In Hong Kong, politics is a topic that fills many pages of our many dailies and internet discussion forums. One could even argue that political gossip columns sell as well as celebrity gossip columns. But when it comes to television and radio, it is only discussed in specific programmes: current affairs and talk shows. So it's not too surprising that there has been so much mudslinging over Commercial Radio's selling of airtime to both the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and to Democratic Party vice-chairwoman Emily Lau Wai-hing. Politics, like religion, can turn otherwise cool-headed people red in the face, screaming bloody murder. Some say it's like religion - a private matter that's 'nobody else's business'. Last week, we found one thing that gets our blood boiling more than mere politics: political advertising.
But isn't disseminating political views and values the 'business' of political parties? And is it not true that broadcasters, without receiving public funding, have only airtime to sell to keep themselves in business? Is this not a match made in heaven in simple supply and demand?
Advertising of 'a political nature' cannot be broadcast without the Broadcasting Authority's approval, according to Clause 28 of the Radio Code of Practice on Advertising Standards. But curiously, no one raised an eyebrow last February when Commercial Radio sold airtime - at a price of HK$160,000 - and aired four episodes of a government-sponsored programme in which Secretary for Development Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor explained urban renewal policies. Given that the government's business is politics, if a minister paying for airtime to explain politics is not advertising of a political nature, then what is?
When Lau's HK$38,000, 10-second 'time check' radio clip was first broadcast last week, there was no uproar. It was not until the DAB announced the airing of its sponsored Commercial Radio programme - believed to cost about HK$500,000 - that some people began having 'problems' with it.
RTHK's current affairs programmes, as expected, were all over the issue since it involved its main competitor. RTHK, the closest entity we have to a public broadcaster here, would, of course, have problems with it; it can't sell advertising.
But what is truly mind-boggling is how the politicians reacted. The DAB did not make a fuss about Lau's paid clips - once every two hours - when they first aired. Only after it was criticised did the DAB decide Lau's clip was 'propaganda'. Lau herself was at the forefront of those condemning the DAB's sponsorship even though she herself also bought air time - which seems just a tad hypocritical. The League of Social Democrats was, as expected, quick to slam its political opponent but was very 'okay' with Lau's investment. What happened to fairness, equality and all the nice things it claims ownership of? Independent lawmaker Cyd Ho Sau-lan went as far as vowing to 'monitor' the sponsored programme. We are talking about 'monitoring' the media, right? Like communist states monitoring their news outlets?