Opinion | No such thing as 'balanced' media freedom
Michael Chugani says the proposed requirement of elusive editorial 'balance' in TV and radio programmes is unneeded interference
What exactly is a balanced view? In my view, there is no such thing. By saying that, am I being unbalanced? What is a biased editorial? Again, no such thing. Editorials are, by nature, biased. They reflect the views of the writer or newspaper. A view can never be balanced because not everyone will share it and those who don't will say it is unbalanced.
Yet, this week, Hong Kong entered the slippery slope of letting the government define balanced views on TV and radio. What's so bizarre is that it raised no outcry even though, a week earlier, Hongkongers had united to declare media freedom sacrosanct following the savage attack on former chief editor Kevin Lau Chun-to.
A Communications Authority committee proposed that TV and radio licensees and their decision-making executives who express views through editorials or programmes must give airtime to opponents for the sake of balance. How will the authority decide if balance has been breached?
Supposing ATV airs an editorial saying Occupy Central would destroy Hong Kong. Must the station then give equal time to the organisers to say they're not hurting Hong Kong? How to decide which opinions warrant equal time? If every opinion does, wouldn't that turn TV stations into debating platforms?
It is widely known that Fox News reflects heavily the conservative views of owner Rupert Murdoch while CNN takes a liberal view. American conservative talk radio stations have no opposing views for balance. Does the US government meddle? No. Viewers decide which station to choose.
Already, our election rules dictate that when broadcasters interview one candidate, they must interview all others in the same constituency, including fringe candidates with no hope of winning. Editors should decide what is news, not the government.
