HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 11 January 1989
香港立法局
一九八九年一月十一日
46
In exploring this question in this issue, it will be fruitful to consider: Is the conscience and ethics of media practitioners enough safeguard against the publication of false news? Is there a need for some form of self-regulatory deterrent? Would the need to protect the integrity of a news organization hence its survival in the market be deterrent enough? Could the sheer number of news organizations with divergent approaches now operating be enough to balance off the effect of false news published by a single newspaper? Should members of the public be provided with some degree of protection from being victimized by the publication of false news?
For the media, Sir, some of the questions I posed in the debate two years ago are just as legitimate today.
What are the inherent weaknesses, if any, of our publishing industry? Can these weaknesses be improved? If so, what is the industry doing about improving such weaknesses? Is it not apparent that better-paid and better-trained reporters and editors must be beneficial in every respect to the future development of the industry? Would there be a place for an in-trade watchdog body for the media in Hong Kong? Are there sufficient channels for members of the public to reflect more directly their views and expectations of the behaviour of local mass media apart from contributing to their "letters to the editor" pages?
There already exist various forums where publishers, senior journalists and reporters discuss issue of their respective interests. But hardly are there meaningful interactions among these forums. Could these forums be expanded to take a cross-sector review of the above-mentioned questions or to more effectively iron out differences of opinions, should they arise?
Hong Kong is now at a stage of change and in order that we could come to sound judgement, to make sensible decisions, we need a balanced media, perhaps now more than ever, to facilitate the free flow of unbiased information and serve as a forum for the exchange of ideas, and to carry the responsibility as the guardian of the truth.
It is my hope that the repeal of section 27 would not be seen, on the part of the media, as a victory to be savoured, or on the part of the Administration, as a saga to be forgotten.
If the section is scrapped when we vote on it in just a moment, I hope the "Ayes" signify the beginning of a new and cool-headed study on the subject and not the end of a protracted and unproductive squabble. The media industry must now take a lead and ponder over what can be done and what needs to be done to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.