I would be amazed if anybody, especially professionals and academics, would disagree that the mass media must be impartial, fair and accurate in news reporting and documentaries. I note recently that many people have criticized the Broadcasting Authority's ruling against RTHK's documentary“Gay Lovers”. As the appellant, I would like to give you an alternative analysis for reference.
Some commentators challenged the BA on the point of "impartiality". For example, Mr. LEUNG Man-to (梁文道) argued that any documentary on the elderly would then need to be balanced by a report on the youngsters as well in order to comply with BA's ruling. Similarly, Mr. NG Chi-sum (吳志森) criticized that any documentary on local poor people would then need to interview the rich as a result. Unfortunately, they have purposely confused fair reporting, i.e. let vested parties air their views with indiscriminate and impartial coverage. Otherwise, the consequence can be dire.
Take for example the selling of oil fish as cod recently by the PARKnSHOP. Since the issue is whether PARKnSHOP has mislabeled their products and done so purposely, being impartial, fair and accurate would entail letting the alleged culprit explain fully its actions and the government to state its viewpoint. If the issue is however: “How many local shops have made a similar malpractice?”, then Wellcome, CRC and even the average local fish stalls should have been accounted for by both the relevant authority and the press. The test for impartiality in the foregoing issues is: Will it affect the impartiality or create any partiality by including or excluding somebody (something) in an issue? If the answer is yes, we must make the remedy accordingly. Otherwise, there is no point to puff up the issue involved with such inclusion (or exclusion).
Another example is the allegation of Iraq possessing weapons of massive destruction in 2002. Prior to the U.S. led invasion(or whatever you may like to call it), the press in the west mainly aired the western world's biased–in hindsight–assertion. It not only deprived the most important concerned party, Iraq, of her right to a fair rebuttal, it also victimized her through partial fabrications, alas, by a supposedly enquiring press turned all-knowing! How would surveying the whole world but leaving out Iraq help us understand reality? How would the world be different if impartiality had been upheld in the press such as when the UN investigator Mr. Hans Blix's findings were much more honored? Our society can certainly benefit from impartial opinion leaders – not opinion makers!
Let me conclude that no one in Hong Kong could deny gay lovers of their legitimate rights. Nevertheless, are we ready to cope with the consequences of legalizing gay marriages hastily? Besides the risk and problems of AIDS, what about children's parental rights, family re-union across the boarder, … etc? How can we ensure that the core values of marriage between one man and one woman, enshrined in HK since its founding, be protected? Let's not forget the consequences of the CHONG Fung Yuen Case (FACV No. 26 of 2000) when Mr. Timothy Tong's earlier prediction does not work out as another example.
Howard
Some commentators challenged the BA on the point of "impartiality". For example, Mr. LEUNG Man-to (梁文道) argued that any documentary on the elderly would then need to be balanced by a report on the youngsters as well in order to comply with BA's ruling. Similarly, Mr. NG Chi-sum (吳志森) criticized that any documentary on local poor people would then need to interview the rich as a result. Unfortunately, they have purposely confused fair reporting, i.e. let vested parties air their views with indiscriminate and impartial coverage. Otherwise, the consequence can be dire.
Take for example the selling of oil fish as cod recently by the PARKnSHOP. Since the issue is whether PARKnSHOP has mislabeled their products and done so purposely, being impartial, fair and accurate would entail letting the alleged culprit explain fully its actions and the government to state its viewpoint. If the issue is however: “How many local shops have made a similar malpractice?”, then Wellcome, CRC and even the average local fish stalls should have been accounted for by both the relevant authority and the press. The test for impartiality in the foregoing issues is: Will it affect the impartiality or create any partiality by including or excluding somebody (something) in an issue? If the answer is yes, we must make the remedy accordingly. Otherwise, there is no point to puff up the issue involved with such inclusion (or exclusion).
Another example is the allegation of Iraq possessing weapons of massive destruction in 2002. Prior to the U.S. led invasion(or whatever you may like to call it), the press in the west mainly aired the western world's biased–in hindsight–assertion. It not only deprived the most important concerned party, Iraq, of her right to a fair rebuttal, it also victimized her through partial fabrications, alas, by a supposedly enquiring press turned all-knowing! How would surveying the whole world but leaving out Iraq help us understand reality? How would the world be different if impartiality had been upheld in the press such as when the UN investigator Mr. Hans Blix's findings were much more honored? Our society can certainly benefit from impartial opinion leaders – not opinion makers!
Let me conclude that no one in Hong Kong could deny gay lovers of their legitimate rights. Nevertheless, are we ready to cope with the consequences of legalizing gay marriages hastily? Besides the risk and problems of AIDS, what about children's parental rights, family re-union across the boarder, … etc? How can we ensure that the core values of marriage between one man and one woman, enshrined in HK since its founding, be protected? Let's not forget the consequences of the CHONG Fung Yuen Case (FACV No. 26 of 2000) when Mr. Timothy Tong's earlier prediction does not work out as another example.
Howard
沒有留言:
張貼留言