Meeting Chinese journalists this summer, one topic kept popping up in both formal interviews and informal conversations: the Deng Yujiao case. The journalists were confident in making a prediction as bold as this: that this is a case bound to be written by future historians in the history of Chinese journalism of the 21st Century.

What is the case? Why is it so important? The first time I heard the story was through David Levy, director of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism in Oxford. He had read the Guardian article and from his description I could tell how topical it would be back in China. It was another example of the ‘sex-corruption-inequality’ complex! Deng Yujiao is a young waitress who worked in a so-called ‘leisure centre’ that provides services such as sauna and massage in a remote county in the Hubei province. Among her customers were two local officials who visited to lavishly spend public money. One of them tried to rape her and, in defending herself, she accidentally killed him. Without much surprise, this case immediately became the front-page story of both online and traditional media in China after being uncovered by a local newspaper. It stirred a heated and sensational row nationwide, evident in the 16.9 million results on google.cn when searching ‘Deng Yujiao’ (in Chinese, of course) as key words – three times higher than that of Chinese President ‘Hu Jingtao’! One month and a week later, due to the immense pressure from media and public opinion, the local police reinvestigated the case and Deng Yujiao was exempted from legal charges and restored ‘justice’. Commentators have celebrated this as a victory of the commoners, a victory of public opinion, and a victory of journalism.

But, this is not the whole story. Nor is it the reason that journalists think it should be written in Chinese journalism’s history. If fact, journalists are ashamed. Let’s take a look at the way the result was reached. How could Deng Yujiao be exempted from any changes? How did so-called ‘justice’ return so easily? It was this process that concerns journalists. Almost all the journalists I met said the same thing: the police did not really investigate the case, they rephrased the conclusion according to the instruction of the government; the court did not really hear the case either, also revising the sentence according to the instruction of the government. There is no truth; the only truth is what the government says it is. In this case, the government wanted Deng Yujiao to be innocent and so she is ‘innocent’. It does not necessarily mean that Deng Yujiao is by truth ‘innocent’. In fact, journalists have found evidences that would greatly advantage the official who reportedly tried to ‘rape’ Deng Yujiao. But since the government has determined that Deng Yujiao should be clear, such reports are not allowed to be published. Journalists are not allowed to dig deeper. The government has only allowed one voice on this matter – their own. This time, the government decided to be on the side of a commoner rather than an official. The reasons for this are complicated. One is that it is a clever tactic of the government who saw a huge crisis in society and an urgent need to comfort the angry public. Imagine what would have happened had the government decided that the official was ‘innocent’ and Deng Yujiao blamed. However, how can there be any ‘justice’ if truth is not allowed to be spoken out? Journalists are not for truth, police are not for truth, judges are not for truth. They are all ‘servants’ of the government. They all have to report what is said and wished by the government as truth. Isn’t this worrying?

The result – an ‘innocent’ Deng Yujiao – satisfied most Chinese: for once, the commoner was protected; the official, blamed. ‘This is justice,’ commentators say. But, do we want this kind of justice? Journalists say, ‘No!’ This justice is the greatest injustice. And most of all, it is possible that it is wrong. Only an independent police, an independent court, an independent press can give us sustainable justice. Ironically, journalists were attributed as ‘heroes’ again for having ‘helped’ Deng Yujiao gain ‘justice’. But the journalists I met felt too shameful to accept honour in such a situation. The outsiders see what they can do what they have achieved; only they themselves know what they could not do what they have not achieved.