狼，又來了…

1月16日中國時報所刊登的報導「基亭：過台灣海峽 不需中國允許」（吳明杰／綜合報導）有如下的文字:

美軍「小鷹號」航空母艦和共軍宋級潛艦去年十一月下旬在台海對峙二十八小時，正在北京訪問的美軍太平洋司令基亭十五日接受媒體訪問時，以強硬口氣表達對此項對峙的不滿，基亭表示，「我們通過台灣海峽，不需要中國的允許，這是國際海峽，我們將實行通過的自由權利，不論何時或何地，就如我們過去通過一樣，未來也將繼續通過。」

但是我找遍當天的國外其他大報，都沒有看到基亭（Adm. Timothy Keating）對「此項對峙」表達不滿的相關報導。根據網路版Chicago Tribune所刊載的“U.S. to test China with new request for naval port call “(By Tim Johnson | McClatchy Newspapers. 5:25 PM CST, January 15, 2008)一文:

Keating defended the decision after the port denial to send the Kitty Hawk, three guided missile destroyers and a guided missile cruiser through the narrow Taiwan Strait, a potential military flash point barely 100 miles wide. China claims the independently governed island of Taiwan as part of its territory.

“We don’t need China’s permission to go through the Taiwan Strait. It is international water. We will exercise our free right of passage whenever and wherever we choose,” Keating said, adding that “the weather was pretty crummy” in Pacific waters outside Taiwan, making a strait transit desirable as the ships sailed toward Japan.

如果Chicago Tribune做了忠實的報導，那麼基亭所發表的看法是針對通過台灣海峽的權利，並沒有提到所謂的「對峙」。不過要駁斥中國時報的報導有誤，只引用另一篇外國報紙的報導似乎不夠。還好上述記者會的全文已經刊登在美國太平洋司令部的官方網站上，因此可視為美國政府正式的回應，基亭的確沒有提到所謂的「對峙」：

Question: Good morning, Admiral. From China Central Television.

I’d like to go back to the Kitty Hawk incident. My question is why did the U.S. choose to come across the Taiwan Strait even after they canceled the mission from the Chinese side? What was the thinking behind that? What was the message drawn from both sides?

Admiral Keating: We don’t need China’s permission to go through the Taiwan Straits. It’s international water. We will exercise our free right of passage whenever and wherever we choose as we have done repeatedly in the past and we’ll do in the future. As it happens, the weather was pretty crummy on the leeward side of Taiwan, and so the commander made an appropriate decision, requested permission, was given permission to transit the Taiwan Strait, and we’ll do that whenever we need to.

Let me rephrase that. Whenever we choose to.

所以中國時報說基亭「以強硬口氣表達對此項對峙的不滿」的報導文字很明顯的是錯誤的了。基亭訪問完中國後，於17日在香港開了記者會，其間有記者問到是否曾有如此的「對峙」情況發生，基亭做了明確的否認：

Question: If I could just follow up, is there anything more to the events of November of last year? There was a report out last night in the China Times of Taiwan that Chinese vessels shadowed the Kitty Hawk group through the Straits of Taiwan, that there was some sort of confrontation. Is there anything to that?

Admiral Keating: I’ve got nothing for you on that. Now that’s kind of a coy answer. We have not been, I haven’t been in headquarters, we’ve been out here. When we saw that report I was surprised. We went back and checked with our headquarters and to the best of my ability to tell you today, there is no foundation to that report. And I am certainly unaware as the Pacific Commander of that activity that you just described.

也許有人會說美國政府蓄意cover up這次對峙，但是到目前為止，國外媒體在報導這次所謂的「對峙」時，都是引述中國時報1月15日刊登的消息。如果真的沒有所謂的「對峙」發生，中國時報在國外同業眼中的地位勢必一落千丈。而有趣的是，截至目前為止，中國時報都沒有任何關於基亭在香港所召開的記者會的報導。我不敢推論他們是心虛，但是對於這件他們號稱是「九六台海危機後兩軍首度對峙」的大事不做完整的follow-up報導，對讀者的服務似乎不夠周到。

中國時報軍事新聞出問題的狀況不斷發生，大家只能「大膽假設，小心求證」。至於中國時報其他類型的新聞是否也有同樣的問題，就有勞各位網友的研究了。