   |
Advocacy journalism sparks debate
‘Walk the streets. We won’t leave till we see you there.’ Apple Daily’s front page called for people to join the July 1 protest in 2003. (Courtesy of Next Media Limited)
By Sandy Sezto
‘Walk the streets. We won’t leave till we see you there,” screamed the front page of Apple Daily during the July 1 protest last year.
Posters demanding that Chief Executive Tung Chee Hwa step down were given free with the newspaper.
This is advocacy journalism. According to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, advocacy journalism “advocates a cause or expresses a viewpoint”.
“Advocacy journalism is dangerous. The media are walking on a tightrope,” said Ho Leung Mao, an author of three volumes of media criticism. He is also a columnist for Sing Tao Daily and Media Digest.
He criticized Apple Daily for its role in the July 1 protest in 2003.
Mr. Ho said, “The media went too far on this. Apple Daily changed its role from informer to political leader.
“A newspaper can show its stance in the commentary section, but its front page should not advocate people to participate in a mass rally.”
Stephen Vines, publisher of Spike magazine, said advocacy journalism is good and honest, however.
He said, “As least these media voice their standpoints. There are other media which pretend to be objective but in fact have their own hidden agendas.”
Mr. Vines also said that publications should be up front on their stance. If readers disagree with a certain publication’s viewpoint, they can simply boycott it.
Leung Lai Kuen, a writer for the Hong Kong Economic Journal and Media Digest, believes that advocacy journalism stems from readers’ views.
“It’s very hard to determine whether advocacy journalism is a healthy situation or not. . . . Those newspapers supporting public opinions are merely helping the Hong Kong people test the central government’s tolerance.”
However, Ms. Leung is skeptical about the media’s political motivation.
She said, “Only one newspaper strongly opposed Article 23 before the mass rally.
“After the event, nearly all newspapers switched their views in favor of the general public’s opinion.”
This makes her wary of the media’s intention – whether they support the popular view because they are sincerely concerned or because they want a greater market share.
Despite their diverse opinions on advocacy journalism, the critics agree there is room for improvement in the local media.
Reports on the Mainland/Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, or CEPA, disappointed Mr. Vines.
“The media lacked basic analysis of CEPA’s effects on Hong Kong people.
“Another problem is that the people just accepted the claim by the government that CEPA is nice and important. They did not question the superficial reporting of the media,” said Mr. Vines.
Mr. Ho felt that the broadcast news on the Iraq War lacked substance.
He said, “They did not have enough experience in war zone journalism. Therefore, they could only provide superficial reporting.”
The aggressive attitude of phone-in radio programs like Tea Cup in a Storm, hosted by Albert Cheng, is another problem for the local media, said Ms. Leung.
“These programs sometimes do not favor rational debate.
“Audience members who call in are not looking for a balanced debate and analysis. They are in fact drawing attention to and seeking support for their viewpoints.”
Mr. Ho disagrees with Ms. Leung.
He said, “I agree that Mr. Cheng can be heavily prejudiced at times, but, unlike him, few people have the guts to consistently criticize social issues.
“He has the power to encourage people to speak their views.”
Despite their criticism, all three critics were pleased with the coverage of SARS.
Mr.
Vines said, “The media provided people with enough information about
the disease, and tried very hard not to be cause alarm.”