An incident of "mixed loading of oil tankers" exposed the 20-year-long unwritten rules of the edible oil transportation industry.
"After unloading coal to make oil, then load soybean oil". Recently, the topic of "mixed use of tanker transport oil tanks" has caused heated discussions across the Internet, and the oil tanker industry and edible oil companies are deeply caught in the whirlpool of public opinion. An incident of "mixed loading of oil tankers" has exposed the industry's unspoken rules that have lasted for 20 years in the edible oil transportation industry.
After the State Council Food Safety Office set up a joint investigation team to thoroughly investigate the problems related to the transportation of edible oil tankers, the direction of public opinion seems to have changed subtly.
Some voices believe that the central enterprises involved were named, but the buyer's company was not dug deep, and there was a lack of investigation into the overall circulation chain, especially the part involving Golden Arowana that public opinion was concerned about was not followed up. If this is still within the scope of discussion of journalistic ethics, some so-called Internet celebrities believe that this report is a conspiracy with foreign capital to attack domestic enterprises and use it to stigmatize public opinion supervision, which is a complete conspiracy theory.
Indeed, when the media appears in the public eye as a supervisor, it means that it itself must also accept "reverse supervision", and this scrutiny will come from more diverse circles. In fact, no matter what kind of supervision, as long as it is objective and true, it is a positive asset in the public opinion field. For example, the Economic Observer Network "corrected" the "GB/T30354-2013 Specification for Bulk Transportation of Edible Vegetable Oil" cited in the Beijing News report (the original text of the Beijing News wrote that this is a recommended national standard, not a mandatory national standard) and it does not belong to the "error" of food safety standards.
1
But no matter what method or who the target is, the act of supervision itself does not mean that it has natural moral correctness, and it must not be carried out in the form of framing. Whether for the supervisor or the supervised, the requirement of moral sense cannot be only external, but also internal. Public opinion supervision should be constructive, and supervision of public opinion supervision should also be constructive.
Some so-called Internet celebrities use various abstract grand narratives to attempt to blur and dilute the actual necessity of public opinion supervision. They provide "constructive" opinions to the media by asking the media to prove their innocence and tying their own hands. However, they scold private enterprises today and attack public opinion supervision tomorrow. In fact, they care neither about the interests of the people nor the interests of the supervised. What they care about is to reap their own traffic benefits by provoking the opposition between supervision and supervision.
Of course, like all power, public opinion supervision should also maintain the necessary modesty. But we must also see some of the real situations of the media. The form of "secret visit" itself is a helpless move of the media when facing a certain group and phenomenon under the unequal power. Supervision of power should be more based on the upward strong, rather than targeting the weak. Only choosing to "draw the knife to the weaker" and not asking for anything from the strong, no matter how gorgeous his words are, no matter how strange his sophistry is, it is difficult to say the cold-bloodedness and numbness behind this theory.
Orderly social governance is not just about media exposure. A normal closed-loop procedure is: the media points out problems through objective reports, triggers public discussion and adds more perspectives and details, thereby forcing the parties involved to disclose the problems, and the regulatory authorities to act upon hearing the news, jointly promoting the resolution of the matter and gathering into a governance experience to prevent similar incidents from happening again. Judging from the countless cases in the past where public opinion supervision has been successfully transformed into real improvements, this is one of the paths that a transitional society can rely on.
2
Therefore, the media's public opinion supervision reports should play a role in throwing bricks to attract jade. Some details that a single media cannot face should be completely pieced together after the whole network discusses and the supervision is dispatched. Public opinion supervision is not judicial characterization. It is to continuously move the subsequent responsibility checkpoints forward and continuously bear the burden for the media's public opinion supervision, which is to remove the responsibility for other links.
As for the fact that some people accuse this report of being a rollover on the logic that these problematic oils may flow into other non-catering industries, it actually blurs the focus of the problem. In an opaque mechanism, before the media exposes it, these problematic oils can flow to the chemical industry today and may flow to the dining table tomorrow. The only way to eliminate this risk is from the moral consciousness of enterprises and drivers. Compared with the flow that can be traced back, the diffuse anxiety and uncertainty brought about by this kind of disregard for rules is the most dangerous.
In the final analysis, the greatest value of this report is that it breaks through a layer of window paper and opens up a meaningful topic setting, allowing more targeted discussions to jump up.
Although the results of the investigation still need to be waited for, the realistic thinking brought about by public opinion supervision is already real: Can edible oil tankers be used for special purposes? Even if they can be mixed according to international standards, how should they be mixed and how to ensure cleaning? Who will share the resulting costs? How many vacuum areas are there between supervision and development in the field of food safety that can be used for other purposes? Are there any relevant laws and regulations that need to be improved? Even on the issue of driver behavior itself, because of the lack of supervision and the internal circulation under the decline of the industry, human nature has broken through the moral bottom line. How to balance the interests of all parties?
Objective criticism has never been an obstacle to social progress. The biggest obstacle is the voices that hinder rational thinking.
Now that the regulatory authorities have already taken action, these conspiracy theories that are eager to counterattack should also be quiet for a while.
Tel：13556033107
E-mail：
