01 perspective
Written by: Yu Pinhai
2019-12-05 20:00
Last updated: 2019-12-05 20:00Some people have tried to promote online and promote everyone to like "Hong Kong 01" on Facebook, including not sharing our information. This is not the first time, and it may not be the last time. The purpose of the sponsor is to make people stop watching "Hong Kong 01", and by not sharing the information we publish, interfere with Facebook's calculations and reduce our communication power. Hong Kong is a society under the rule of law. Inspiring others to like "Hong Kong 01" is not glorious, but it is not illegal. We will not interfere with the exercise of freedom of speech by others, but do not mean that we will endure it in silence. We have the right to express disagreement and opposition to such boring actions and protect our freedom of speech and the press. We hope that the advocates are simply trying to vent their personal likes and dislikes, not trying to eliminate dissent.
In fact, leveraging the emotions and agitation of people, especially young people, to persuade others to cover up different perspectives through political smearing, including moral threats, is a low-level "persuasion". Some extreme media like to use this method to gather people. In fact, some methods are similar to the CCP's authoritarian methods. Of course, "Hong Kong 01" has received such "attention", which shows that we have social influence and our market position threatens the traditional news forces that dominate public opinion for a long time. However, reducing competition through unlike means, rather than increasing the audience by doing well, is a weak performance, and it does not achieve the result of weakening the competitiveness of Hong Kong 01. Under the banner of democracy and freedom, encouraging tearing to deal with dissidents, and even eliminating them, is a particularly despicable act. Young people should not be affected by such despicable behaviors. Instead, they must learn to accept multiple perspectives on the existence of society. If they only live in the small world they imagine and hide in the "young" body, they will never grow up.
The success of the journalism industry is to know how to be closely linked with the social context. It can neither follow the trend nor leave the ground. It must guide public opinion and distinguish the wind direction. The definition of news has changed. The simple world of simple information has little value in the online world. A hundred years ago, Reuters succeeded in passing information between Europe and the Americas. But if I still die today, it will be closed. News includes the decomposition, analysis, and judgment of information, and even investigation, verification, and verification. Online amateurs or KOLs may be better at dissemination, but usually they cannot complete the job of news. Some people think that UGC (User Generated Content) is the future and will replace PGC (Professional Generated Content). This is an overstatement. The UGC's statement that best reflects social facts is also biased, because facts are not absolute, and different people can see different facts. This also causes UGC to often provide only one's own opinions, and in many cases it is to blind the elephant.
01 The reporter has been following the anti-revision case storm for months, providing readers with first-hand information. (Photo / Photo by 01 reporter)
Do the job of journalism
"Hong Kong 01" has been able to break the Hong Kong news industry structure that has been maintained for more than 20 years in less than four years. There is only one reason to return to the fundamentals of journalism and do the work that journalism professionals deserve, instead of being shrouded in ideology. Hong Kong news industry is holding its nose. First of all, we are not afraid to offend the government, not to offend the "big guys" in the press, not to offend the moral dogma used by society, not to offend the common people or the establishment, including their ideology, not to offend the Western District, and not to offend the business community or even the public. This is not because we have fear and fear, but we have no desire to be just, we will never have trouble for no reason, and we will not be right or wrong because we like or dislike someone or something.
Secondly, we emphasize that we must truly understand all aspects of social issues, and will not use superficial reasons to judge top quality. The biggest test for journalists is whether they have the knowledge to understand the issues covered. Too many people learn a few political slogans and regard policy as a child's play. They do not learn anything, but under the banner of "freedom of the press", they think they can fight all over the world. This is a naive approach, which has tarnished everyone's attention and pursuit. "free". Similarly, some formed representatives who are close to the center of power, thinking that they have the right, have no one in sight. How different is this from the opposition they hate? We do not have the ability to gather journalists and editors who are well-read and talented, but we know how to work together, do a good job, continue learning, and try our best to improve our understanding in all areas. To make corrections, you will not think that the truth is in your own hands, nor will you think that "reasonable just expose it."
The third is to have justice, tolerance and forward-looking values. Everything will change, but one thing that is constant in social affairs is that everyone's affairs must be in the interests of everyone, not in the interests of someone, a group, or even some ideology or political dogma. The individual is not society, and the people are society. The interests are not based on dogma or certain beliefs, such as liberalism or conservatism, nor do they override the interests of American politicians over the interests of Hong Kong, but based on the actual feelings of everyone about their own needs. Putting individualism above society and using the name of freedom is not only self-deception but also reading a dead book. Democracy is not an empty slogan, nor is it just about elections. It is a methodology for people to manage social affairs. There is no universally accepted practice model. Defining the Anglo-American political system as democracy is not ideal. At least it does not meet the principle of conforming to the interests of all people. Too many people are exploited and unfair in this system. How can it be true democracy, excluding "economic democracy"?
Defining the Anglo-American political system as democracy is not ideal. At least it does not meet the principle of conforming to the interests of all people. Too many people are exploited and unfair in this system. (Photo / Photo by Yu Junliang)
Understanding Hong Kong from Two Situation Changes
The above three points are the reasons why Hong Kong 01 has gradually established its industry status and public acceptance in the past few years. The news industry is a business activity that requires capital, but only capital does not bring success. In fact, the news industry is the industry that is least affected by the size of capital. Many years ago, when I was considering whether to launch "Hong Kong 01", I noticed the development of two situations: China's strong rise and national rejuvenation have changed world politics for more than a century, and China and the West have entered into a re-understanding, confrontation and even conflict Hong Kong has played a unique role in this "big change". On the other hand, Hong Kong society faces serious social transformation challenges. Like many developed economies, it touches on the deep-seated structural contradictions that Hong Kong has ignored for a long time, highlighting the conflict between vested interests and vulnerable groups. The previous Occupy Movement and recent anti-revision riots are both such contradictions and As a result of the conflict, they are parasitic on political issues, creating serious social instability. Of course, if I am not a native of Hong Kong, these observations will only be part of academic research, or a draft of the New York Times, and I will not let myself fall into this historical event. Perhaps not many people agree with this mood and understanding, thinking that it is too far away from the Hong Kong issue. It is just an imagination. The world is not so complicated. However, Hong Kong 01 is based on the changes in the two situations mentioned above to recognize Hong Kong, China, and the world. Microscope and telescope.
Those who constantly criticize and discredit "Hong Kong 01", in addition to using yellow and blue to define their own knowledge, are even more ridiculous to use "red" to blame "Hong Kong 01". The absurdity is not that they are referring to a deer as a horse, but that they do not know whether a deer is a horse or a deer without knowing the difference between a deer and a horse. Hong Kong people live under the "red" national flag. This is not only a reality for everyone, but also the choice of most people. What is to blame? Before the reunification, everyone was holding a British Hong Kong passport. Even if they claimed to be "Chinese", how could they legally prove their identity? Similarly, after the return, even if you are holding a BNO (British Overseas National Passport) in your hand, you cannot claim to be British because the British government has refused to allow you to become a British citizen from the beginning. Of course, you can say that you had no choice but to do the "red bottom", it was your parents' fault, but Hong Kong is free and no one can hinder immigration. However, before making the choice of immigration, I earnestly hope that everyone will actively promote the reform of Hong Kong. Don't be impulsive and give up this place that is born and born with all kinds of memories and a group of friends you know. To do this well, you must first accept that Hong Kong is a part of China and you are a "red bottom." Even if you don't have any favor or interest in the Mainland, you must at least make Hong Kong a good choice. This is a meaningful choice.
"Hong Kong 01" has considered Hong Kong "it's time to change" from the beginning, because there are too many places to satisfy our imagination and pursuit, especially young people. In the process of change, vested interests must be the first to bear the brunt, but if the society after the change allows the most people to live and work in peace and embrace the future, such a change is worthwhile, not to mention that social instability is not conducive to vested interests. The interests of individual groups should never hinder the development of society as a whole, let alone I really think that reform will not unreasonably deprive some people of their interests. The recent social conflict has told everyone that it is neither possible nor practical to continue to ignore the fairness and justice of society. Vested interests can only choose to actively participate in or be reformed, because reform is necessarily the only way to restore society after a conflict.
Hong Kong people live under the "red" national flag. This is not only a reality for everyone, but also the choice of most people. What is to blame? (Profile picture / Photo by Gong Jiasheng)
Promote social reforms to eliminate violence
Some people have threatened that the formed group is the object of the reform. This judgment is correct, but when the opposition is regarded as a reformer, it is only trees. The constitutional system in Hong Kong is not just the so-called constitutional political party, but the "establishment" that includes the vast majority of civil servants, the business community, the vast majority of the middle class, professional groups, and popular parties. They may be a group of critics of the government, but they are not equivalent The "establishment" has not been consolidated by their own methods. Take the legal profession, the medical profession, the financial profession, and the people in Central as an example. Most of them are groups on the "anti-government" side in recent anti-revision conflicts. But do they realize that they are also members of vested interest groups? A group that distorts social issues and hinders reform in Hong Kong? This statement may not be politically correct, but it is a fact that doctors refuse to accept outside practitioners and lawyers keep protecting their amazing fees, are not all excellent cases? Take the people as an example. When did they use the passion for political reform to promote retirement reform and housing reform in the past two or three decades? In the process of MTR's listing and the privatization of LinkedIn, have the professional groups considered that these policies will cause unfair distribution? When the government stopped building public housing or refused to surrender the insurance, did Dai Yaoting think of using "occupy the middle" to oppose it? Leung Kwok-hung is a populist who lives in a public housing estate. Apart from moving the coffin and preventing others from speaking, what has he done? After some politicians became members of the parliament, they had nothing to worry about. Have they considered the predicament of mortuary families and used the efforts to promote universal suffrage to change the lives of vulnerable groups?
After six months of conflict, everyone will no longer believe that the conflict is only due to the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Regulations, but because of the deep-rooted structural contradictions in the society, and the anti-revision legislation is only an introduction. The force used by the police in the enforcement of these six months has caused great anxiety among Hong Kong citizens, but can the blame be entirely attributed to the police? The overwhelming majority of citizens who support the anti-revision law consider political issues to be resolved politically. The result of the district council elections is a political solution. The government must bear all the responsibilities for initiating violence and bear the consequences of the defeat of the constitutional faction, but these cannot prove the rationality of violence. Some pan-political politicians only know that Hong Kong has no democracy and freedom. If so, why can the conflict continue to this day? Some people have claimed that Hong Kong's one country, two systems, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy are lies, but the PLA has never been dispatched. Does this mean that they have been deceived by their imagination? Should democratic freedom continue to develop? of course! Is there room for improvement in one country, two systems, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong and a high degree of autonomy? of course! But all of this must be based on the promotion of fairness and justice in Hong Kong. It is both a prerequisite for democracy and freedom, one country, two systems, and a goal. Without fairness and justice, all democracy and freedom are empty words, and the comprehensive and profound reform consensus of the Hong Kong people is the starting point of the two pursuits.
"Hong Kong 01" is already a part of Hong Kong's social reality and will not be easily wiped out. The brave faction encourages "yellow silk" to like "Hong Kong 01" only to prove their emptiness and departure from the ground. It is not unreasonable to be motivated by violence, but its disappearance will also be the inevitable result of social progress. Reform is a means to urge the brave martial arts to withdraw from the stage of history. Only through reform can violence be effectively controlled and ultimately eliminated. "Hong Kong 01" hopes that in this process, young brave martial arts will reflect on their true role, change their identities, and use more effective methods to promote reform, instead of being the object of being eliminated by reform.
What Hong Kong needs is "structural reform"
Is "Hong Kong 01" "blue" or "yellow"?
Fugitive Offences Regulation 01