The title of “Director of Broadcasting” should be renamed

    I am not and have never been a staff member of the RTHK. But as a member of the Hong Kong news media, I feel obliged to explain to readers outside of the industry why I think the appointment of an administrative officer (AO) to head the public broadcaster is a problem.

    Undoubtedly, RTHK has a unique status among all media outlets in the city, as the broadcaster is also a government department. Some argue that the appointment of an AO as the Director of Broadcasting (DB) is fine because it is in line with the practice for other government departments. I would have agreed with this viewpoint had the job nature of the DB been administrative, i.e. if the DB were the chief administrator of an official organ which executed Hong Kong’s broadcasting policies. But is that the case?

    With full acknowledgement of the RTHK’s status as part of the government structure, let’s draw comparison from another department in our administration. For example, the Director of Leisure and Cultural Services heads the Department of Leisure and Cultural Services, which executes the government’s policies on leisure and cultural services. I believe most would agree that she does not need the knowledge of a librarian or the skills of a professional swimmer to oversee the operation of libraries and swimming pools run by her department.

    Now, let’s look at the role of the Director of Broadcasting. Does he head something called the Department of Broadcasting? No, such a department does not exist. Does he regulate broadcasters in Hong Kong? No, that is the job of the Broadcasting Authority. What he leads is one of the broadcasters in the city. Then what is his role in RTHK? Clauses C (8) and (9) of the RTHK Charter clearly that the director is the editor-in-chief of RTHK, and is responsible for making final editorial decisions. That is to say, the job is a professional, not purely administrative in nature.

    Unlike the Director of Leisure of Cultural Services, who has a professional Chief Librarian as her subordinate, the Director of Broadcasting himself performs the professional duties as the Editor-in-Chief of radio and television services. That is the key of the issue.

    Some critics have argued that the RTHK staff union’s opposition of Mr. Roy Tang’s appointment amounted to an unreasonable complaint, or that Mr. Tang “should be given a chance” to perform before being judged whether he was suitable for the position. With due respect to their opinion, I am afraid those who hold such a view have missed the point. While it is perfectly fine to appoint a brilliant business executive without any medical training as the CEO of the Hospital Authority, it would pose a threat to patients’ health and lives if such a person was appointed as the chief surgeon, who makes final decisions on medical operations. If the misleading title of the “Director of Broadcasting” could be renamed the “Editor-in-Chief of RTHK” to properly reflect the job nature, I believe the general public would appreciate the rationale behind the campaign for the appointment of a professional to take up the role. Or if the government insists there should be a “Director of Broadcasting”, strip all editorial work from the duty list of the post.

習以為常？還是理所當然？

　   記者參加政府部門的新聞發佈會，應是習以為常的工作吧？




　　傳媒出席政府部門的新聞發佈會，應是理所當然的權利吧？



　　但如果你認為理所當然的事大家習以便會習以為常，那麼對不起，世事並非如此。



　　最近讀到這樣一個故事。一九九八年五月，日本首相橋本龍太郎召開記者會，宣布對剛進行核試的印度展開經濟制裁。彭博通訊社東京分社社長, David Butts聽到消息便前往採訪──一宗關乎公眾利益的國際新聞，作為通訊者記者出席記者會向所駐國家首相提問，應是他自然該做的工作吧？



　　不過Butts的出現，不但沒有被他在當地的同業們視為平常事，更被日本政府視為大不該的事。一群保安人員圍着他要求他離去，他拒絕遵從，最後因橋本龍太郎入場，保安人員為免生事，才沒有繼續糾纏，讓Butts留下。但他的行動卻被秋後算帳，事件過後，執政自民黨杯葛彭博記者，東京交易所也封殺該社的採訪一星期。　

　

　　為何日本官方會有這樣的反應呢？原來日本數十年來一直媒體奉行「記者俱樂部」制度，採訪權集中在約二十間主要報章和電視台手中，記者要出席官方或政黨新聞活動，便必須先成為由這些大傳媒機構控制的各個「記者俱樂部」會員。小型傳媒機構和外國傳媒記者，甚至連本地雜誌記者和自由撰稿人，一般都不會獲發會員資格，所以像Butts這種不被官方認可的記者，便會被排斥。



　　說回故事的發展。該名「出位」記者的行動雖招惹日本政權一時報復，但他與其他不甘屈服於這個特權採訪制度的記者持續抗議，終於引來日本傳媒行業，後來以致歐盟的關注。2002年歐盟發表報告，指出日本的「記者俱樂部」排除外國記者採訪權是違反資訊公平發放的原則。兩年後，日本政府終於讓步，外務省宣布容許持有記者證的外國記者採訪官方新聞。



　　回到我們香港。最近前線記者們討論罷用政府新聞處拍攝片段，引起了一陣子話題。事件的導火線是副總理李克強訪港時，多項活動都不容許傳媒現場採訪，只由新聞處發放經過濾的片段和新聞稿，而政務司司長唐英年在一公開場合回應此情況時，竟說副總理訪問期間所有活動都有採訪。雖然唐司長其後為他的言論澄清，但副總理整個訪問期間的採訪安排令本港新聞工作者不禁擔憂政府是否有意以官方發佈逐漸取代傳媒採訪。



　　我主張傳媒罷用新聞處片段、聲帶及照片，並非要把傳媒與政府的關係政治化，而是認為這是維護傳媒專業原則應做的事，就像Butts堅持自己有權出席記者會一樣。無論資訊來源是政府也好、政黨也好、商業機構也好，誰也好，記者是有責任拒絕鱔稿式報道的，這個道理大家一定明白，不贅。而且，一家傳媒機構通過決定用使用哪些新聞材料來告訴觀眾、聽眾或讀者它的編輯取向，是完全和平、專業的爭取手段。可是無論前線記者怎樣熱議罷用新聞處片段，每次討論最終的結論總是：上司不會容許。



　　為甚麼全港沒有一家傳媒機構有膽量做這件事呢？為甚麼連一些知識分子報章、以民主為旗幟的報章都沒有認真考慮拒絕使用政府在閉門活動後餵來的照片呢？我和一些同業討論過，大家都說，因為沒有一家傳媒願意「遺漏」資訊，罷用這些鱔片、鱔照，便會被視為輸了給競爭對手。正是這種怕遺漏的心態，一直助長了傳媒之間你我互相抄襲，也助長了政府繼續採用欠缺透明度的資訊發放方式。例如各政策局慣於舉辦閉門吹風會，所謂「問責」官員關上門講述政府政策，神神秘秘要求記者不要引述他們的名字，像是害怕說錯話被「問責」般，但其實內容跟他們在公開場合講的往往沒甚麼分別。整個傳媒行業都知道政府濫作「消息人士」的歪風，但沒有一間傳媒機構敢站出來杯葛這些吹風會，因人人都怕「遺漏」消息，怕吃虧。於是大家習以為常地使用官方片段當作新聞採訪片段般播放、習以為常地出席這些助長官員不問責的會議，政府便繼續理所當然地誤以為，拍攝這些片段和舉辦這些吹風會已等於向公眾發佈新聞。



　　沒錯，短視地看，罷用閉門活動後的官方新聞片段和照片，是會令新聞機構有些「遺漏」，有些「吃虧」，如個別傳媒機構作先鋒而沒有同業跟隨，更有遭到政府排斥的危險。但作為傳媒人，我們是否有責任為更長遠的採訪權、為市民的知情權，打破這些歪風呢？

荷花盛開的日子，我回到母校

荷花池的花朵依然在這季節盛開。我最喜愛的下午茶餐這些年來沒有加價，仍然是八元。




回到我的母校，覺得校園處處很熟悉，但又似乎有些陌生。

人生中第一次去記者會，正是大一時以校園記者身分採訪剛到任的徐立之校長。還記得當天跟着一位師姐，到達會場外，她跟公關人員理論，問為甚麼學校准外面的傳媒進入也不准自家校園傳媒進入，公關人員答不上，我們才成功進去。



那時有點玩着的心態，誰知電視直播了記者會，返到舍堂後，樓友們紛紛對我說：「哈，你甚麼時候當了記者？我看見你向新校長提問！」我就在這個校園，無心插柳自學了一課新聞採訪。



百周年慶典這天，我回到母校，又碰到這位師姐。當年很認真為校園刊物採訪的她，現在做了記者，而我這個誤打誤撞的，也做了記者，大家不約而同來到採訪校慶。



又碰到一位師兄。他身形魁梧，在大學時是一位很活躍的同學，還記得有一次我們一起討論學運，他說如果他1997年時是港大生，必會在那人群中挑戰警方佈防誓把國殤之柱送進校內。這天在我再見到這位師兄，他以警務人員身分，參與慶典保安工作。他先離遠看見我，向我微笑點頭。我一樣微笑回應，既然今天大家工作崗位不同，我也不好意思在該場合交談，心領神會已足。



我在大學的最後一年做過一個很令人回味的工作，叫做綠袍大使。為向各方訪客介紹這校園，我埋首熟讀港大創校歷史，認真不下於應付本科考試。我沒有像現在的學生大使般上電視，也沒有向國家領導人介紹過我校歷史，只是給遊客和中學生講解過。現在仍記得唸過，創校時港督盧押說過這學府是「為中國而立」。



何謂「為中國而立」，眾說紛紜，不過既然今天的荷花池旁仍置着國父像，我還是相信港大不僅是香港的大學的，說她要做中國國土上的一所國際大學，並無不對。我不會簡單地說，大學邀請國家領導人來訪，就等於諂媚政權。孫中山先生1923年2月20日回到母校演講時，也是貴為非常大總統。想起那幀舊照片，國父在大禮堂，即現在的陸佑堂前，與眾師生留影，學生有的席地而坐，有的站着，統統都圍在孫大總統身旁，那一幕成為了珍貴的歷史圖片。據載當天一眾學生聽罷演講後，歡呼喝采，是在群情高漲下合力把中山先生抬到禮堂外拍照。當時的孫中山正準備翌日赴廣州建立大元帥府對付軍閥，豈無人身危險？照片中不見一兵一卒在保護政要，學生可以抬領導人，是否今人可想像？



港大百年，也是革命百年。我們的國家走出帝制一個世紀了，為甚麼在今日的中國、今日的港大，不再有學生抬國家領導人，只見校園外警察抬示威者？

Thich Nhat Hanh's happiness 一行禪師的快樂

(This article is about the public lecture given by Thich Nhat Hanh on Nov 14, 2010 in Hong Kong)

It had always been in my impression that the Buddhist view of life was about suffering. So I was curious to find out how Thich Nhat Hanh would teach people to be happy.



Not peace, not nirvana. Yes, what the Zen master suggests we can achieve is happiness. Happiness is here and now, he says.



I stepped into the seminar hall ready to listen to a lecture. To my surprise, I was first delivered a concert. At the centre of the stage was a monk playing the guitar. A host led the audience to sing some songs of which lyrics were printed in the booklets distributed to the floor. “Breathing in, breathing out, I am blooming as a flower,” we sang. Then the host led the audience to do some simple meditation exercises, as we waited for the official start of the programme.



Everyone was solemnly silent when Thay entered the hall. After a few words of greetings, the Zen master gently rang the bell.



Frankly speaking, I had sometimes found temple music, mostly sung at religious ceremonies, quite spooky. But this unexpected stage performance at Thay’s lecture was an ear-opening experience.



Joining the monk-guitarist was a nun who played the violin. Another monk played the cello. A group of nuns standing on the stage began singing as sopranos. It later turned into a mixed choir performance when tenors – the group of monks standing beside, joined in singing.



Be there for your loved ones, Thay said. Be mindful whatever you are doing. Breathe mindfully, walk mindfully, drink tea mindfully.



Mud is suffering, Lotus is happiness. Without mud, there is no lotus, the Zen master said. It was perhaps his answer to my question of why he was teaching people to be happy.



Unfortunately there was no question and answer opportunities at the talk. I had an enjoyable evening but left with a new question in my mind: Why did Thich Nhat Hanh mention Jesus’s Kingdom of God every time when he mentioned Buddha’s pure land? Does he think Christians and Buddhists are actually worshipping the same god, as Christians and Muslims are?