Making Radio Waves

"It's easy to opine that RTHK adopts an approach of misdirection and occasional hype - but not actual fakery."

Like the BBC in the UK, our very own public-funded broadcaster is facing a backlash. Unlike the BBC, RTHK has little hinterland; the TV output lacks gravitas and the viewer/lister figures are in decline. The station survives because of the taxpayers largesse.

Both the BBC and RTHK are unnatural beasts; broadcasters born of government, but operating outside government except for funding. 

The BBC will probably escape its current troubles; pruned but intact. But what does the future hold for RTHK?

Over the years, I've listened less and less to RTHK's output. Although, 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 up late at night, I'll still tune in. And, of course, Steve James's 'Afternoon Drive' is always worth a listen.  

RTHK is having its foundations shaken by recent events. 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 of the 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 pretty low-grade stuff and not that funny. Yet, the Commissioner of Police felt compelled to write a complaint.

However, there are other details of RTHK's conduct that raise serious questions, and I'd like to examine these. For starters, if I've relearnt anything about the news media over the last year — local and international — treat their output with some caution.

While a few media outlets 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.

For the international media, their misdeed is distorted perception, laziness and omission. They've presented the rioting and protests as a straight-forward 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 a tacit 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 Uighurs'. This headline could read 'Protest violence prompts police action'. RTHK ignores the aspect that officers acted 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'. That the officers responded to petrol bomb attacks gets mentioned later, but the headline appears designed to create an impression of the Police ruining Christmas celebrations.

This assertion comes 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, struggles 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. At times the presenters can't help themselves as their inclinations make them advocates.

And then they wonder why folks won't appear. Of course, the likes of Claudia Mo and Emily Lau are on speed-dial and ready to vent their bile with latitude. 

I have no doubt that RTHK will defend themselves with a riposte 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 are an intriguing set of values that come with a great deal of equivocation, especially as regards neutrality. I was always under the impression 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. Most of all, it feeds the hatred simmering in our community.

It strikes me that 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. ​