The media and politics: a balancing act
The Chinese-language Apple Daily caused a stir in December when it published a pullout saying 'oppose draconian law' on the day a major rally against Article 23 was held. Scenes of protesters holding copies of the black posters significantly boosted the visual impact of the rally.
On July 1, the power of advocacy journalism was again on full display when the newspaper founded by businessman Jimmy Lai Chee-ying published another giveaway of the protest poster and a set of stickers before a rally attended by at least 500,000 people. The poster said: '[We] don't want Tung Chee-hwa.' The protest posters became a smash at the historic march.
On the following day, the newspaper carried a front-page headline saying: 'Long live Hong Kong people'.
The unconventional approach of the mass-circulation daily in handling political news received as many compliments from supporters as curses from critics.
Against the backdrop of a society increasingly divided, some readers are anxious to know what the issues are about and where the newspaper stands on controversies, particularly politics. For those who have become distrustful of the government and politicians, they look to the media as the medium for them to influence policies and politics.
Critics, however, have questioned whether newspapers such as the Apple Daily and radio talk-show hosts, including Wong Yuk-man, have gone too far and failed to attain fairness and objectivity. Mr Wong, a former journalism professor, took the stage of the June 4 vigil and called on people to participate in the July 1 rally.
Some pro-communist figures have lambasted what they described as 'pro-democracy' media and journalists for breaching their impartiality by calling on people, directly or discreetly, to join the demonstration against the National Security Bill. They claimed the political activism of journalists had a significant influence on the massive turnout on July 1 and July 9. A local deputy of the National People's Congress, Ma Lik, has criticised some media for inciting people to demonstrate.
The phenomenal influence of the media in the Article 23 controversy reflected the more powerful role it has come to play in Hong Kong's political process in the past few years. The latest example was its prominent role in the Sars crisis. Baptist University journalism professor To Yiu-ming has cited as a case in point the strong role played by the media in getting people to wear masks as the outbreak worsened.
Commercial Radio's Teacup in a Storm, co-hosted by Albert Cheng King-hon and Peter Lam Yuk-wah, emerged as an emergency forum for panic-stricken frontline health-care workers to complain against maladministration, such as shortages of protective outfits.
If there the Sars crisis and the Article 23 controversy have anything in common, it is the failure of the institutions to connect and respond to the aspirations and needs of people, therefore leaving a wide and important gap to be filled by the media.
Not surprisingly, advocacy journalism has and will be dismissed as unprofessional and unethical by traditionalists in the media sector and society at large. They have failed to take account of the political changes in Hong Kong as it moves towards a democratic and participatory civil society.
In addition to their demand for full and accurate information, the public will be increasingly looking to the media for viewpoints and critical analysis on the dynamics and undercurrents of political and policy issues.
Senior news executives at the Chinese-language Ming Pao might have chosen the wrong time to raise an internal debate about the 'do's and don'ts' for journalists on matters such as public rallies on the eve of the July 1 rally.
As Hong Kong treads on the path of democracy and party politics, the role of media and journalists in politics will become an increasingly sensitive and practical issue for more soul-searching and cool-headed debate.
Chris Yeung is the Post's Editor-at-Large
