[Radio Hong Kong] The reporter asked if it was a duty, but why sometimes naive? ｜ 01 Weekly

weekly

Written by: Huang Yunna

2020-04-06 19:43

Imagine if Zhang Zhujun, director of the Department of Infectious Diseases of the Center for Health Protection, was asked by a reporter if she would consider replacing Chief Executive Lin Zheng Yue'e, what should she answer? Is it assumed that the reporter made a low-level mistake that failed to master Zhang Zhujun's basic functions, and then corrected the reporter's "questioning the wrong person", or assumed that the reporter "knowingly asked" and wanted to "put it to power" and refused to respond? It is not difficult to imagine that whether it is corrected or rejected, it will be interpreted by individual media as "suppressing journalists" and "infringing on press freedom." Some people will refute that a reporter cannot ask such an ignorant question, but the fact is that although "questioning is a reporter's duty", the reporter is not asking all the good questions of "walking for the sky", and some may even be called "too simple, sometimes "naive"-The recent uproar of Radio Hong Kong reporters who visited Assistant Director-General of World Health Organization Bruce Aylward on "Taiwan Joining the World Health Organization" is a lesson that deserves our reflection.

A reporter from Hong Kong and Taiwan recently visited the WHO, whether the Assistant Director-General will reconsider Taiwan ’s membership, which has caused an uproar. (Screenshot of RTHK program)

In terms of the nature of the organization, the Center for Health Protection under the Department of Health of the Special Administrative Region Government and the World Health Organization under the United Nations are certainly not the same, so it is not appropriate to directly compare Zhang Zhujun to Airward. However, the above assumptions and the The Taiwanese reporter ’s questioning is not entirely without common ground- if it is not ignorantly “ask the wrong person”, it is naively “ask the wrong question”.

Radio Television Hong Kong's English current affairs program "The Pulse" earlier mentioned that under the scourge of the new coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19), Taiwan's prevention and control work is good, and it has recently been recognized by the European Union. "He refused to join the World Health Organization (and failed to become a member)", the program's producer Tang Ruoyun interviewed Airward through video: "Will the WHO reconsider Taiwan's membership?" Airward said after a few seconds of pause "I can't hear the question." When Tang Ruoyun planned to repeat the question, Airward said "It's okay, let's continue to the next question." Tang Ruoyun immediately added "I'm curious to talk about Taiwan," but the video communication was suddenly interrupted. Tang Ruoyun dialed a video call again, hoping that the other party would comment on Taiwan ’s epidemic prevention work. Elward said that “China has already been discussed, and the epidemic prevention work in different parts of China has been done very well”. He then blessed Hong Kong and ended his visit.

After the pan-democracy frenzy, Airward ’s poor response such as “speaking” and “avoidance” became the target of the attack, and the incident was also interpreted as “the WHO avoids talks about Taiwan”. Legislator Zhu Kaidi even predicted It will become "new crime of Radio Television Hong Kong". However, at the other end of the parallel time and space, when the CCTV news commentary incident, not only criticized Tang Ruoyun's attempt to "touch Taiwan officials with the Taiwan issue" as an attempt to "seek independence through epidemic", he also praised Elward's refusal to answer "most The most hardcore reaction "; at the same time, Peng Changwei, the convener of the" Public Broadcasting Concern Group "who is also a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, also shot, criticizing that Tang Ruoyun should not treat Taiwan as a country; and the later Secretary of Commerce and Economic Development Qiu Tenghua joined The public opinion wars that the program violates the "One China Principle" and the "Hong Kong-Taiwan Charter" and requires Liang Jiarong, director of the Broadcasting Department as the editor-in-chief, but RTHK denies the criticism because when the program talks about Taiwan, "Local" does not involve any political attitude.

The controversy was instantly shifted to focus, and even rose to the level of "national sovereignty", but few people discussed in depth that Tang Ruoyun apparently asked the wrong interviewee -according to Article 6 of Chapter 3 of the WHO Law, just like the WHO As stated in the statement, membership in any country or region must be approved by more than half of the member countries, and not determined by WHO officials such as Airward or Director General Tan Desai; even the Director General can only The ability to invite a country or region as an "observer" is precisely the "identity" that Taiwan has struggled for in recent years, not the "member" Tang Ruoyun asked- then, the question is coming, when WHO officials are simply not qualified When deciding to win the membership, why should Tang Ruoyun ask more?

Hong Kong society has been full of political tension in recent years, and the media has repeatedly been on the cusp of the limelight, especially the public broadcaster Hong Kong Radio. (Profile picture / photo by Luo Junhao)

Ask whether it is to pursue the "truth"?

Two hypotheses are derived. First, Tang Ruoyun is "knowing and asking questions", and the purpose of "knowing and asking questions" is quite interesting. In the ordinary people's perception, journalists can use "questioning" to pursue "truth" for the society and help the society understand the meaning behind "truth". Therefore, journalists should not presume positions when asking questions, so as not to limit the "truth"; however, In the actual news operation, it is not possible to deviate from the "issue setting", that is, the reporter will emphasize the content in a certain direction, so that the reader can see the "truth" of a certain aspect, and this "issue setting" will also be in Unconsciously affecting the reporter's question, and need to anticipate that the interviewee may make some kind of response, and then use this to set up a certain "truth" questioning content. That is to say, despite being "not toothy", many reporters have more or less presupposed their positions during the interview process, which inevitably limits the "truth"-this is not uncommon in the storm of anti-revision laws.

Back to this storm, what is the "issue setting" in it? If Tang Ruoyun knew that Airward had no right to take the WHO membership and insisted on asking questions, what kind of political response would she expect from Airward, an expert in epidemic prevention? In fact, regardless of whether he answered "will consider" or "will not consider", it was beyond the scope of his powers, just as if Zhang Zhujun, who was in charge of epidemic prevention, was asked if he would consider replacing the chief executive Lin Zheng Yue'e, even though Zhang Zhujun murmured "off "I'm doing something," but it's actually difficult to answer, even impossible to answer. Since "difficult to answer", what exactly does Tang Ruoyun want to get from this wrong question? A "conspiracy" corollary is that when Alward cannot answer, the incident will naturally be understood as "the WHO avoids talk about Taiwan", "the Chinese Communist Party suppresses Taiwan", and once fermented, when " "Freedom of the press" is sacrificed, and journalists are likely to be hailed as the "goddess of news" who are "fearless power and bold questions." Hong Kong and Taiwan can also continue to stand on the moral high ground.

However, the "controversy" is too cruel, and it also depreciates the conduct of Hong Kong journalists. Let ’s take a look at the second assumption of this storm-Tang Ruoyun did not know that the WHO members are all based on the country. I do not know that senior WHO officials such as Alward or Tan Desai ca n’t decide on WHO membership at all. I do n’t even know that what Taiwan has been fighting for in recent years is to become an “observer” rather than a “member” of the WHO. If so, it can be described as insufficient preparation and lack of professionalism.

In fact, the international community is based on the "One China Principle", and the People's Republic of China replaced the Chinese representation of the "Republic of China" in the United Nations and the seats of the WHO as early as the 1970s. Until the mid-1990s, Taiwan had tried to participate in the World Health Organization with different compromise names, but they were rejected. By the time SARS epidemic swept through Asia in 2003, Taiwan, one of the epidemic areas, applied to join the WHO. However, mainland authorities solemnly pointed out that Taiwan is not a sovereign country and therefore has no right to participate. In 2008, after the Kuomintang Ma Ying-jeou took office as the president of Taiwan, cross-strait relations improved greatly. The following year, the WHO agreed that Taiwan would participate in the World Health Assembly as an "observer" in the name of "Chinese Taipei".

However, after the DPP Tsai Ing-wen came to power in 2016, cross-strait relations once again took place. The following year, Zhang Zhijun, director of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, reiterated that if Taiwan does not accept the "92 Consensus", it will not be possible to continue negotiations and lose the basis for attending world organizations. Taiwan As a result, the invitation letter of the "Observer" of the World Health Assembly could not be obtained. Later, from time to time, there were proposals from member states to allow Taiwan to participate, but none of them were approved by the WHO General Committee.

Until the outbreak of New Coronary Pneumonia at the beginning of this year, Taiwan once again proposed that China should not hide the epidemic and the World Health Organization should not exclude Taiwan from the fight against the epidemic. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang reiterated that the "one-China principle" is Taiwan ’s participation in the world organization basis. By mid-February, Vice President Chen Jianren, who was an epidemiologist, fired from time to time, stating that if Taiwan joined the WHO, it would definitely contribute to the epidemic, and later criticized WHO Director-General Tan Desai for "not enough things. "More than enough," it is believed that the WHO's operational error caused the outbreak to be out of control, and it is expected that the WHO will begin reforms by the Director General. As of March 28, "The Economist" published an article calling for Taiwan to join the WHO.

Some commentators criticized that some programmes of Radio Television Hong Kong failed to uphold the principle of objective neutrality. (Profile picture / Photograph by Liang Pengwei)

How to ask good questions?

Under the above background, if "The Pulse" has the intention to follow up the "Taiwan's accession to the WHO", then it should not be asked at all whether Elward will "consider" this issue which is not within its competence, but to Member States that are eligible to vote can also objectively consult the WHO on "what is the response" about Taiwan's claims instead of "whether they will consider it." However, even though Tang Ruoyun asked not “whether he will consider” but “what response”, the past visits of Airward were all based on the background of prevention and control as an expert in epidemic prevention. I believe he is also based on this background While accepting the interview, however, the reporter abruptly threw the "political" question to the "scientific" experts. Is this "non-human question" ?

Just like, if you want to ask Zhang Zhujun how she responds to someone's request for Lin Zheng to step down, isn't it strange?

This does not mean that any "scientific" expert should not answer the "political" question, but when the interviewees are relatively rare and the interview time is not sufficient, should they seize the opportunity to explore more valuable opinions on the prevention and control of the epidemic, or are they entangled In a political whirlpool that I do n’t know yet, even "Comment on Taiwan ’s prevention and control work" and "Will you consider allowing Taiwan to join the World Health Organization" are two completely different questions- then, "How to ask good questions", It's a problem we have to think about.

However, no matter whether Tang Ruoyun asks knowingly or loses ignorance, what kind of problem can be called a "good question", which is not easy to answer in the special context of Hong Kong.

"It is the duty of journalists to ask questions," but the reporters are not asking all the good questions of "walking for the sky." (Profile picture)

When you ask a question to give a "breath"

Speaking of "good questions", many people may think of it for the first time. After the "721 White Man Attack" at the West Rail Station in Yuen Long during the anti-revision law last year, when Lin Zhengyue joined the Secretary of the Department and then Police Commissioner Lu Weicong was interviewed by the host of the Hong Kong and Taiwan TV show "Viewpoint 31" Li Junya's serial "burst seed" when he met with the media. "You can go out to see the public at 4 o'clock in the past. "," You can get it in Yaowan "," Baowan is a big dragon and a phoenix co-starred by the police and police ", etc. When Lin Zhengyue repeated" playing official tone "to pass or flash its words vaguely, Li Junya even reprimanded "Well, let's talk people".

Li Junya thus became "famous in one battle" and was touted as the "Goddess of News." From then on to August 13, when Lin Zheng met reporters before attending the executive meeting, another "news story" for Hong Kong people was heard-before Lin Zheng left, some reporters repeatedly shouted: "Mr. Lin, a lot of people ask you when you die? ... Do you have a conscience? In fact?"-Lin Zheng did not respond to these questions that were "very cool" but boring, and was criticized "ignoring public opinion." "However, if she had to answer, what should she respond to?" Do we have to answer: "I'm so good at night," "I keep speaking tightly", "When will God's prophet die?" If so, the reporter will let her go? Will some words be enlarged to make fun of "changing the picture"?

It ’s not difficult to understand that the general public ’s “applause” for the above reporter ’s questions is not because the questions are more newsworthy, or it can help you get more useful information, but because of the anti-government, detonated by the anti-revision laws, Against Lin Zheng and other emotions, to some extent, this kind of embarrassing question was used to "sigh a breath" for the public. The problem is that whenever and wherever, the reporter ’s greatest responsibility is still to obtain useful information through questioning, but when the reporter also loses his position based on ideological prejudice and various emotions, he upholds the sacred and inviolable "fourth right" to do whatever he wants. "Questioning" becomes "venting," turning "sucking material" into "sucking bite (getting an eye-catching reply)." The loss is still the public.

Jiang Zemin once rebuked Hong Kong journalists for their "too simple, sometimes naive" problem. (Network screenshot)

Add the anti-effect of "guess"

"Reporters decide what to ask and not to ask, who to ask and who to ask, how to ask questions, and how to interact with respondents. This not only directly affects what information the public can get, but also shows the relationship between the media and the interviewees. ”” Li Lifeng, Dean of the School of Journalism and Communication, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, once watched the high-profile “Yokosuka Development Press Conference” in 2016 (then the Chief Executive Liang Zhenying had denied the accusation that “Hengzhou Development was a“ Government Township Black ”, and Once choked out that the authorities' achievements were "all hard work"), wrote an article on "Hong Kong 01" news website "Looking at senior officials answering questions, and also seeing how reporters ask questions." He mentioned that "interview" was originally not a journalist's duty, and was not even accepted by the press. For example, the famous American journalist Edwin Lawrence Godkin of the nineteenth century believed that "interview" was created by selfish politicians and newspaper reporters. .

Based on his observations at the press conference, Li Lifeng concluded that the four reporters tended to evade the interviewee ’s habit of asking questions when they were asking questions, including asking questions for more than a minute, not following up with other experts ’questions, and using inaccurate terms, which caused officials to correct the reporters. Avoiding the core of the question, and "I like to throw out some speculation in the field when asking questions, and directly ask the other party whether the speculation is true." He pointed out that if "guessing" is added to the question, it is possible for officials to avoid substantive issues by directly denying the guesses. For example, a reporter asked why Liang Zhenying should be the chairman of all inter-departmental meetings. When the development of Hengzhou involved the interests of brownfields and people in the region and took the initiative to intervene as the chairman of the inter-departmental working group, Liang Zhenying immediately denied the second question speculation with "very simple answer, don't you", but did not respond to the reporter. Questions worth answering.

The problem is that, in fact, the reporters know that most of the interviewees will directly deny the speculations in the market, but they like to throw these speculations in the question. Rebuke or venting is the case-the Hengzhou press conference will ask whether Lin Zhengyue 721 is official. The same is true of the big dragon and the phoenix co-starring, and if Tang Ruoyun is "knowingly knowing why," she may also join the speculation that "the WHO will avoid talking about Taiwan" when "the agenda is set."

If we want to count the most classic "good questions" in the minds of Hong Kong people, we have to mention the confrontation between the cable TV reporter Zhang Baohua in October 2000 and the President Jiang Zemin's "hand-picked chief executive". At that time, the Chief Executive Dong Jianhua went to Beijing to report his duties. During the period, the central government held three press conferences. Vice Premier Qian Qichen attended the first press conference. The Hong Kong reporter asked whether the central government would support Dong Jianhua ’s re-election. Qian Qichen said that he would support it. "The Central Committee appointed Dong Jianhua to be re-elected as chief executive" for the front page. On the same day, Premier Zhu Rongji of the State Council attended the second press conference, and Hong Kong reporters raised the same question, but Zhu Rongji did not respond. Jiang Zemin attended the last press conference in the afternoon when he and Dong Jianhua During the handshake, Zhang Baohua first asked whether he would support the re-election of the other party. Jiang Zemin first responded in Cantonese with "Okay". Zhang Baohua asked again, "Does the central government support him?" Jiang Zemin still said with a smile "Of course."

However, afterwards, Zhang Baohua asked: "So now, you said that you support Mr. Dong, would you feel that the central government has decided and appointed Mr. Dong?" Jiang Zemin immediately fired, saying that he could have answered "Nothing. "Comment", but taking into account the media may be unhappy, so he directly responded to the question, but he emphasized that his and the central government's "support" for Dong Jianhua does not mean "initiating the other party's re-election", because the central government cannot not support the election. Chief Executive. Jiang Zemin became more and more excited, and even walked to the reporters, describing himself as "experienced in battle". He had met many Western media and hoped that the Hong Kong media would improve their knowledge. He also felt that Hong Kong journalists could cover the world anytime, anywhere. "It runs faster than other Western journalists, but the questions asked are all" too simple, sometimes naive ""; he then added "I'm sorry", and said that he was only an elder rather than a journalist. Talk to the reporter present, "It is necessary to tell you some life experiences."

In most Hong Kong people's memories, perhaps they only remember Zhang Baohua's "sharp questions" and Jiang Zemin's "reprimanded reporters", but they rarely calm down and reflect. Why did Jiang Zemin criticize Zhang Baohua's question "too simple, sometimes naive"? Of course, no one would doubt that Zhang Baohua was guiding Jiang Zemin towards the "hand-picked" direction from the beginning-the question of "support or not" was clearly raised by the reporter. He said that "support" was interpreted as an "early expression." "Hand-picked Chief Executive". It is worth mentioning that Zhang Baohua talked about that experience in an interview with the media in recent years, emphasizing that "hand-picking" was not initiated by her, but quoted from the front page of the newspaper of the day-the question is, how did the newspaper's statement come Isn't it just "guessing among the people"? In addition to the "haha" smile, readers have even deepened the stereotype of "central appointed chief executive", what else have they got?

related articles︰

Three problems of Radio Television Hong Kong behind the storms of WHO and "Toutiao"

Can Hong Kong and Taiwan become "Hong Kong BBC" without the government structure and independent operation?

Can corporatization keep Hong Kong Radio away from political disturbances?

The above was published in the 208th issue of "Hong Kong 01" Weekly Newsletter (April 6, 2020), "Reporters' question is a matter of duty, but why sometimes naive? 》

More weekly articles: 【01 Weekly News Page】

The "Hong Kong 01" weekly newspaper is available at major newsstands, OK convenience stores and Vango convenience stores. You can also subscribe to the weekly report here to read more in-depth reports.

New Coronary Pneumonia RTHK World Health Organization WHO One Country Two Systems Cross-Strait Relations 01 Weekly In-depth Report