Content to heed the master's voice?
Is it really objectionable for the government to use anonymous background briefings to talk about new government policies? What is the administration doing now that makes critics suddenly speak so strongly - as they did last week - against meetings that have long been a feature of the local news scene?
Those who have worked in Hong Kong's media for a while will be familiar with these sessions. They have been used in parallel with formal press conferences to give more in-depth information to senior journalists. And they were also occasionally used to sound out public receptiveness to proposals and plans, especially those expected to be controversial.
Today, there appears to be a new dimension to the game, as pointed out in this newspaper last week. Instead of supplementing the on-the-record press conferences, they have been used to replace proper, formal press briefings in which officials can be questioned publicly.
The new approach has been used in relation to a number of controversial policies such as the smoking ban, plans for a central slaughterhouse and the government's Tamar development plan. An official said that the government cannot always elaborate in detail about its rationale for policies during on-the-record sessions. The media could ask more detailed questions at briefings with officials who cannot be named in stories, he said.
That explanation would only be credible if the background briefings were conducted in addition to proper press conferences. But that is not being done. So, what is the real reason for the new approach? Apart from a strong desire to avoid subjecting themselves to public scrutiny, the officials may simply be trying to tame the media, critics say.
Some officials may have found the background briefings so convenient - and so well received by individual journalists - that they forget the public has a natural and legitimate expectation to hear officials explain their policies and plans.
But why are these private media briefings objectionable, and why don't more media organisations complain about the practice? It seems that those in the inner circle don't want to jeopardise their relationship for fear that they would not be invited to future meetings. And those who are excluded might soften their criticism of the government in the hope of being included in future.
Cynics fear that the practice is nurturing a new generation of journalists, who will stop exercising their judgment and are content to be spoon-fed by the government. Further, they worry that this will erode the role of the media as a government watchdog. To critics, this is blatant manipulation and should not be tolerated.
That sounds fair, but should the government be the only one blamed? It takes two to tango. Going to such briefings is not a problem: it only becomes one if journalists, once given the information, feel too indebted to the source to write anything critical.
The government seems to be monopolising the information market. Even legislators often learn about political developments by reading about them in the media. There is a vicious circle at work here. If the media considers the government the only convenient source of information, and stops looking for it elsewhere, it will fail to set the news agenda - and will be controlled by the government's lead on what to report.
Fanny Wong is a public affairs consultant and political commentator in Hong Kong
