Hong Kong journalists are ambivalent about the future of their profession, a poll on press freedom and the media shows. The survey, conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong's Journalism and Communication Department, reveals that while journalists treasure professional values such as neutrality and press freedom, they also feel themselves under pressure not to offend the rich and powerful. Of the 553 journalists who responded to the poll, a majority declined to express a view on some political issues: the reaction of 56.2 per cent and 49.2 per cent respectively was neutral towards the propositions that 'Hong Kong's future is getting better and better' and 'The concept of 'one country, two systems' is workable'. Objectivity still ranks high as a notional virtue among journalists, 57.7 per cent of respondents resisting the idea that 'in pursuing ideals journalists may not have to be neutral'; 18.8 per cent voiced no opinion either way. A clear majority - 81.9 per cent - disagreed with the suggestion that the news media should not expose too much of the seamier elements of society in order to maintain stability and prosperity. These replies emphasise that Hong Kong journalists regard impartiality and the freedom to report as very important facets of their professionalism. This being the case, presumably the same journalists should be going all out to defend these principles; their other replies indicate they are not. Half the respondents believed most journalists were hesitant about criticising the Chinese Government, and 21 per cent admitted they themselves have been hesitant. Perhaps more surprisingly, 36.7 per cent of the respondents said they believed most journalists were hesitant to criticise big business, although a significantly lower proportion, about 12.5 per cent, conceded they were wary of doing so. The body journalists were afraid to criticise above all was the Hong Kong Government. About 77 per cent of respondents disputed that most journalists hesitated to criticise the Government, the same level of fearlessness as the journalists claimed for themselves. Why the conflict between professional theory and practice? A simple answer, perhaps, is that some media organisations or journalists find offending the rich and powerful more threatening to their survival than sacrificing part of their professional values. They may fear that in retaliation for upsetting China, Beijing will boycott 'naughty' journalists and media, denying them access of all sorts of information and news activities. Provoking big business could be equally detrimental to a news organisation. Without good access to news sources, the media are worried that their reporting strength will be undermined and their competitiveness in the circulation-boosting stakes eroded. And a decline in advertising funds is certainly threatening to the financial news organisations' well-being as it is their main source of income. On balance, most media organisations and journalists would probably conclude that sacrificing a little of their professional values is tolerable so as to maintain a reasonable level of contacts with prominent newsmakers. This may sound a pragmatic policy, but in the longer term the danger is that the media will lose credibility and authority as a check on the establishment. The media are indeed hemmed in by constraints and pressures at this difficult time of transition but, in the face of all their difficulties, they should not lose sight of their fundamental duty to the people, to report without fear and bias. Let us never forget that the last bulwark sustaining the media are the people they serve.
