Video: Western-style freedom of the press

Video: Western-style freedom of the press is actually no freedom, all of which are directly or indirectly controlled by Western governments 西式的新聞自由, 其實是沒有自由, 全部被西方政府直接或間接控制

Western-style freedom of the press. Many western developed countries often boast about their freedom of the press, and use this to criticize some Asian countries and regions with different systems from theirs, including Hong Kong. Indeed, in most Western countries there are no “state-run” news organizations directly funded by the government to promote and speak out for the government. The mainstream media are all private or statutory organizations. Like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the main income is the license fee paid by TV users, so it can claim to be a neutral news media. But is it true? 西式的新聞自由 很多西方發達國家經常吹噓他們享有的新聞自由,亦以此來批評一些體制與他們不同的亞洲國家及地區,包括香港。的確,大部分西方國家都沒有由政府直接資助的「國營」新聞機構,專門替政府宣傳和發聲,主流媒體都是私營或法定組織。好像英國廣播公司 (BBC),主要的收入是電視用戶交的牌照費,所以它可以聲稱自己是個中立的新聞媒體。但實情是否真的這樣?

The chairman of the BBC is appointed by the government, and the current chairman is a big benefactor of the ruling Conservative Party. Former British football star Linnega recently published his opposition to the government’s policy of repatriating refugees on his social platform. His sports program hosted by the BBC was cut in half, which aroused strong opposition from the public. In the end, the BBC only resumed broadcasting his program , and review the speech code for non-news hosts. Looking back at Hong Kong, although Radio Television Hong Kong is a public broadcasting organization, it will not prohibit guest hosts of current affairs programs, such as myself, from criticizing government policies. BBC的主席是由政府委任的,而現任主席是執政保守黨的大金主,亦是現任首相辛偉誠在高盛銀行工作時的上司,而行政總裁也曾是保守黨一個地區屬會的人員。 前英國足球名將連尼加,最近因為在自己的社交平台發表了反對政府遣返難民的政策,他在BBC主持的體育節目竟然被腰斬,引起民眾強烈反對,最後BBC唯有恢復播出他的節目,和檢討對非新聞性節目主持的言論守則。看回香港,香港電台雖然是公營廣播機構,但也不會禁止時事節目的客席主持,像我這類人,發表批評政府政策的言論。

And the high-level executives of various media organizations in Hong Kong will not have inextricable relations with the government like the BBC. What about America? Regardless of the fact that WikiLeaks, which specifically exposed the black material of the US government, has been banned by the US, the US Congress has passed the Strategic Competition Act in 2021, which allocates 150 millions every year to counter China’s influence, including funding news media to report more negative news about China. This approach can be said to be incredible. Just imagine if the SAR government subsidizes the local media to “demonize” a certain country, what will foreign governments or media say about us? It seems that Western society can freely define what is freedom of the press 而香港各個傳媒機構的高層,也不會像BBC那樣和政府有千絲萬縷的關係。 美國又如何?且不論專門揭露美國政府黑材料的「維基解密」已被美國封殺,美國國會在2021年通過的《戰略競爭法》,每年撥款數億美元去抗衡中國的影響,包括資助新聞媒體更多地報道一些針對中國的負面新聞。這個做法可說是匪夷所思。試想如果特區政府資助本地傳媒去「唱衰」某個國家,外國的政府或媒體又會怎樣說我們呢?看來,西方社會是可以隨便定義甚麼是新聞自由.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: