tim's experiment

I have never had much time for the Broadcasting Authority – a bunch of Government-appointed twerps who frequently panic in moments of public excitement, real or simulated. The decision to fine ATV $300,000 for an erroneous report that Jiang Zemin had snuffed it (premature is perhaps a better word than erroneous – the old bastard must die some time) means the authority has now earned promotion from the harmless joke category to the leading menace one.

The decision is not going to help ATV. After all the station’s recurring problem over the years has actually been shortage of money. It just doesn’t make as much out of its share of the market as TVB does. If it tries to spend enough to match TVB’s programmes it loses even more money. If it tries to cut its spending to match its income, the viewers desert it. The station is in a bind. A six-figure fine is not what it needs. Still,  if the BA’s decision was just unhelpful to ATV that would be a small matter. The serious aspect is the human rights implications.

It is a platitude invariably trotted out on occasions of this kind that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. It is not like the right not to be tortured or killed, which governments are supposed to preserve all the time. Freedom of speech may be limited when this is necessary for the preservation of other freedoms. Every constitutional document from the UN Declaration of Human Rights downwards has roughly the same list. Restrictions on freedom of speech must be specified by law and must be necessary for some other purpose, the usual exceptions and typical laws they permit being the right to reputation (libel), to a fair trial (contempt), public morals (obscenity) and public order (sedition). None of the permitted exceptions relates to a right not to be misled by rumours that some aged ex-autocrat has popped his clogs, fallen off his twig or joined the Choir Invisible. This means, I take it, that the Authority’s decision is unconstitutional and the station should appeal.

Whether this happens or not, it is worth dwelling for a moment on what the authority has done. Years ago the colonial government tried to make it a criminal offence to publish “false news”. This occasioned great controversy and in the end was not proceeded with. The BA has now smuggled the offence into existence through the licensing conditions imposed on broadcasters. Newspapers remain free to bump off retired statesmen whenever they like. The problem with legislation against false news is that what is “false” is all too often itself a tricky matter. Generally to commit a criminal offence you have to have a guilty mind. In the context of false news this means that you must either know the news was false or be so careless that you should have known it might be. But the Broadcasting Authority is not a court. It does not have to concern itself with such niceties. Mr Jiang weas reported dead. He is still alive. Wack!

Realistically I have to agree with Michael Chugani. Media organisations make mistakes all the time. We do our best to be accurate but news is produced in a hurry and not all sources are as reliable as they might be. People make honest mistakes, misprints creep in, it happens all the time. Even that most careful of publications, The Economist, runs one or two apologies most weeks. Many newspapers in other places (the idea has not caught on in Hong Kong) have an ombudsman to investigate and respond to reader complaints. We all try to avoid expensive mistakes of the kind which lead to court cases, but if people are going to be fined $300,000 for innocent mistakes which have no consequences then reporting will become impossible.

Perhaps that is what the BA wants. Broadcast news should consist entirely of government press releases.

Actually as far as the local news is concerned it pretty much does already. China is a more difficult target because news is assiduously managed by the government, which means the official line is often a lie. Under these circumstances people are bound to report rumours if they look plausible, whether they are denied by Xinhua or not. This is a universal feature of regimes which do not permit a free press. Under these circumstances it will often be difficult to confirm a story. You are lucky to get one version of it. Executives have to make a judgement. If the BA is waiting in the wings with a massive fine for mistakes then that judgement is going to be a very conservative one. This is known in freedom of expression circles as the “chilling effect”.

The disappointing thing about the fine imposed on ATV is the response from other people who should know better. The BA is attacking the media. The fine is not a punishment of the management for interfering in the news department, unwelcome though such interference may be. Journalists all prefer a proprietor who does not wish to influence content and some proprietors are good in this way. When Roy Thompson owned The Times he used to carry a little card which he showed to people who wanted to discuss his newspapers with him. The card said simply that the content of his newspapers was selected entirely by the editorial staff employed for that purpose. When Conrad Black owned the Telegraph he sometimes wrote to the Letters to the Editor page to complain about things he disapproved of. On the other hand in this matter, as in others, Rupert Murdoch has set a deplorable example and standards generally have as a result fallen. Anyway, if the owner or his representative wishes to take the risk of tampering with the news output there is nothing to stop him. Local journalists need to grow up and accept this, instead of deluding themselves that the Broadcasting Authority is an ally in the defence of editorial autonomy.

There is a principle involved here which is much more fundamental than the imaginary right to repel advice from your managing director. If we are not free to make mistakes we shall soon not be free at all.