The controversy over paid political programmes on Commercial Radio is rapidly spinning out of control. Critics have been slamming the programmes sponsored by the pro-government Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and, thus, affecting their production. Meanwhile, the station's director of strategic planning, Vincent Wong Wing, has been inconsistent in his explanations, raising more questions than answers. This is prompting many to fear that the station could be facing the worst management crisis in its history.
Unfortunately, the DAB has been dragged into the political storm and has become a major target for those who are determined to challenge the government's broadcasting policy. I worked for this highly reputable station many years ago and am still in the broadcasting industry. My concern is that it should handle this mess properly, avoiding potentially disastrous consequences.
No spokesmen except Wong have addressed the issue since the controversy began, and his comments have been causing a lot of damage. The most surprising part of all this is that the station seems to have knowingly broken the law, which requires the Broadcasting Authority's approval to put advertisements of a political nature on the air. This is not what we would expect from a 50-year-old company with a long history of good practice and sound principles. But no one in senior management seems to have noticed the nature of the crisis. Wong should not be allowed to continue to do and say whatever he pleases, because he will end up ripping the station's reputation to shreds.
When the dispute began, Wong strongly denied that any political sponsoring or political advertising was involved. His explanation was that the DAB is not a registered political party; therefore its sponsorship is not political in nature. That's like saying a white horse is not a horse, which is absurd and childish.
When asked if the decision to sell the airtime had been profit-driven, Wong tried to shirk his responsibility by saying it was decided by the advertising department. He stressed that all programming would remain independent from commercial influence. This was all very incoherent, as if he didn't know what editorial independence meant.
Advertising is advertising, whether the packaging is soft or hard. To maintain editorial independence, advertisements must not be allowed to interfere with programming and editorial direction.