@Ludwig

Omission is different from distortion.

I'm not defending the editor's original omission of 高行健 nor his subsequent attempt to hide the mistake, but my point is that I don't think he did it intentionally to efface the memory of dissidents, which was the point you implied by using the word collude.

I also don't think I misunderstood you with respect to your statement (and undertone) on how GK avoids anything controversial. I think you conflated your preference and expectation of what GK should be with what it appropriately and ethically should be.

Again, I respect your opinions and I understand your frustration, I just don't like to see GK being scapegoated for a bunch of socio-political issues that it really has no power to influence.

Ludwig, I completely respect your desire to maintain journalistic integrity. It too, frustrates me when societies impose collective amnesia for people and events that don't align with the existing power structure.

However, there are a couple of serious accusations you implied that might deserve more explanation than the subtext of you preferring the previous owners. "Colluding" implies a position of activism, that GK *actively* participates in effacing the memory of dissidents as opposed to it being the unfortunate by-product of a journalistic error. This distinction is important because it presents the issue as one of quality vs corruption, the latter being detrimental to the core credibility of this media outlet, and such things should never be implied without proof.

Secondly, media outlets vary in terms of coverage, New York Times rarely overlap the content I read on Gawkers for example, different target audience, different focal point. I don't think GK ever positioned itself as a source of hard hitting investigative journalism into the politics of China, but rather a hub for information that's mostly relevant for travelers and expats - pretty lighthearted in most cases. If it's a matter of content and the direction of the new site, I respect your position. But again, by saying GK avoids anything remotely controversial implies subterfuge, which is probably the most reproachable offense in journalism. Can you substantiate this?

Bottom line, I see why you're frustrated, I just think measure and care need to be taken when it comes to statements that could destroy a news organization.