本月早些时候，《中国日报》（China
Daily）一位记者找到我，请我和我在涪陵的前同事，即拙著简体中文版译者李雪顺一起接受采访。我和李雪顺被告知，采访内容将登载在年末特刊上，同时许
多提问都围绕着这一主题：诸如去年你最大的成就和最大的遗憾是什么。李雪顺还被问到他对当今中国翻译业的看法。其中有一个提问，请我对比埃及与中国这两个
国家。
昨天，《中国日报》发表了一篇以我为名义的署名文章，文中收录了我对记者问及后革命时期埃及时的很多回应，显得好像是我单独写了一篇有关埃及和中国 的文章。然而，文章略去了关键部分，包括最重要的一点，即我认为，目前中国很难实现政治上的改变，因其整个政治系统相比埃及的更为根深，从而其缺陷也更为 蒂固。我表示，正是出于这一理由，当下的反腐运动将走向失败，因为中国并未着手触及其系统性的缺陷。我的这一观点，包括其他一些内容，都未出现在《中国日 报》发表的那篇文章里。（该文自然也没有收录李雪顺的任何回答。）
文章登载后，我要求《中国日报》从网站上将其撤下并发布撤稿公告，因为该文一方面不应使用我的署名来发表，另一方面也未能准确传达这次采访的内容实 质。我同意参与特定的问答环节，前提是他们做出声明，否定这篇撤下的文章，并在该问答最终见报前由我来审核定稿。《中国日报》从其英文网页上撤下了该文， 但其中文版本业已扩散到多家平台。同时该报拒绝发布撤稿公告。
我要强调，该文无论如何都不能代表我对中国与埃及的全面看法，我也绝不会对这样一则报道表示认可。我希望读者了解我与该报接洽的背景条件，邀我与我 的朋友及同事李雪顺共同参与一出涉及多方面话题的年末采访，和为一篇专门比较埃及与中国的文章找到我，完全是两回事（尤其是使用了我的署名，更何况还删除 了核心内容）。我相信，对埃及与中国做出恰当的比较，将会大有裨益，但这相对而言也需要更多的表达空间与侧重。
此外我还想指出，就我近来与中国新闻工作者打交道的经验而言，这一事件并不具备典型性。过去两年间，我曾接受多家中国报刊的采访，包括去年秋天的一 系列新书宣传活动。我十分清楚中国新闻工作者所承受的压力，尤其是在当前环境下，某些言论有可能出于政治原因而遭到歪曲或断章取义。我接触过的许多中国新 闻工作者都会非常谨慎对待这一问题，需要的时候还会和我直接交流，一起尽最大努力将原有观点负责地、准确地传达出来，对此我深表感激。
何伟（Peter Hessler）
—
Earlier this month, a reporter from China Daily approached me with a request to do an interview, in conjunction with Li Xueshun, a former colleague from Fuling who has translated the mainland editions of my books. Li and I were told that this was part of a year-end special, and many of the questions were around that theme: what was your top achievement of the last year, biggest regret, and other questions. Li was asked, for example, for his opinion of the translation profession in today’s China. One question asked me to compare Egypt and China.
Yesterday, China Daily published an article under my byline, presented as an article that I had written solely about Egypt and China, and including much of my response on the question about post-revolution Egypt. But it omitted crucial parts, including the most important point: that I believe it’s harder to make a political change in China, where the system is deeper rooted than in Egypt, and thus the flaws are also more deeply rooted. I said that this is the reason why the current anti-corruption campaign will be a failure, because China is not addressing its systemic flaws. This material, among other things, was not included in the published article. (Nor did the paper print any of Li Xueshun’s answers, of course.)
After the article appeared, I asked China Daily to remove the article from their website and issue a retraction, because it should not have been under my byline and it did not accurately convey the substance of the interview. I offered to participate in a proper Q&A, provided that they made a statement disavowing the earlier article, and allowed me to approve the final edit of the Q&A before publication. China Daily removed the article from the English website, but Chinese translations have been picked up by various outlets. And the paper has refused to issue a retraction.
I want to emphasize that this article does not in any way represent a comprehensive picture of my views on China and Egypt, and I never would have agreed to such a story. And I want readers to understand that the terms under which I was approached – that this was a year-end interview with my friend and colleague Li Xueshun, on a range of topics – are completely different from being approached for an article specifically about Egypt and China (especially when my byline will be used, not to mention with key material removed). I believe that a proper comparison between Egypt and China is extremely useful, but it requires more space and focus than such a format.
I also want to note that this incident has not been representative of my recent experiences with Chinese journalists. Over the past two years I’ve had many interviews with the Chinese press, including a book tour last fall. I’m well aware of the pressures that journalists face in China, especially in the current climate, where there is a risk that words can be twisted or taken out of context for political ends. I’ve appreciated the fact that so many of the Chinese journalists that I’ve met have been sensitive to this, and in some cases have worked with me directly in an effort to find the best way to convey ideas responsibly and accurately.
Peter Hessler
昨天，《中国日报》发表了一篇以我为名义的署名文章，文中收录了我对记者问及后革命时期埃及时的很多回应，显得好像是我单独写了一篇有关埃及和中国 的文章。然而，文章略去了关键部分，包括最重要的一点，即我认为，目前中国很难实现政治上的改变，因其整个政治系统相比埃及的更为根深，从而其缺陷也更为 蒂固。我表示，正是出于这一理由，当下的反腐运动将走向失败，因为中国并未着手触及其系统性的缺陷。我的这一观点，包括其他一些内容，都未出现在《中国日 报》发表的那篇文章里。（该文自然也没有收录李雪顺的任何回答。）
文章登载后，我要求《中国日报》从网站上将其撤下并发布撤稿公告，因为该文一方面不应使用我的署名来发表，另一方面也未能准确传达这次采访的内容实 质。我同意参与特定的问答环节，前提是他们做出声明，否定这篇撤下的文章，并在该问答最终见报前由我来审核定稿。《中国日报》从其英文网页上撤下了该文， 但其中文版本业已扩散到多家平台。同时该报拒绝发布撤稿公告。
我要强调，该文无论如何都不能代表我对中国与埃及的全面看法，我也绝不会对这样一则报道表示认可。我希望读者了解我与该报接洽的背景条件，邀我与我 的朋友及同事李雪顺共同参与一出涉及多方面话题的年末采访，和为一篇专门比较埃及与中国的文章找到我，完全是两回事（尤其是使用了我的署名，更何况还删除 了核心内容）。我相信，对埃及与中国做出恰当的比较，将会大有裨益，但这相对而言也需要更多的表达空间与侧重。
此外我还想指出，就我近来与中国新闻工作者打交道的经验而言，这一事件并不具备典型性。过去两年间，我曾接受多家中国报刊的采访，包括去年秋天的一 系列新书宣传活动。我十分清楚中国新闻工作者所承受的压力，尤其是在当前环境下，某些言论有可能出于政治原因而遭到歪曲或断章取义。我接触过的许多中国新 闻工作者都会非常谨慎对待这一问题，需要的时候还会和我直接交流，一起尽最大努力将原有观点负责地、准确地传达出来，对此我深表感激。
何伟（Peter Hessler）
—
Earlier this month, a reporter from China Daily approached me with a request to do an interview, in conjunction with Li Xueshun, a former colleague from Fuling who has translated the mainland editions of my books. Li and I were told that this was part of a year-end special, and many of the questions were around that theme: what was your top achievement of the last year, biggest regret, and other questions. Li was asked, for example, for his opinion of the translation profession in today’s China. One question asked me to compare Egypt and China.
Yesterday, China Daily published an article under my byline, presented as an article that I had written solely about Egypt and China, and including much of my response on the question about post-revolution Egypt. But it omitted crucial parts, including the most important point: that I believe it’s harder to make a political change in China, where the system is deeper rooted than in Egypt, and thus the flaws are also more deeply rooted. I said that this is the reason why the current anti-corruption campaign will be a failure, because China is not addressing its systemic flaws. This material, among other things, was not included in the published article. (Nor did the paper print any of Li Xueshun’s answers, of course.)
After the article appeared, I asked China Daily to remove the article from their website and issue a retraction, because it should not have been under my byline and it did not accurately convey the substance of the interview. I offered to participate in a proper Q&A, provided that they made a statement disavowing the earlier article, and allowed me to approve the final edit of the Q&A before publication. China Daily removed the article from the English website, but Chinese translations have been picked up by various outlets. And the paper has refused to issue a retraction.
I want to emphasize that this article does not in any way represent a comprehensive picture of my views on China and Egypt, and I never would have agreed to such a story. And I want readers to understand that the terms under which I was approached – that this was a year-end interview with my friend and colleague Li Xueshun, on a range of topics – are completely different from being approached for an article specifically about Egypt and China (especially when my byline will be used, not to mention with key material removed). I believe that a proper comparison between Egypt and China is extremely useful, but it requires more space and focus than such a format.
I also want to note that this incident has not been representative of my recent experiences with Chinese journalists. Over the past two years I’ve had many interviews with the Chinese press, including a book tour last fall. I’m well aware of the pressures that journalists face in China, especially in the current climate, where there is a risk that words can be twisted or taken out of context for political ends. I’ve appreciated the fact that so many of the Chinese journalists that I’ve met have been sensitive to this, and in some cases have worked with me directly in an effort to find the best way to convey ideas responsibly and accurately.
Peter Hessler
