest compliance with the First Amendment entails reporters seeking the truth and reporting as fully as possible, while minimizing harm. Therefore, while the agonized actor had reasons to complain about the rumormongers, he is not so reasonable when he blames the First Amendment.

Costner's story prompted me to do a survey at my AFPF host newspaper—the Denver Rocky Mountain News. The News' reporters told me that the First Amendment is part of "the stuff of daily life." They responded that most American journalists would shy away from such intrusive coverage of celebrities. Only Internet gossip mills and supermarket tabloids, they said, would chase such stories.

After months of deliberation the News ran a story on November 3 that showed me how American colleagues consider their Constitutional right precious. Ann Imse, a reporter at the News, found last spring that the owners of the O'Hara Regional Center for Rehabilitation in Denver, and most of their other nursing homes, fell short in the way they used the government funding to take care of the frail, elderly and incapacitated. Health regulators had issued dozens of citations of "actual harm" to patients, or of placing patients in "immediate jeopardy" of death or serious injury.

The nursing service provider, which had a network of at least 35 different companies in three states, immediately threatened to sue the News even before the story was published. Imse said the nursing home owners were trying to stop the paper from publishing the story. But silencing the whistle-blower would deny the readers from knowing the truth, which the public had a right to know. The News decided to forge ahead even if the lawsuit may cost it half a million dollars, because the story is so important to readers, Imse quoted the News' publisher John Temple as saying. As a result, the newspaper gave almost three tabloid pages to Imse's story, and more detailed coverage on its website edition.

Apart from witnessing the magnitude of how the First Amendment empowers American newsrooms as well as their audience, I also experienced firsthand the U.S. free press by working side by side with American reporters and learning their journalistic tradition for five months.

Coming to the U.S. I felt that the odds were high that the mere fact of a Chinese working as a reporter in a foreign country would cause suspicions and disbelief both among media authorities and readers. But in nearly 100 interviews done in Colorado, I never received a queer look just because of my color and accent. Nor did I encounter any form of censorship on whatever I wrote. It seemed to me that people are aware of the diversity in the American newsroom, and were accustomed to facing reporters without fear or favor. While my American counterparts may take this for granted, it meant a lot to me. It clearly indicates that the country does enjoy a free press, and the First Amendment is deeply rooted in people's mind.

Back in China, freedom of the press has been written into its Constitution. The Article 35 of Chapter II states "citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration." So in China, it is not a matter of whether or not the country's press has its freedom protected by law. It is a matter of how well the Constitutional right can be fulfilled to the letter.

In this regard, I believe journalists in my country can learn from their American counterparts, both in how they uphold the journalistic tradition and in their journalistic expertise. Most people who have traveled to China will agree that China now enjoys the best records in freedom of speech and the press, along with economic prosperity in its history. Chinese people, as well as the media, have more and more come to realize the significant role a free press can play in the sound development of society, given that the free media in the U.S. has helped to shape one of the great democracies of the world.

But the concept of "rule of law" alone has yet to become widespread in China. As a result, how to translate the constitutional stipulation into practice in a real sense will really take time. It may take sociologists or even politicians to argue that purely American-style free press may not work in other countries, given the different national conditions in different countries. Nor should people expect changes in press freedom overnight.

While the media should be given more leeway in news reporting, how the media itself scrambles to ensure a free information flow and how reporters deal with news events also will make a difference—in terms of accomplishing the Constitutional right of "free press." My journalism experience in the United States made me realize that censorship, including self-censorship—which is not uncommon in many countries—is in fact an affront to that right. Fettered speech deters freedom.

I cherish a motto of the Aspen Daily News: "If you don't want it printed, don't let it happen." My five-month stint in the United States has reinforced my belief in that saying. All the news that is fit to print can and should be printed.

"First Amendment reads more like a dream than a law, and no other country has been crazy enough to include such a dream among its fundamental documents," said the noted American author Kurt Vonnegut.

If America can have that dream—and can dream well, I find no reason for other countries not to have similar or adapted dreams.