After the Huawei incident, Andy Purdy, chief security officer of Huawei’s U.S. division, was all resolved in the face of several rounds of “fire-gathering” in the U.S. media. This week,” a Wall Street Journal report on Huawei’s misrepresentation caused the Us. media to “self-inflicted.” Although Huawei has responded to the report, CNBC News on the 27th of this month again invited Perdi as a guest editor, asking the latter to clarify the content of the report.
During the interview, however, CNBC repeatedly interrupted the guest’s remarks. The host even ignored Purdy’s statement, convinced that the mainstream Media in the United States was reporting, saying, “I don’t agree with (Purdy’s remarks) anyway.”
This practice caused some netizens to be outraged. Some people said that the mainstream media in the United States in Hong Kong has been “turned over” many times, the host actually wrote back. Others are referring to last year’s well-known Bloomberg “Chipgate” report, calling it another political campaign by the mainstream Media in the United States.
The Wall Street Journal’s December 25 issue again touts Huawei’s “government background”. “Long-term search for Huawei fruitless” U.S. media, one after another to praise this loophole article, self-confessed finally found a “real hammer”: CNBC host said at the opening, “The Wall Street Journal” this report, “can be called the news of the year.”
The moderator first asked: Huawei did enjoy policy support from the Chinese government, but Huawei still thinks the Wall Street Journal report is based on the wrong information.
CNBC Host Video Screenshot
Mr. Purdy responded that if you read the Wall Street Journal report, you’ll understand why so many American politicians are biased against Huawei. That’s why Huawei needs to tell the U.S. government the truth.
The truth is, the Wall Street Journal itself says, that Cisco, the Us. company, receives about $46 billion a year from the U.S. government;
The truth is, Huawei didn’t take $75 billion in subsidies, and the Wall Street Journal exaggerated the amount;
The truth is that in 2005 and 2011, Chinese domestic banks issued several credit lines to Huawei’s customers. This is not issued by the Chinese government, nor is the beneficiary of Huawei;
The truth is that Huawei has applied for only a small part of its research and development and revenue from Chinese government-related subsidies. “If you consider these points, the Wall Street Journal’s claim that ‘huge subsidies from the Chinese government’ is unfair. “
Mr. Purdy’s response was in line with, and was complemented by Huawei’s official response to the Observer. The CNBC host did not continue the topic, instead talking about “whether Huawei has plagiarized intellectual property rights in the end”, and immediately launched a “guilty verdict” against Huawei.
Another female presenter seemed to think there was no need to discuss it, saying: “Andy, you work for Huawei, and they blatantly plagiarize all kinds of intellectual property, it’s too obvious.” Huawei is the worst intellectual property plagiarist. If the rebuttal comes from Huawei, it sounds too weak. “
Another CNBC host.
Purdy responded: “What you said is not true. If you look at the litigation documents between the company and the company in the past, you will find that there are indeed many companies suspected of plagiarizing each other’s intellectual property rights…”
Before he finished, the host snapped: “So you mean other companies also steal intellectual property.” But Huawei is the biggest plagiarists. “
“I understand your position, and I understand the position of the U.S. government. But if you look at the objective information and analyze these cases, none of you are true. Mr Purdy hit back: “No court has ruled that Huawei should pay the fine. Many documents also show that Huawei did not pay the settlement fee and did not have to pay for it. “
The moderator again took out the Wall Street Journal article, indicating: This is not all written. Andy tried to clarify, but in the end the host came up with the words: “As far as I can see and hear, I don’t agree (you said it). “