DaVinci allegations raise questions about integrity of Chinese reporting
Those following the DaVinci Furniture scandal in China may have noticed some interesting developments in the story.
The retailer, originally accused of selling Chinese-made furniture it marketed as Italian-made, said the TV reporter that first broke the story blackmailed DaVinci by taking an estimated $150,000 for not publishing more negative reports about the company.
This indeed is a serious charge that taints not just the reporter with China Central Television, but also other Chinese news organizations. As the New York Times and other news outlets have reported previously, some Chinese news outlets have promised to kill negative stories in return for large cash payments. Others have reportedly accepted cash payments in exchange for favorable coverage.
The CCTV reporter, as expected, denied these claims and a spokesperson for the state-owned CCTV did not return a comment for the Times story. Thus, it becomes uncertain who, in fact, is telling the truth here, particularly as there was also a middleman involved in the alleged extortion. DaVinci released audiotapes to Chinese business publication Caixin that included conversations with the middleman involving the alleged transaction.
While such tapes could be seen as further evidence against the CCTV reporter, it doesn't necessarily weaken the case against DaVinci. That's because a government agency that investigated the original claims found evidence that DaVinci was in fact selling Chinese-made furniture billed as Italian-made. Such misrepresentation to consumers resulted in a $211,000 fine against the company. The government also has taken the retailer to task for selling products that did not meet certain quality standards.
Still, the allegations against the reporter are troubling, particularly for journalists who want to pursue the truth versus financial gain. How does all this change your view of the DaVinci case?
Sam Walton commented:
Since when does furniture today get off questioning journalism ethics! You guys cowtow to the almighty Chinese dollar because that is who is paying for advertising in Furniture Yesterday. This industry is no different from the used car business, and I don't mean Carmax. Marketing companies like Kincaid talk about sustainability. The crap is made in china. Yet they claim to be American made! His is all BS
Industry Veteran commented:
I strongly agree with Arnee Isashamed regarding the 4 Hands knock off of the Fritz Hansen Egg chair. When I saw that, it struck me as odd that this publication would use that picture to illustrate its article. But then again perhaps it is just one more example of its uneducated journalists. It would not be the first time. Responsible journalism would demand that the author should comment on why he chose that picture. Don't get yourself too upset about DaVinci when an American owned company makes such an obvious knock off of an iconic Danish Design. Restoration Hardware has done the same thing in its truly ugly knock off of the same chair. The pot calls the kettle black.
Kai commented:
I am curious what the author is referring to as "certain quality standards." I was under the impression that third party investigation audited for standards, European and American.
arnee isashamed commented:
Furn tdy should not promote copies like 4 hands egg chair by the great designer arne jacobsen stiil in production in denmark,copies should not be given any face time,when will this industry wake up to protection of designers and the blatant repos thrown out as fresh looks.copy copy copy
quin chao fat commented:
Seems like a small fine for the amount that they most Likely sold. this type of under the radar reporting and graft is normal in china and the people who own the factory and inspectors for epa type org. are all corrupt every one of them money buys anything in china, there is no escape everyone is double dipping .will implode soon in a wave of pollution and overbuilding.
