【新唐人2013年04月18日訊】美國波士頓馬拉松爆炸案發生後，迅速成為大陸各大媒體的頭版頭條，關注程度甚至超過了正在中國大陸肆虐的H7N9禽流感事件。於此同時，大陸微博上則出現了大量關於中美兩國處理同類事件上不同態度的熱議，越來越多的中國網民認為，美國的信息和言論透明度讓中共當局望塵莫及。網民設想，如果爆炸發生在中國，將會出現完全相反的處理方式和輿論導向。
當地時間週一下午3點，美國波士頓正在進行的馬拉松賽現場，發生了爆炸案，有2枚炸彈被引爆。造成3人死亡，176人受傷，其中17人傷勢嚴重。
爆炸案發生後，美國向全世界展示了全民反恐的精神和意志，其中，政府、媒體、企業、公民的良性互動及凝聚力，令中國民眾為之震動。
美國各大網站、電視臺滾動直播，沒有宣傳口徑和媒體禁令；官方立即召開新聞發佈會，並頻頻更新，反應快捷信息透明，因而也就沒有謠言和恐慌。
美國紐約市民瀋先生：「這件事情發生以後，全國的媒體都做了第一時間的報導，把人民的安全和社會的安定是作為第一考慮的，而且不管事情發生到怎麼樣一個嚴重程度，總是通過媒體通過電視明明白白告訴給全國人民的，也告訴世界人民，所以中國人民也馬上也就知道這件事情了。」
網友指出，同類事件如果發生在中國，中共則會有完全不同的處理方式和結果。
美國紐約市民瀋先生：「它（中共）會把這個事情拖的很久很久，然後說我們一直在調查中，然後它再給你一種似是而非的一種說法了 中共會按照它的邏輯思維來考慮，怎麼樣把這件事情說的圓滿，對它有利而給以評述、給予結論，是以黨的利益為首要的。」
鄭州市民侯先生：「它肯定會封鎖消息、保密的，然後在那個城市裏面派大量軍警去戒嚴，即使是公共事件也不會大幅的報導，它怕引起社會的恐慌，」
中國網友無憂：「他們可能會控制這個消息的發佈，避免老百姓來指責政府處置的不利。即使報導，恐怕按我們的經驗還是突出黨和政府怎樣的積極，所謂的把壞事當好事來報導，肯定還是這種思路。」
對待受難的民眾，美國總統歐巴馬在第一時間發表聲明，升級全國安保措施，誓言緝拿兇手；美國國會大廈立刻降半旗，悼念爆炸案死難者。在危機時刻，國家與公民第一時間聯繫在一起。
鄭州市民侯先生：「美國政府要為美國老百姓負責，出了這種事情他一定要給老百姓一個交代。」
美國紐約市民瀋先生：「美國也以國家的安全考慮，但更多的是考慮全體人民的財產安全的問題。」
而在中國，每次發生重大的公共事件，中共當局處理方式和對百姓的態度上，都讓民眾很不滿意甚至感到心寒，政府公信力和地位在民眾心中也每況愈下，直到跌入谷底。
中國網友無憂：「他們對受害者並不會真正去將心比心去體諒，而是把他們作為一種道具來展示黨和政府光輝形象的道具。」
鄭州市民侯先生：「在中國就不一樣了，中國這種官民對立，老百姓仇視政府，政府也從來不考慮老百姓。」
原河北人民廣播電臺編輯朱欣欣指出，造成這一系列差別的根本原因就是兩國政治體制的不同。
原河北人民廣播電臺編輯朱欣欣：「民主制度是首先是選民的政治，一切事情都要為選民服務，要為人民負責，所以很多事情它得公開，同時媒體也不是執政黨控制，也有自己的獨立性。在中國不行，中國各方面言論媒體都是一黨專政控制，報導的時候媒體沒有自主權，完全沒有自己的權力，所以中國的媒體完全不是真正的媒體，就是個宣傳的工具，這一點中共自己都承認。」
受訪者一致認為，中國的專制政治制度是以中共利益為最高原則，所有的資源都要為這個體制服務。中共官員的權力來源不是來自於百姓，因此不會考慮民眾的利益，只會更加關注如何鞏固權力和控制社會。而民主國家的權力來自於人民，民意的約制代替了集權專政，這就是中美兩國的最大不同。
採訪/易如 編輯/張天宇 後制/
Suppose Boston Marathon Bombings Had Occurred in China …
Bomb explosions at the Boston Marathon quickly became
major media headlines in China.
The news has diverted public attention from
the raging H7N9 bird flu.
Meanwhile, China’s netizens began a heated discussion
on how differently authorities’are dealing with the incident
in the U.S. and in China.
More netizens hold that in information transparency,
the U.S. beats the Chinese Communist Party hollow.
Netizens believe that if the explosions had occurred in China,
the media coverage would be totally the opposite.
On April 15 at 3pm local time,
two explosions occurred at the Boston Marathon.
Three people were killed, 176 people were wounded,
with 17 seriously injured.
After the bombings, the U.S. showed anti-terrorism resolve.
What was demonstrated was positive interaction and
cohesion by the government, media, business and citizens.
Major US web portals and TV channels
kept updating news on the issue.
There were no restrictions on news report,
and neither had bans on media reports.
The U.S. official news conference
was held immediately.
The public have been kept informed with the latest news.
Being quick and transparent, there are no rumors or panic.
(New Yorker) Mr. Shen: “After it happened, national
media broadcasted the incident as early as they could.
People’s safety and social stability
was prioritized.
No matter how severe the situation has evolved,
the media has informed the public clearly and precisely.
So the Chinese people could also
hear the news immediately."
Netizens commented that if a similar incident
had occurred in China,
how the CCP authorities dealt with it
would have been totally different.
Mr. Shen: “It ( the CCP ) would have put off dealing with it.
Next, it would have claimed the investigation had started.
And then, it would give the public a specious statement.
The CCP would have focused on how to exploit
the incident so as to serve the Party’s interest."
(Zhengzhou citizen) Mr. Hou:
“Firstly, it would definitely have blocked the news.
Then, a large number of police would have been sent
to the city to implement martial law.
It wouldn’t have permitted massive reporting
on the issue, for fear of causing public panic."
(Chinese netizen) Wu You:"Media reports on the news
would have been restrained, so as to avoid public criticism.
If news reporting had been allowed, I’m afraid media would
have highlighted how the Party and the government had positively reacted to such an emergency.
The media would have used the incident to
eulogize the authorities, this is their normal way."
U.S. President Barack Obama declared the
upgrading of domestic security measures and the seeking out of the perpetrators.
The U.S. flag was lowered at the U.S. Capitol to
honor the bombing victims in Boston.
At times of crisis, the state takes the side of its citizens.
(Zhengzhou citizen) Mr. Hou:"The U.S. government is
responsible, and will surely give an explanation to the American people."
(New Yorker) Mr. Shen: “The U.S. government
cares about national security.
But is even more concerned about citizens’
property and safety."
In China, when any major public event occurs,
the CCP authorities’ way of handling the issue and
the official attitude towards civilians is chilling to the public.
As a result, in public minds, the regime’s credibility
and status are getting worse.
(Chinese netizen) Wu You: “They won’t
sympathize with the victims in their hearts.
Instead, they use those victims as stage props to
display the glorious image of the Party and government."
(Zhengzhou citizen) Mr. Hou:
“In China, it would be different.
There exists an opposition between
the officials and ordinary folks.
Civilians are hostile to the government, and
the government has never cared about the people."
Zhu Xinxin, ex-editor at Hebei state radio station, comments.
The reason behind such a contrast is the different
political systems in both countries, he says.
Zhu Xinxin:"First of all, democracy is voters’politics,
Everything should serve the voters.
The government should work for the people,
and make public any information.
Meanwhile, media should exist independently,
and cannot be controlled by a political party.
Today in China, the Party completely controls media.
So China’s media isn’t media in a real sense,
but a propaganda tool, which the CCP has openly admitted."
The interviewees all agree that China’s authoritarian
political system prioritizes the CCP’s interests.
All resources serve this political system.
The CCP officials are not empowered by the people,
so they won’t speak for civilians’interests.
Rather, they have become more concerned about
how to cement the power in their hands, how to control society.
Whilst in democratic countries,
state power comes from the people,
and a public watchdog replaces a totalitarian dictatorship.
This is the biggest difference for the U.S. and China.
