Journalists can play a key role in holding Hong Kong’s gov’t to account
Hong Kong Free Press
The Stand News verdict, and the reaction to it from the media and the authorities, raise important questions about the profession. What is the role of journalists in Hong Kong and what should it be?
These are important questions because the work of journalists can mobilise public opinion, not just reflect it, and hold authority to account. Hence the moniker, the fourth estate.
Authorities claim that journalism should be “responsible,” “real” and “genuine.” They criticise some journalists for not doing “genuine” media work and being more than “mere” journalists.
The secretary for security urges journalists to “act in good faith in accordance with the principles of responsible journalism, based on accurate facts, and provide accurate and reliable information.” He has also pointed out that constructive criticism of government and its policies in Hong Kong is acceptable if it is focused on solutions.
To understand the role of journalists in society we need to ask journalists themselves how they perceive it. Those interviewed by researchers Haiyan Wang and Angze Li for an academic article published in January identified many roles, but two are particularly relevant here: the watchdog role and the loyal or collaborative-facilitator role.
The watchdog role “stems from a classical liberal conception of democracy, within which journalism assumes the role of representing the public and monitoring those in power to create a critically minded citizenry.”
Commentaries on the Stand News verdict indicate that journalists see themselves in part as reflecting public opinion. When the community is angry with the performance of government, journalists reflect this anger to authority. This is part of the watchdog role. So, too, is investigative journalism.
The Western liberal tradition sometimes sees the media as the fourth estate – along with the executive, legislature, and judiciary – acknowledging the power of the media to mobilise public opinion. Fears about how journalists might use this power drove authorities to retain and strengthen penalties for the colonial-era crime of sedition in Hong Kong’s Article 23 legislation.
Journalists also play a loyal or collaborative-facilitator role. They sometimes help authorities to sell policy to the public and smooth its implementation. Officials in Hong Kong tolerate constructive criticism focused on solutions, we are told. The two roles are not mutually exclusive, and often co-exist in the same media outlet and even in the same news report or commentary.
What should be the role of journalists? We should consider their own formulation of how they ought to work. In Hong Kong’s divided politics, journalists offer two competing visions, with some overlap.
The Hong Kong Journalists Association’s (HKJA) code of ethics, for example, identifies a foundational principle: “A journalist shall at all times defend the principle of freedom of the press… and strive to eliminate distortion, news suppression and censorship.”
The emphasis on freedom of the press aligns with codes produced overseas, for example by the UK’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ). The NUJ Code of Conduct identifies as foundational “media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed.”
The Hong Kong Federation of Journalists (HKFJ) operates on an alternative vision focused on “contributing to the needs of the country with the strengths of Hong Kong, to tell the stories of China and Hong Kong well and to contribute to the building of a strong nation and the revival of the nation.”
Thus, for the Liaison Office, the role of state-backed media such as Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po in Hong Kong is to be “the golden microphone” of the central government; the Hong Kong government’s travel companion; and the establishment bloc’s main position.
The HKFJ emphasises the collaborator-facilitating role of journalists. In this it aligns with the party-managed All-China Journalists Association’s Norms of Professional Ethics for Chinese Journalists. The norms highlight “serving the people,” “being faithful to the party,” and “guiding public opinion” to achieve Xi Jinping’s vision of a strong, prosperous and rejuvenated China.
Still, there are many common elements among these visions of what journalists should do. They all stress professionalism, seeking truth, being fact-based, being fair and so on. These common principles are welcome.
The HKFJ, founded in 1996, has come a long way since it signed up to a joint code of ethics with the HKJA and others in 2000. That code identified as foundational freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and putting the public interest first, and reads more like the HKJA vision today.
Still the HKFJ acknowledges that these values informed the federation’s founding. Presumably they should continue to inform journalistic work. Both the Basic Law and China’s constitution identify freedom of speech and the press without defining them. In my view, the same words mean different things in Hong Kong and on the mainland.
Authorities in Hong Kong repeatedly emphasise the importance of constructive criticism. Officials in mainland China also focus on the “new” value of constructiveness, according to Wang and Li. Article 2.3 of the mainland code highlights “resolving problems” as well as “identifying problems and urging their correction” and requires that critical reports be constructive.
The HKFJ follows suit: “We cannot just be satisfied with the exposure of the problem, a reveal, but to go one step further on how to resolve the problem, to put forward proposals. We shouldn’t pinpoint a problem for wowing the public, creating confrontation, intensifying conflicts, but to forge a consensus, and promote social harmony.”
Our leaders in Hong Kong have bought into this vision. We can all agree that criticism should be constructive.
The watchdog role requires critical appraisal of government policies and practices, perhaps suggesting solutions. We pay government officials to provide solutions and NGOs and consultants volunteer solutions at every turn.
Providing critical analysis, asking difficult questions and requesting information are also part of holding authorities to account and increasing transparency. Accountable authority is improved government. Accountable government builds trust. Trust is essential for progress and stability.
Journalists have played a watchdog role in China in the past but authorities have curtailed the practice in recent years. Although, since 2020, officials have hollowed out our media space, Hong Kong still enjoys relative media diversity.
More independent media include Ming Pao, the Collective, InmediaHK, The Witness, Green Bean, HK01, Hong Kong Free Press etc. RTHK shed its watchdog role in 2020, a disappointing but not surprising move. It is, after all, a government department.
Given the Legislative Council’s (LegCo) general loss of autonomy since 2021 and our less independent judiciary in national security matters, a strong media serving both watchdog and facilitator roles is crucial for progress in Hong Kong. Hong Kong society and the authorities both should value media diversity – after all, it is a “good story” for Hong Kong. Such diversity helps to ensure accountable government, which is in everyone’s interest.
The ability of organisations such as the Hong Kong Journalists Association to articulate a vision of what journalists should do that is relatively independent of authority is also important. Accountability by definition means being answerable to an external body, such as voters, LegCo, or the central government. Our relatively autonomous media and the organisations that represent journalists help to play this critical role.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
| HKFP is an impartial platform & does not necessarily share the views of opinion writers or advertisers. HKFP presents a diversity of views & regularly invites figures across the political spectrum to write for us. Press freedom is guaranteed under the Basic Law, security law, Bill of Rights and Chinese constitution. Opinion pieces aim to point out errors or defects in the government, law or policies, or aim to suggest ideas or alterations via legal means without an intention of hatred, discontent or hostility against the authorities or other communities. |
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.