Certain Hong Kong lamestream news outlet sinks to a new low, and obviously stinks to a new high. We already know nobody is reading their crap (except for their unintended entertainment value), now we know not even the person who pens it nor the editors, if any, read their own crap. Wow, this piece of turd speaks for itself.
UPDATE
No wonder not too long ago a crazy environmental group, here mental group for short, demands some student journalist to take out the garbage and clean the bathroom (OKAY, voluntary work) in exchange for granting an interview. The mental group just knows for a fact that Hong Kong journalism is by and large bullshit (see above turd for proof) and hence deserves no respect or maintain any independence from its source. According to the mental group, the source and reporter should have a beneficiary relationship--a ground breaking yet unsurprising new guideline for Hong Kong lamestream news organizations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
LG just up the ante by introducing its own touch screen cellphone a week after Apple made the iPhone announcement. The PRADA phone is a col...
-
New York City is falling apart .... Buildings are collapsing , the financial market is in a tailspin and the dollar is not the dollar it us...
LOL
ReplyDeleteVL2011
I'm more of the view of this lecturer from Baptist University: "浸會大學新聞系助理教授杜耀明說：「可能該機構過往有痛苦的採訪經驗，所以需要記者參與服務，深入了解其環保的工作，才有信心接受採訪。」他建議記者可說服對方，自己對議題已有一定的認識，又道：「學生經常遇到這些情況，採訪過程亦不會如此順利。學生只能加強說服力。」
ReplyDelete不過，杜耀明認為，機構若有「服務換訪問」的做法，應一視同仁。杜稱：「有時全職記者都未必熟悉他所採訪的有關議題。如果機構只向學生記者提出此要求，那就有問題。」"
It is definitely wrong to exact quid pro quo for a news interview, yet I don't think the issue is with "bias" or "lack of neutrality" per se in this instance, not only because there is no suggestion that the organisation could influence the interview agenda that the student reporter had in mind, but also because the student reporter probably could turn this to his/her advantage and have a better chance to uncover even more potentially damaging materials to the organisation if s/he was given a chance to work-shadow or participate within the organisation itself. (In fact, I think lots of investigative reporters pretend to be volunteers at these organisations to get an expos/e of the real workings behind the scenes, and their access gained under false pretenses in these instances did not render their accounts automatically biased).
So I can't help but feel that the student reporter somehow missed a trick there -- not only could s/he gain an interview by saying yes to "forced labour", but s/he could then report about being forced into doing so and also give an account of what voluntary work is like for this "mental group", as you called it. And getting bad press by the student reporter precisely because they have exacted unfair labour out of him/her, the organisation would probably think twice before offering such "beneficiary relationship" to future reporters again.
Why didn't I think of that? I think the j student is just a lazy bum. He didn't do the reciprocity thing probably out of laziness rather than concerns on independence and neutrality. Instead of investigative reporting, he probably just wants to be spoon fed whatever the interviewer says. (I am totally and irresponsibly speculating here) I think investigative reporting will be far more exciting and better than becoming the news itself like now.
ReplyDeleteWhat is certain is 大公报 is not hiring any local graduates. No one in his right mind in Hong Kong would have confused 人流 with 堕胎。
ReplyDeleteVL2011
Abortion in China maybe viewed as a totally medical procedure without any pro-life or pro-choice kind of moral dimension. But to cheerfully report that on New Year Day and totally out of context? My conclusion can only be: nobody reads the damn piece. The person who pens it has no brain whether he's from China, Hong Kong or Mars. It's just appalling the total lack of journalistic standard.
ReplyDeleteThey have a different set of morals. Now you heard it here first. It just transpired that the couple, who raised hell with a tourist guide in Hong Kong over the lunar New Year holiday, had been 'compensated' for hkd 120k (or usd 15k) by none other than the tour company. No wonder the couple from Anhui said it was just one big misunderstanding before leaving town.
ReplyDeleteVL2011
Isn't that only "allegedly?" Does it amount to obstruction of justice? There goes the Hong Kong judicial system.
ReplyDeleteFirst, they have jounalism outsourced to Beijing, then some thugs from Northen China masqueraded as tourists in Hong Kong and showed to the whole of China that the streets of Hong Kong are indeed paved with money.
ReplyDeleteVL2011
People have been making a big deal out of "voluntary" work student reporters were asked to do. The same way an insane woman in the UK asked a news organisation regulatory authority to order newspapers to treat her opinions on Twitter as personal information. What a world of absurdity we're living in! I mean why can't students be asked to help out in environmental protection even if they are "reporters". It'd take a Martian to think something published on Twitter, or Blogspot for that matter, to be private and confidential.
ReplyDeleteVL2011:
ReplyDeleteThe tourist operator in Hong Kong was not forced to pay the Mainlander. They paid him to cover up their own mistakes or irregularities -- hush money to be precise or "their balls are in his grasp" or "they shit their pants" in Cantonese vulgarism. If the tour operator were Evergloss or Hong Thai or Wing On or even China Travel Services, do you think it would still pay up when it didn't shit itself?
LCL:
This is not obstruction of justice. The rule of law is still robust here in HK. The three defendants are dealt with "in a summary way" or summarily with a binding over order [on their own recognisance] from a magistrate in order to save the court's time [and, most importantly, our breath]. This is common in HK when people are themselves both prosecution witness and defendant in the same case [even if they're tried separately on different occasions], particularly if they are family members or husband & wife. After all, when the emotion and anger or grievances were long gone on the trial day, conviction are usually difficult to secure when people don't want to talk. The courts of law in Hong Kong and their interpreters have better and more meaningful things to do on a daily basis.
The two thugs originally asked for hkd 700,000. They knew how to play the game. After much negotiation, the tour operator 'voluntarily' paid them hkd 150,000 to make them go away so that it could continue to operate the way it has been operating - subcontracting tour groups below cost, hiring tough tourist guides to 'strongarm' the under-paying tourists to shop at selected stores in Hong Kong....
ReplyDeleteBoo boo boo, so the prey turns the table, the predator becomes the prey and the hunter becomes the hunted. What's wrong with the Hong Kong tour operators? Can't they beat up the guy and make him disappear on the face of the Earth? Shame on them. Round two: Motherlander won.
ReplyDeleteOne more inside scoop. The Oriental Daily, part and parcel of this Hong Kong Lamestream Media, promptly had a reporter tailing this 张勇 faimily back to Anhui. I am sure the Apple Daily is not far behind. They are going to dig up some dirt about those two thugs. It's gonna be interesting. Could be the next major news item come March.
ReplyDeleteVL2011
Basically, tour operators in Hong Kong receiving Mainlanders are not allowed by their regulatory authority to buy these tourists per head below cost. That's what they'd done wrong and they wanted to cover their ass by silencing that Mainlander from Anhui with hush money.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened is this. A, B are Mainland tour operators while C is the tour operator in Hong Kong. The three Mainlanders from Anhui paid A in Shenzhen RMB1,700 per head for a three-day package tour to HK. Through a series of subcontracting, B in Shenzhen received the three Mainlanders from A getting RMB1,500 per head and then sold them to C in Hong Kong. C only got HK$1,200 per head which is not enough to pay for board and lodge plus transport for three days in Hong Kong. So C alleged all Mainland tourists knew they had to shop like crazy so C and the tour guide could recover their costs and earn a living by receiving kickbacks or rebates.
Remember the tour guide in question is not their usual tour guide. She is known as the 刀手 in their trade who kinda specializes in strong-arming Mainland tourists to shop. Having two tour guides, one of them a 刀手 who ONLY accompanies their herd to do shopping in those Tokwawan or Hunghom 黑店 shops, is one thorny issues that the tourism authority or council in Hong Kong needs to resolve.
Back to their usual tour guide, this poor woman or man had to pay money out of pocket upfront per head for his/her herd's expenses in Hong Kong to act as their guide. That's why 阿珍 in the last incidence said to her herd: "我給你吃；我給你住 ..." The guide also hopes to get kickbacks and rebates from those 黑店 in Tokwawan or Hunghom to recover her own cost and make a profit. They are usually self-employed and not the employees of tour operator C. It goes without saying that the "specialist" or 刀手 takes a bigger cut.
What do you guys think of such arrangements of operating package tours for Mainlanders below cost, so called 零團費，in Hong Kong?
"Can't they beat up the guy and make him disappear on the face of the Earth?"
ReplyDeleteMaybe not 'cause the motive is a bit too obvious.
Aren't they supposed to do something after the Ah Chun incident not too long ago. What happened to all those celebrity spokepersons who champion Hong Kong as a tourist hot spot? What did Andy Lau or Jackie Chan think? Somebody should ask them.
ReplyDelete