Earlier this month, the editor of the South China Morning Post, Jonathan Fenby, wrote a fiery article in The Observer, the London newspaper which he once edited, taking to task critics of the Post whom he said were 'malevolent and contemptuous of reality'.
Fenby's ire was aroused by reports in Britain and the United States about a new recruit at the Post, Feng Xiliang, who is the paper's 'consultant'.
Feng, an urbane Shanghainese in his mid-70s, is one of the founding editors of the China Daily, an official English-language mainland newspaper. He has also worked for Window, a pro-Beijing magazine which folded last year. Many suspect he is a member of the Chinese Communist Party.
The fact Feng occupies an office opposite Fenby's has sparked rumours that he would replace him. This was hotly denied by Fenby, who said: 'A consultant is a consultant is a consultant.' However journalists at the paper said Fenby apparently was not consulted on Feng's appointment.
When approached by foreign correspondents, I remarked that hiring a pro-Beijing consultant is controversial because what is at stake is the newspaper's credibility. If people dismiss it as the 'New China Morning Post ', what is left? In the media, the story failed to ignite any interest. It was only written up by a few columnists in one or two Chinese-language newspapers.
After my remarks appeared in foreign newspapers, I received a letter from Fenby, in which he accused me of bad mouthing his newspaper.