I'm taking on Howard French's story about domestic media silence over Dongzhou, in the New York Times, via the IHT this time.

Is it a crime to be silent? The answer is apparently yes, according to Howard French and the NYT, if you are "several of China's leading editors," and the occasion is Dongzhou.

Is there anything materially or ethically wrong about this story? Not really, as far as I can tell, apart from the wrong spelling of Hu Shuli's ("Hu Xuli" according to this story) name, after the NYT has profiled her several times and quoted her Caijing Magazine several dozen times every year. The quote from the Renmin University journalism professor ("The Central Propaganda Department must have instructed ...." ) is bad but passable. After working so long in China, Mr. French should've been able to find someone to go beyond the "must have." But that's beside the point really.

My sympathy goes to fellow journalists Fang Sanwen and Li Shanyou, two of the "leading editors".

When approached by French about why his Netease.com news site didn't run that particular piece of news, Fang replied, "We don't have this news on our Web site. I can't speak. I hope you can understand."

"I'm not the right person to answer this question," said Li Shanyou, editor in chief of Sohu.com. "It's not very convenient to comment on this."

OK. Fang sounds pathetic and Li sounds fishy. Is it just me or does anyone else feel the NYT wasn't being kind enough to two fellow journalists? Not in the sense that he didn't quote their words truthfully -- my gut tells me he did. But is it necessary to use their names, if they weren't able to give any concrete answers? To me, a simple line like "Chief news editors at two of China's leading Web portals declined to comment on why that piece of news was absent from their sites" would suffice.

What's the value of naming each of China's three major Web portals and painstakingly point out that they didn't do anything about it and didn't have anything to say in explanation either?

Mr. French couldn't get any sound explanation from anyone. But he sure as hell knows, as everybody does, that the Central Propaganda Department is behind all this. How does he prove it? He names each and every one of those who couldn't tell him anything. Combined with the lame quote from the university professor, this constitutes what I would call lousy journalism.

Being Chinese, I could tell Fang was trying to be helpful but obviously it was beyond his power. And whatever little information he gave the NYT could reflect badly on him and his employer when this news clipping went to someone's desk this morning. Everybody could tell this is a very sensitive story, and it doesn't take a veteran China hand to figure out that any Chinese journalists caught with their names on record speaking to the New York Times about this could face some form of retaliation.

Maybe I am being hypersensitive or unreasonable. But I believe by giving all the details about who they are, the NYT exposes them to unnecessary risk, even though they didn't say anything.