RTHK - Spinning
"Instead of reporting the news, the broadcaster is making the headlines, as it stands accused of many things: fake news, bias, and smearing the Police."
Like the BBC in the UK, our public-funded broadcaster is facing a backlash. Unlike the BBC, RTHK has no hinterland; the TV output lacks gravitas, and the radio stations survive because of public funds. The BBC will probably escape its current troubles, pruned but not uprooted. The BBC and RTHK are unnatural beasts, a broadcaster born of the government but mainly outside its control.
The role of the media, especially public-funded broadcasters, is crucial in any society. They are expected to uphold the highest standards of impartiality and ethical reporting and serve as a watchdog for the public interest.
Over the years, I've listened less and less to RTHK's output. However, I have a lingering affection for 'All the Way with Ray' as Uncle Ray accompanied me through Kowloon on late-night patrols with his pop classics. If I'm up late at night, I'll still tune in. And, of course, Steve James's 'Afternoon Drive' is always worth a listen.
Recent events have shaken RTHK's foundations. Instead of reporting the headlines, the broadcaster is making the headlines, as it stands accused of many things: fake news, bias, and smearing the Police with comedy. Some criticism is overcooked, while other aspects have an element of truth. Former Chief Executive CY Leung has gone as far as to suggest that RTHK have its budget cut.
I can't get too worked up about the comedy aspect. I'm told the sketch causing the criticism is petty, low-grade, and not funny. Yet, the Commissioner of Police felt compelled to write a complaint.
However, other details of RTHK's conduct raise serious questions, and I'd like to examine these. For starters, if I've relearned anything about the news media over the last year—local and international—it's essential to treat their output cautiously. While a few engage in outright falsehoods, the RTHK approach is a more subtle twisting of the truth. Some of this is their unwitting bias at play, whereas, at times, it looks wilful. Balanced reporting, free from bias, is crucial for informing and enlightening the public.
For the international media, their misdeed is distorted perception, laziness and omission. They've presented the rioting and protests as a straightforward pro-democracy movement, which misses the mark somewhat. After all, brave Hong Kongers standing up to mighty Beijing is an easy sell. Yet, this version of events is simplistic in the extreme because detailing the sectarian nature of the movement is a nuanced, challenging exercise. Then, when the tanks didn't roll in, the Western media moved on.
It's easy to opine that RTHK adopts an approach of misdirection and occasional hype - but not actual fakery. Let me illustrate.
In this story, RTHK asserts, 'Boy fell after police barged in restaurant manager'. This headline portrays officers as having 'barged' into a restaurant without justification, with an implicit hint they caused a boy to fall from height. The use of emotive language appears designed with intent in the context of similar allegations involving a death.
The fact that officers were pursuing suspects per their powers gets omitted. Moreover, video footage shows the boy, who was drinking underage, scrambling away over a wall and falling. Reading the headline, you could infer that the Police caused the boy to fall, which is wrong.
By adjusting the sequence of events, a story can also change. 'Riot police move in, end rally in support of Uyghurs' - this headline could read 'Protest violence prompts police action'. RTHK ignores the aspect of officers' actions after criminal acts took place. That the peaceful rally went ahead uninterrupted is relegated. Again, what is the intent here?
Here's another one: 'Tear gas, pepper spray, and clashes mar Christmas Eve'. The officers' response to petrol bomb attacks gets mentioned later, but the headline appears designed to create an impression of the Police ruining Christmas celebrations. This assertion is backed up by comments from the 'public'—what is remarkable is that RTHK has an uncanny ability to find such people.
There are plenty of other examples of misdirection with emphasis on police actions while ignoring the build-up and protester violence. Handcuffed suspects are 'tied up', and a rioter is 'protester beaten to the ground' when the video evidence shows he's restrained, struggled and then placed on the ground.
Meanwhile, on Radio 3's 'Backchat' — the flagship daily chat show — certain voices are allowed free rein to make wild allegations unchallenged. In contrast, pro-government people get taken to task at every turn. Sometimes, the presenters can't help themselves as their inclinations make them advocates. And then they wonder why folks won't appear. Of course, Claudia Mo and Emily Lau are on speed dial and ready to vent their bile with latitude.
I do not doubt that RTHK will defend itself with a comeback of "You are overreacting" or "We take criticism from both sides; thus, we must be getting something right." But then they would say that. Yet, the truth is slippery.
RTHK has this to say about impartiality in its values statement.
There are generally more than two sides to any issue and IMPARTIALITY in factual programmes cannot be achieved by a mathematical balance. DUE IMPARTIALITY , however, does not require absolute neutrality on every issue of public concern or detachment from the fundamental principles of a just and open society. We will be failing in our duty if, in the attempt to upset no one, to disturb no institution, we limit, in any way, the comprehensiveness, fairness, sensitivity and open examination of issues and events. We must seek balance through the presentation of principal relevant viewpoints on matters of importance. If not able to be achieved within a single programme or news bulletin, it will be achieved within a reasonable period.
These intriguing values come with a great deal of equivocation, especially regarding neutrality. I always thought that 'neutrality' didn't need qualifying. Maybe I'm old-fashioned. However, let's be clear: Biased reporting with dodgy headlines is not merely a professional and moral disgrace; it's far more sinister. It can lead to a distorted public perception of important issues, fuel social division, and even incite violence. Most of all, it feeds a sentiment of hatred.
If RTHK staff seek true independence, then why not cut loose to compete in the commercial world? Their output can then either live or die on its merits. As an audience, we have a responsibility to demand unbiased reporting. Our demand for fair and balanced reporting can empower us to hold media organisations accountable for their conduct.
(RTHK has deleted all the headlines and associated stories mentioned here.)
March 2020
The role of the media, especially public-funded broadcasters, is crucial in any society. They are expected to uphold the highest standards of impartiality and ethical reporting and serve as a watchdog for the public interest.
Over the years, I've listened less and less to RTHK's output. However, I have a lingering affection for 'All the Way with Ray' as Uncle Ray accompanied me through Kowloon on late-night patrols with his pop classics. If I'm up late at night, I'll still tune in. And, of course, Steve James's 'Afternoon Drive' is always worth a listen.
Recent events have shaken RTHK's foundations. Instead of reporting the headlines, the broadcaster is making the headlines, as it stands accused of many things: fake news, bias, and smearing the Police with comedy. Some criticism is overcooked, while other aspects have an element of truth. Former Chief Executive CY Leung has gone as far as to suggest that RTHK have its budget cut.
I can't get too worked up about the comedy aspect. I'm told the sketch causing the criticism is petty, low-grade, and not funny. Yet, the Commissioner of Police felt compelled to write a complaint.
However, other details of RTHK's conduct raise serious questions, and I'd like to examine these. For starters, if I've relearned anything about the news media over the last year—local and international—it's essential to treat their output cautiously. While a few engage in outright falsehoods, the RTHK approach is a more subtle twisting of the truth. Some of this is their unwitting bias at play, whereas, at times, it looks wilful. Balanced reporting, free from bias, is crucial for informing and enlightening the public.
For the international media, their misdeed is distorted perception, laziness and omission. They've presented the rioting and protests as a straightforward pro-democracy movement, which misses the mark somewhat. After all, brave Hong Kongers standing up to mighty Beijing is an easy sell. Yet, this version of events is simplistic in the extreme because detailing the sectarian nature of the movement is a nuanced, challenging exercise. Then, when the tanks didn't roll in, the Western media moved on.
It's easy to opine that RTHK adopts an approach of misdirection and occasional hype - but not actual fakery. Let me illustrate.
In this story, RTHK asserts, 'Boy fell after police barged in restaurant manager'. This headline portrays officers as having 'barged' into a restaurant without justification, with an implicit hint they caused a boy to fall from height. The use of emotive language appears designed with intent in the context of similar allegations involving a death.
The fact that officers were pursuing suspects per their powers gets omitted. Moreover, video footage shows the boy, who was drinking underage, scrambling away over a wall and falling. Reading the headline, you could infer that the Police caused the boy to fall, which is wrong.
By adjusting the sequence of events, a story can also change. 'Riot police move in, end rally in support of Uyghurs' - this headline could read 'Protest violence prompts police action'. RTHK ignores the aspect of officers' actions after criminal acts took place. That the peaceful rally went ahead uninterrupted is relegated. Again, what is the intent here?
Here's another one: 'Tear gas, pepper spray, and clashes mar Christmas Eve'. The officers' response to petrol bomb attacks gets mentioned later, but the headline appears designed to create an impression of the Police ruining Christmas celebrations. This assertion is backed up by comments from the 'public'—what is remarkable is that RTHK has an uncanny ability to find such people.
There are plenty of other examples of misdirection with emphasis on police actions while ignoring the build-up and protester violence. Handcuffed suspects are 'tied up', and a rioter is 'protester beaten to the ground' when the video evidence shows he's restrained, struggled and then placed on the ground.
Meanwhile, on Radio 3's 'Backchat' — the flagship daily chat show — certain voices are allowed free rein to make wild allegations unchallenged. In contrast, pro-government people get taken to task at every turn. Sometimes, the presenters can't help themselves as their inclinations make them advocates. And then they wonder why folks won't appear. Of course, Claudia Mo and Emily Lau are on speed dial and ready to vent their bile with latitude.
I do not doubt that RTHK will defend itself with a comeback of "You are overreacting" or "We take criticism from both sides; thus, we must be getting something right." But then they would say that. Yet, the truth is slippery.
RTHK has this to say about impartiality in its values statement.
There are generally more than two sides to any issue and IMPARTIALITY in factual programmes cannot be achieved by a mathematical balance. DUE IMPARTIALITY , however, does not require absolute neutrality on every issue of public concern or detachment from the fundamental principles of a just and open society. We will be failing in our duty if, in the attempt to upset no one, to disturb no institution, we limit, in any way, the comprehensiveness, fairness, sensitivity and open examination of issues and events. We must seek balance through the presentation of principal relevant viewpoints on matters of importance. If not able to be achieved within a single programme or news bulletin, it will be achieved within a reasonable period.
These intriguing values come with a great deal of equivocation, especially regarding neutrality. I always thought that 'neutrality' didn't need qualifying. Maybe I'm old-fashioned. However, let's be clear: Biased reporting with dodgy headlines is not merely a professional and moral disgrace; it's far more sinister. It can lead to a distorted public perception of important issues, fuel social division, and even incite violence. Most of all, it feeds a sentiment of hatred.
If RTHK staff seek true independence, then why not cut loose to compete in the commercial world? Their output can then either live or die on its merits. As an audience, we have a responsibility to demand unbiased reporting. Our demand for fair and balanced reporting can empower us to hold media organisations accountable for their conduct.
(RTHK has deleted all the headlines and associated stories mentioned here.)
March 2020
Copyright © 2015