The price of journalist whistle-blowing

Song Lin, the chairman of China Resources Holdings, a State-owned enterprise and a Fortune Global 500 conglomerate, has become famous for all the wrong reasons.

In the space of just one night, his name was plastered all over the Internet after being reported for corruption and breach of duty by a journalist on July 17.

The accusations were posted by Wang Wenzhi, chief reporter with the Economic Information Daily, a newspaper affiliated with the Xinhua News Agency, on his Sina Weibo. Wang claimed that Song and other senior managers were involved in a fraudulent acquisition in 2010 made by China Resources Power, a subsidiary of the corporation, in which it intentionally overpaid a Shanxi-based coal company, resulting in billions of yuan of losses in State-owned assets.

Wang's report quickly attracted wide public attention, prompting China Resources to deny the allegations.

The move came two months after Liu Tienan, the former director of the National Energy Administration (NEA), was toppled due to online exposure by Luo Changping, the deputy managing editor of Caijing magazine.

As these cases draw further public scrutiny, so too has the role of whistle-blowers, particularly journalists who use their Weibo accounts to take down corrupt officials. In doing so, they gain massive public attention, but it comes at a high price - they put themselves at risk and often become the focus of news themselves.

Reluctant choices

Wang's report came after his story on the issue was published in the newspaper on July 5, after months of investigation. Similarly, Luo asked three reporters to investigate the tips he received about Liu's collusion with a businessman, and had it published in the magazine first.

However, their initial stories did not name the offenders, unlike their later online reports, which were the ones that drew massive public attention.

Both Weibo accounts gained thousands of new fans. Many people who commented on the accounts in the wake of their exposés said that "the anti-graft endeavor will be expedited if more reporters can follow in your footsteps."

However, in a serial article published on 163.com detailing the back story of the Liu Tienan report, Luo said that NEA officials asked the publication to remove the story, and the backgrounds of the reporters and himself were also probed. Wang also said he received threatening calls after the publication and decided to release all the details to protect himself. His Weibo post was later deleted without any notification.

Despite the public spotlight - which extended to Luo himself - the investigation process was an opaque and tortuous experience for the journalist. After he said on Weibo in January that Liu was being investigated, Liu still appeared in the news and kept his other position in the National Development and Reform Commission despite the administration reshuffle in March.

Luo spent five months waiting and cooperating and said he had almost given up before the final announcement.

Wang told the Global Times that he would fully cooperate with the central disciplinary authorities to assist with the investigation and is now safe because the story has been exposed to the public. However, he said he's not at liberty to discuss the matter any more.

Amid the many compliments, accusations emerged that Luo and Wang's reports were part of power-trading schemes, which both denied.

"I didn't want to be an anti-graft pioneer, I just wanted to find out problems and tell the truth to the society to make things better, as a reporter," Wang said.