Last week I read an interesting article by Professor Joseph Man Chan, professor emeritus of journalism and communication at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. His article, published in Ming Pao, was headlined “RTHK turning into a mouthpiece goes against the public interest”. Since I am most concerned about the public interest, I was curious to find out what his concerns are.
He is correct in saying that public broadcasting should serve the public interest. However, he named the BBC as the preeminent example of responsible public broadcasting. That is very strange indeed, as the BBC has been beset with a number of scandals. The latest one had to do with BBC reporters lying to earn the trust of Princess Diana so she would agree to do an interview. Prince Harry charged that the “ripple effect of a culture of exploitation and unethical practices” ultimately took his mother’s life.
More grave is the charge made by Hamid Dabashi, a Columbia University professor, in a 2018 Al-Jazeera article, about “the harmful role of the BBC as the propaganda machine of British imperialism around the globe. As well as in enabling and facilitating the CIA/MI6 coup of 1953 in my homeland in particular, by doing precisely what it now goes around finding darker nations doing — indulging in fake news and propaganda”.
Professor Dabashi continued: “After years of speculative suspicion dismissed as conspiracy theories, BBC Radio 4 finally admitted … ‘the true extent of Britain’s involvement in the coup of 1953 which toppled Iran’s democratically elected government and replaced it with the tyranny of the Shah.’ ”
I am a frequent guest on the Backchat program on Radio 3 RTHK, and I can testify that it has continued to allow diverse opinions to be aired. I do not see any sign that RTHK is now serving the interests of “the rich and powerful”. I always support the cause of press freedom, with the proviso that press freedom must not undermine the public interest.
The BBC World Service is not regulated by the Office of Communications. The BBC official website states: “Instead the BBC is responsible for setting its overall strategic direction, the budget and guarding its editorial independence for World Service. It must set and publish a Licence for the World Service, which defines its remit, scope, annual budget and main commitments, as well as ‘objectives, targets and priorities’ which are agreed with the Foreign Secretary.”
So the BBC is, at least as far as its World Service is concerned, a mouthpiece of the United Kingdom government. I had thought that Professor Chan knew this.
If the UK government uses the BBC World Service as its mouthpiece to serve the public interest, promoting world peace and solving problems for the world, I would have no objection. But the BBC was complicit in toppling a democratically elected government. This cannot be exemplary of public broadcasting.
Professor Chan says that RTHK should serve as a platform so the Hong Kong public can hear different views expressed from across the political spectrum. I agree, and would add that different views and in-depth discussions with different viewpoints are all very much welcome. I certainly agree with Professor Chan that a broadcaster monopolized by vested interests serving their narrow interests does not deserve to be called a public broadcaster serving the public interest. Professor Chan charged that the recent developments at RTHK subsequent to the passing of the National Security Law are a retrogression back to the colonial days when RTHK was a mouthpiece of the colonial government without much autonomy. But is there any evidence that the recent developments at RTHK are serving the vested interests of a few and that RTHK has lost its autonomy?
I am aware that Beijing is indeed very sensitive about possible subversive activities going on in Hong Kong. Professor Chan certainly would agree that the social unrest over past few years is hurting everybody’s interests. Public and private properties were damaged; tourists shunned Hong Kong; many people were injured; some died; and totally fabricated “news” was reported as facts to stir up even more emotion and violence. A plan to “burn together” was openly disseminated, followed by actions that aim at stalling Legislative Council functions and grabbing political power. Such activities cannot be in the public interest.
As an academician, I welcome open-hearted discussions and dialogues on all subjects. I would not condemn a youngster for speaking his mind, as long as he is open to dialogues. But anyone who thinks he is all right and others are all wrong and tries to undermine the “one country, two systems” principle can only undermine the public interest. RTHK must not be complicit in such undertakings.
I am a frequent guest on the Backchat program on Radio 3 RTHK, and I can testify that it has continued to allow diverse opinions to be aired. I do not see any sign that RTHK is now serving the interests of “the rich and powerful”. I always support the cause of press freedom, with the proviso that press freedom must not undermine the public interest.
But who is going to determine whether something is in the public interest? My answer is: all of us. But we must put down our ideological biases, be willing to look at facts and evidence, and put ourselves in the shoes of others. As long as we genuinely care for the well-being of everybody, we could have different views, but we would never attempt to “burn together”, and sooner or later things will only get better.
The author is a senior research fellow at the Pan Sutong Shanghai-Hong Kong Economic Policy Research Institute, Lingnan University.
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.