星期四, 2月 01, 2007
Impartiality, Fairness and Accuracy
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
星期一, 1月 29, 2007
每日一語：持平
持平，中肯和真確的報導一向被視為新聞自由的立足點，然而，最近就廣管局裁定香港電台「鏗鏘集」抵觸了現行的廣播條例，並向其發出強烈勸諭，要求香港電台必須嚴格遵守相關的持平要求，就引來諸多怪論，說如果要按照廣管局的標準，豈非凡拍攝老人特輯時都要同時訪問兒童和青少年才能持平嗎？又或說拍攝貧窮子弟時都要找來富有人家來平衡嗎？當然不是！
持平的意義雖然簡單，但其實際應用卻存在著一定的技術和處境性，以伊拉克被指擁有大殺傷力武器為例，大家應該還記得在美國向伊開戰前的西方媒體，差不多都是一面倒的報導美國中情局所搜集到的證據，而伊拉克自己以至聯合國檢查員布克利斯先生 (Hans Blix)的聲明和報告卻被忽略，這就是不持平或偏頗的一個實例。明顯地，伊拉克政府和人民因而承受了莫大的傷害和痛苦！直至今天，伊拉克境內的炸彈事件和人命傷亡真是無日無之。
那我們應如何決定某一報導手法是否持平呢？這亦不太困難，因為我們可以發問：「在報導中我們採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物會否影響報導的持平性，又或是否會導致偏頗呢？」以拍攝老人專輯為例，一般當然不需同時採訪青少年和兒童群體，除非報導亦涉及後者的權利或義務；同理，若拍攝某地的貧苦現狀，一般亦不需要同時訪問當地的富豪來作出平衡的。
另一例就是近期百佳超市的「油魚事件」，若果報導的核心是要弄清楚百佳是否有意隱瞞或欺騙顧客，當然不需要同時採訪惠康或華潤等超市了；不過，如果問題是要搞清楚本港有多少超市以至魚檔有出售油魚的話，那電台和報館就真的要同時四出採訪本港各不同的超市和市塲了。
各位網友，相信你現在必明白甚麼是持平了，讓我再重申一次，在某一報導或特輯中，若要決定是否需要採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物的訪問來達至持平時，我們可以發問一個驗準問題﹝test question﹞，就是：「在報導中我們採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物的訪問/意見時，會否影響報導的持平性，又或是否會導致偏頗呢？」若答案是「會」，我們當然要針對相關處境而作出調節﹝如透過內容或訪問的增刪)，來達至相關議論的持平和準確性，若答案是「不會」，則只要按常規辦事則可，若畫蛇添足或周官放火，只會貽笑大方！
尚有補充觀點：明光社每週評論(24/1/07)
持平的意義雖然簡單，但其實際應用卻存在著一定的技術和處境性，以伊拉克被指擁有大殺傷力武器為例，大家應該還記得在美國向伊開戰前的西方媒體，差不多都是一面倒的報導美國中情局所搜集到的證據，而伊拉克自己以至聯合國檢查員布克利斯先生 (Hans Blix)的聲明和報告卻被忽略，這就是不持平或偏頗的一個實例。明顯地，伊拉克政府和人民因而承受了莫大的傷害和痛苦！直至今天，伊拉克境內的炸彈事件和人命傷亡真是無日無之。
那我們應如何決定某一報導手法是否持平呢？這亦不太困難，因為我們可以發問：「在報導中我們採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物會否影響報導的持平性，又或是否會導致偏頗呢？」以拍攝老人專輯為例，一般當然不需同時採訪青少年和兒童群體，除非報導亦涉及後者的權利或義務；同理，若拍攝某地的貧苦現狀，一般亦不需要同時訪問當地的富豪來作出平衡的。
另一例就是近期百佳超市的「油魚事件」，若果報導的核心是要弄清楚百佳是否有意隱瞞或欺騙顧客，當然不需要同時採訪惠康或華潤等超市了；不過，如果問題是要搞清楚本港有多少超市以至魚檔有出售油魚的話，那電台和報館就真的要同時四出採訪本港各不同的超市和市塲了。
各位網友，相信你現在必明白甚麼是持平了，讓我再重申一次，在某一報導或特輯中，若要決定是否需要採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物的訪問來達至持平時，我們可以發問一個驗準問題﹝test question﹞，就是：「在報導中我們採納﹝或拒用﹞某些人士或事物的訪問/意見時，會否影響報導的持平性，又或是否會導致偏頗呢？」若答案是「會」，我們當然要針對相關處境而作出調節﹝如透過內容或訪問的增刪)，來達至相關議論的持平和準確性，若答案是「不會」，則只要按常規辦事則可，若畫蛇添足或周官放火，只會貽笑大方！
尚有補充觀點：明光社每週評論(24/1/07)
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
