記者之聲The Journalist (HKJA)

記協會址新面貌

2014-02-13T00:43:00.001-08:00

裝修前的記協辦公室內部

「香港記者協會」是一個讓前線新聞工作者凝聚團結力量的平台，記協會址則是行家打牙骹、分享工作逸事的聚腳點。這個位於灣仔駱克道的地方，自回歸前購入至今超過16年，設施一直沿用至今。遷入日子不算長，但期間未經任何修葺，儲存文件的吊櫃變得搖搖欲墜、牆壁油漆剝落、膠地板污積難除，物件堆積擺放，空間實在「不見使」。一連串籌備工作過後，今年9月，記協會址正式大修葺。

回首當年，一眾記者前輩擔心回歸後的政治環境，決定為記協購買永久會址，好讓薪火相傳，令爭取新聞自由的工作得以順利延續下去。回歸前香港樓市經歷瘋狂歲月，覓址困難，記協曾要求前港督彭定康提供合適地方作為會址，然而港府提出的建議不理想，最終記協決定自行籌募經費自置會址——透過「一人一磚」的捐款，以及調撥數年的周年晚會籌款，總算覓得一個「家」，免卻租樓可能引伸經常搬家的煩惱。

裝修後的記協辦公室內部

作出大修葺的決定也殊不容易，尤其我們的經常收入依靠會費和捐款，要量入為出，向會員交代。另外，如何處理和保存會址中央的「一人一磚」簽名牆，是修葺的一大難題。簽名牆載有當年捐款者和資深記者的親筆留名和題字，已故老報人陸鏗先生在牆上留下的「新聞自由萬歲」六字，最具歷史價值和意義。

招標、格價、設計、選色、保安、重置簽名牆……，過程既繁且複。經過三個多月的籌備及施工，翻新後的記協會址終於面世。在此要特別嗚謝「記協裝修小組」成員這五個月來犧牲私人時間，費盡思量，參與討論和決策。

記協會址除了是執委會及屬下小組開會的地方，還是會員歇一歇腳、看看書、飲咖啡的好選擇。歡迎行家們經過附近順道上來參觀，順便填妥入會表，支持記協工作，日後記協舉辦的記者會及工作坊，也許亦會在這裏舉行。

原本掛於辦公室中央位置「一人一磚」簽名牆，現置於門外，配以燈光投射，份外醒目。

記者以提問為生

2014-02-13T00:41:00.000-08:00

黃凱宜　記協總幹事

“I am just questioning. I am not screaming.”

“That’s okay… You are not going to offend his Excellency. Now, out.”

提問乃記者天職，然而，當提問成為沒收記者採訪證及驅逐記者的藉口，新聞自由被粗暴踐踏，公眾知情權被無理剝削，記者是否就此退縮、妥協、滅聲？

亞太經合組織領導人峰會（APEC）10月初在印尼峇里舉行，本港多間傳媒派員到會場採訪，三間電子傳媒包括now新聞台、香港電台及商業電台的記者，把握機會向準備開會的菲律賓總統阿基諾三世發問，了解阿基諾會否就菲律賓人質事件向死難者家屬道歉，以及會否與正在當地的行政長官梁振英會面。記者沒得到阿基諾的回應，卻受到數名大會工作人員的「招呼」 ——記者被指高聲叫囂，亞太經合組織領導人工商會議主席Mr Wishnu Wardhana直斥記者的提問冒犯與會嘉賓，要求記者即時離場。結果，四名本港記者被趕出會場，證件被沒收，記者要求大會發還採訪證不得要領，至於另外兩名事發時並不在場的now新聞台記者及工程人員，其採訪證同樣失效。

事情並沒就此完結，有關記者事後被大會列入監視名單，外出被跟蹤，亦有記者因為採訪證被沒收，被下令搬出原本入住的酒店。印尼方面指，香港記者對阿基諾構成安全威脅，阿基諾發言人亦指記者的提問是超越界線，威脅他的安全。

有份向阿基諾提問的香港電台記者葉燿坤返港後以筆紀錄事件，他認為「在一個國際級峰會出現如此不文明的管理模式，實在令人難以想像」。

記者被當成恐怖份子

2014-02-13T00:40:00.000-08:00

葉燿坤香港電台

在亞太經合組織的國際峰會，主辦國賦予傳媒新聞自由是理所當然，實際上過往亦鮮有主辦國被指對待記者不周的批評。這一切背景都令我出發到峇里前少一份擔憂，但想不到抵達當地第三天，就發生令人意想不到的事情。

阿基諾在APEC會場經過時，香港記者把握機會提問。
Hong Kong journalists waited for the arrival of Aquino and asked questions

事發當日我按指示，到菲律賓總統阿基諾三世出席峰會講座的酒店，等待他進入會場，查詢會不會與香港特首會面、為甚麼不回應特區政府的電郵等問題。與兩家本港傳媒行家在會場入口站立十分鐘，發覺現場保安不太嚴密。雖有數名「西裝骨骨」的保鑣在場，但他們完全沒有理會在場的香港記者，連架起「紅繩」分隔傳媒與嘉賓都欠奉，這種做法在有國家領導人出席的場合實屬少見。

被搶證件 未有交代

目標人物終於出現，阿基諾邊走邊與另一嘉賓交談，現場人流眾多，雜聲多，要確保他可聽到我的問題，只能用較大的聲線提問。我先發問，沒有得到回應，阿基諾甚至望一眼也沒有，其他行家一樣提出問題，都得不到他的注視。短短一分鐘多，我們問不過十條問題，阿基諾就走進會場。

正當以為任務完成之際，連串事情即告發生。一班身上有代表團證件的人士，先走到我們身旁指指點點，對話語氣像是在批評，不久一名大會工作人員走過來，以疑問的語氣問我們在做甚麼，我出於禮貌，簡單地回應，他想了想，就說我們身處的地方不是記者區，要帶我們到場內的傳媒中心，怎知他帶我們到出口，就說我們違反了規矩。我立刻與他理論，並沒有得到理會，更被快速拿起在胸前的證件，他望一望就搶走了，然後說：「你已被取消採訪資格，立刻離開。」

一個國際峰會主辦單位，未有詳細交代理由，就取消傳媒採訪資格，更搶走記者證件，處事手法只能用低劣來形容。後來我們收到香港新聞處的回覆，指「事情不會在短時間內解決」，我已心中有數，記者證不可能發回，但意想不到的事卻未有停止發生。

彪形大漢拍照監視

第二天，從酒店房間走出大堂，情景與早前的日子大不同，多了近十名當地人坐在沙發上，全都是彪形大漢。我最初以樂觀心態面對，以為他們可能都是酒店貴賓，不可能是當局派人監視自己，但到中午出外用餐候車，那批「貴賓」其中一員走到我身旁，拿起手機對著我，我當時也不以為然，直至他手機的閃光燈「叱吒」一閃，然後一臉尷尬地走開。我即時相信自己的疑慮已經有足夠證據支持。隨後行家告知我被列入大會的「受監視名單」，我已經不感到有甚麼大不了，只當是自己疑慮的另一個憑證。

被監視的日子維持了兩天，就在峰會完結一刻回復自由。行政長官梁振英最後一天為峇里行程作總結時，他一句「不能為記者取回記者證感到不好意思」，為事情暫劃上句號。事情已過兩個月，至今我仍對一些枝節百思不得其解，甚至感到莫名其妙。

獨裁管理難以接受

首先，我還未明白主辦單位憑甚麼說我們犯規，取消我們的採訪資格。在與大會人員爭辯過程中，他們大概認為我們有兩項違規動作，分別是在非指定地區採訪及叫囂，但我翻閱兩本大會派發給傳媒的指引及守則中，完全看不到有訂下相關規則，亦看不到一旦違規，可能要面對的罰則。在事發的會場外，亦沒有任何告示，指明記者不能在該處採訪。

假若他們早已訂下有關規矩，但不使用有效方式告知傳媒，反映大會運作極欠透明度，又或是不懂得接待傳媒的基本要求。相反，如果根本沒有此規則，只是主辦國見有代表團不悅即以此等方式處理，顯示大會以獨裁思維處理爭議。在一個國際級峰會出現如此不文明的管理模式，實在令人難以想像。

再者，大會為何又需要禁止我們採訪整個峰會，甚至派人員跟蹤我們呢？四名香港新聞工作者，身上沒有任何違禁品、武器，沒有任何衝撞，只是舉高攝影機、訪問咪，說出了幾條關乎外交、人質事件跟進情況的問題，換來的卻是沒收記者證，及被一班便衣人員當作恐怖份子、罪犯來監視、跟蹤，有必要嗎？

在「有相有真相」年代，我慶幸整件事發生的過程都由片段記錄下來，是非黑白、誰對誰錯，未來都能靠這段影片弄得一清二楚。明年亞太經合組織峰會將會轉到中國及香港舉行，總算令我少了一份擔憂，我採訪這個峰會的機會不會就此完結。但往後的日子，曾經被監視、被拒於會場門外的我，在其他主辦國有沒有正常採訪的機會，這一刻仍然是一個未知數。

合理採訪權不容踐踏

2014-02-13T00:39:00.001-08:00

黃凱宜記協總幹事

近年經常聽到記者被同行批評不發問，部分人有如錄音機，將受訪對象的說話內容錄下翻聽就了事。早前在印尼峇里，香港記者主動向菲律賓總統阿基諾三世提問，似乎為同行平反，可惜，有關記者竟被亞太經合大會指是冒犯嘉賓，採訪證被沒收，記者更失去人身自由被監視。香港記者協會事後一連兩日發聲明表達強烈不滿，強調記者提問不等於無禮，以此剝奪採訪權實屬無理，並譴責大會限制記者的人身自由，認為當局指控記者威脅阿基諾安全是匪夷所思及不可接受。

除此之外，記協還發信予印尼主辦方，要求立即發還記者採訪證，將記者從監視名單中剔除，確保採訪不受限制。記協亦分別致函國家主席習近平及行政長官梁振英，期望他們能親自跟進，早日解決事件。令人失望的是，大會沒有發還採訪證，涉事記者終究未能繼續採訪，梁振英回應事件時更只拋下一句「不好意思」，極為諷刺。

雖然如此，記協仍為爭取保障記者的基本權利而努力，聯同國際記者聯會、香港電台節目製作人員工會的代表以及一批新聞工作者，先後到印尼駐港領事館及菲律賓駐港領事館遞信抗議。記協後來又向APEC與會國的記者組織及其他國際記者團體發信，爭取支持譴責印尼主辦方妨礙記者工作，並要求各成員國關注，呼籲日後的主辦國保障記者的採訪權，最終獲得28個國際記者組織聯署，當中四個屬APEC與會國的記者屬會。

事發當日，涉事記者曾求助政府新聞處，但似乎沒有任何效用。新聞處發言人回覆本會查詢時表示，新聞處在事件中已為傳媒提供一切可行的協助，一直積極與有關方面聯繫，全力跟進，並向有關方面反映記者的關注。APEC財長會議明年在本港舉辦，令人憂慮的是，採訪安排會否再出亂子，新聞處則指出，特區政府會與亞太經合組織秘書處及國家財政部商討，根據當時活動的場地和實際條件，制訂合適及便利本地及國際媒體的採訪安排。

記協將繼續監察，期望蔑視採訪權及抹黑記者的情況不會再出現。

特首無牙力

2014-02-13T00:39:00.000-08:00

陳碧琪記協執委

曾任職多年中國組記者、現任浸會大學新聞系客席高級講師呂秉權指出，是次APEC主辦單位即場沒收本港記者的採訪證，將記者趕離會場，並禁止記者返回下榻酒店，做法過份，亦不尋常。他認為，主辦單位指記者對菲律賓總統阿基諾三世構成安全威脅，並無實際理據，峰會人員未弄清事實就胡亂阻撓，是不尊重新聞自由。

呂秉權過往曾多次採訪國際會議，包括在墨西哥（2002年）、日本橫濱（2010年），以及夏威夷（2011年）舉行的APEC峰會，但從未遇上今次事件的處理情況。他指，記者採訪此類活動時大聲向領導人發問非常普遍，而記者希望爭取有利位置採訪，有時會走進封鎖區，主辦單位通常會好言相勸，或有禮地請記者離開。在墨西哥採訪的一次，他跟攝影師在時任國家主席江澤民下榻的酒店躲藏，後來他們在APEC工作人員巡查時被發現，當時工作人員扣起他們的證件，將他們帶離酒店範圍後，便發回證件並稍作警告，但態度依然良好。呂秉權指，「如果主辦單位或任何人士對記者的採訪手法有意見，可先與記者磋商以表達其想法，或先作口頭警告，不需要立即趕盡殺絕。」

事件發生後，記協以及涉事新聞機構促請本港政府新聞處與主辦單位交涉，特首梁振英其後表示，對未能為記者取回採訪證感到不好意思。呂秉權指，「今次事件顯示特首辦無牙力，亦無身段。作為一個地方的首長，如果只是口頭上講不滿，而沒有附帶行動，對方不會理你。」他指，特首絕對有能力請求外交部協助本港記者，提出嚴正交涉及抗議，要求有關方面調查事件，在真相未明前應發還記者證，如對方並無改善或無法如期提出答覆，香港及北京政府可考慮杯葛某些會議或與菲律賓或印尼的雙邊見面。

給亞太經合組織的信

2014-02-13T00:38:00.001-08:00

記協致函亞太經合組織的其中一封信件：

Michael Chapnick

傳訊及公共關係主管

亞太經濟合作組織

尊敬的Chapnick先生

事由︰數名香港記者被取消採訪亞太經濟合作組織之資格

數名香港記者在峇里亞太經濟合作組織峰會採訪期間，被無理取消採訪資格。此事無疑是這次峰會的一大污點，我們沒有人會希望同類事件再次發生。

我們最近與香港亞太經合組織貿易政策組執行董事杜大衛會晤，杜先生表示，你正為未來會議的採訪安排尋求建議。

我們期待有關改善，但是要計劃未來，必須先對過去有正確的認識。檢討峇里事件有助大家了解現行安排有何缺點，從而改善。

我們今次來信，就是要就峇里事件提供報告，有關報告是按本會與有關記者及官員的訪談而撰寫。

1. 取消記者採訪資格之理由

截至發信前，我們尚未收到任何來自亞太經合組織秘書處或印尼當局，就事件的正式解釋。

目前公眾可以看到的解釋，只有負責該次會議傳媒中心之印尼官員 Gatot Dewa Broto於十月七日記者會上的講話。

他說:「有關記者並非以正常語言説話，他們的話更像抗議，他們彷彿在示威，我們認為媒體如此行為並不合適。」「我們這樣做是出於保安考慮。」

2. 所謂示威式提問

事實︰十月六日，三名香港記者及一名攝影師於商界領袖峰會會場外等候菲律賓總統亞基諾三世。總統先生在超過十五名隨從陪伴下，抵達會場。記者們在距離他約六英尺以外提出下列問題︰

問一︰你見過梁振英嗎（Have you met CY Leung） ?

問二︰你會否就人質事件向港人道歉（Are you going to apologize to Hong Kong People for the hostage incident）?

問三︰你無視港人之訴求，對嗎（So you are ignoring Hong Kong people, right）?

問四︰你可以給我們一個答案嗎（Can you give us an answer）?

問五︰已經三年了，你會給我們一個答案嗎？（It has been three years. Can you give us an answer）?

阿基諾未有回應提問，直接進入會場。有關記者沒有追前，只是留在原地，執拾物品，準備離去。有關提問之措辭和語調，反映了這些以粵語為母語的華人記者之文化及語言特徵，與所謂示威式提問相距甚遠。

記協的關注:大會保安當局未來會根據甚麼準則來界定一個記者的提問為示威性提問?

3. 所謂保安考慮

事實:記者向阿基諾三世總統提問的地方，就在峇里國際會議中心的會議會場外。所有持有大會記者證之媒體均可進入該處，有關記者未有闖入任何禁區。

事實，就在當天上午，同一批記者於同一地點向新加坡總理李顯龍提問，當時並沒有任何保安人員向記者表示此舉有問題。

記者的關注：大會保安當局未來會根據甚麼準則來界定一項採訪活動為保安障礙?是地點？是記者提出的問題? 還是受訪者的感受?

4. 驅逐離開

事實︰阿基諾三世總統離開後約10分鐘，一名未有表露身份之印尼女士走前，並拉起其中一名記者掛在頸上的大會採訪證。她大叫︰「你可知道禮貌包括不叫囂？你知嗎？……馬上走！（Do you understand decency includes no screaming？ Do you understand that？…… Now out.”）」

另一名印尼人士又走到記者前說︰「你伏襲我們其中一位嘉賓，這是不能接受的。立即出去。（You are ambushing one of our visitors. That’s not the way. Get out now!）」他一直未有表明身份，但兩名現場記者認出他就是今次亞太經合組織商業領袖峰會的主席Wishnu Wardhara。Wardhara亦是由印尼政府委任的APEC Business Advisory Council 三位成員之一。

接著，幾位未有表明身份的人士搶走餘下的記者證，又將有關記者和攝影師推上一部汽車，沒有人告訴記者，要送他們到哪裡。而最後，他們被送回傳媒中心。

記協的關注︰誰有權力宣布一名記者或一項採訪活動為保安威脅，並決定要採取甚麼行動？是保安當局？還是像Wardhana等任何一位在場的嘉賓？還是亞太經合組織的秘書處？未來將會有甚麼程序，保證受影響的記者獲得公平並透明的處理？

5. 誰受到處罰?

事實︰now TV的一名記者和攝記師參與採訪阿基諾三世，他們被搶去記者證及驅逐離場後一小時，該電視台的其餘工作人員及記者，亦在嘗試進入傳媒中心時，發現他們的大會准入證失效。未有人向他們作出任何解釋。

記協的關注: 當一名記者被界定為保安威脅後，有關人士或當局會根據甚麼準則來決定這家傳媒的其他工作人員，是否亦應該受到一樣的處分?誰人有權作出此決定?

6. 上訴渠道之缺失

受影響的記者馬上向管理傳媒中的Broto尋求解釋。他表示，不知道出了甚麼事，亦不知道可以怎樣幫忙。但他答應記者們他會嘗試幫助，並給記者留下他的手機號碼。

但是，記者其後多次致電，他都沒有接聽。其中一位記者改用香港的手機號碼致電，終於成功聯絡上他。他說:「你已被取消採訪資格。我沒有可以幫忙的（You have been disqualified from the APEC event. There is nothing I can do for you）。」整整一天沒有人給記者們任何解釋，他們亦沒有上訴途徑。

一位港府新聞處的高層官員向我們表示，當日港府及外交部均有聯絡印尼當局嘗試協助，對方只說，他們正在檢討事件，但並未提任何協助或解釋。

直至被取消資格的第二天，受影響的新聞工作者才從Broto 的記者會上，知道他們已被界定為保安威脅。

記協的關注︰當局有甚麼程序和準則，確保取消採訪資格之決定是公平並透明?一旦出現不公或不妥的資格取消時，有關人士是否有任何上訴機制?

7. 懲罰

事實︰Broto在記者會上表示︰「他們（指受影響記者）可以自由留在峇里，但不可以進入傳媒中心及大會會場（They （the disqualified journalists) were free to remain in Bali, but could no longer access the media centre or venues being used for the summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum）。」

事實卻並非如此。第二天早上，有關記者被人跟蹤。其中一位記者憶述，她僱用的司機要等到旁邊幾台不明身份的電單車準備好後，才發動引擎，前往她指定的地方。結果整個車程，有最少兩台電單車「陪伴」在則。

與此同時，Now TV的工作人士亦在檢查站被阻截，一位警員拒絕讓他們返回入住的酒店，並對他們說，警隊一位高層希望與他們見面，然後將他們帶回警署。他們在警署等候約三小時，一位警官表示他們不能再回酒店，因為該處屬於會場範圍。記者要求返回酒店取行李亦被拒絕，行李最後由他人協助取回。

記協的關注︰當一名人士被界定為保安威脅後，是否表示他不單會失去採訪資格，亦同時失去人身自由?

我們希望上述報告，能讓你們對峇里事件有較好之了解。有關記者的行為，完全符合保安規定和專業要求。

取消他們採訪資格的決定，是一連串隨意決定的結果。印尼當局隨意宣布這些記者為保安威脅，又隨意制定對他們的處分。最惡劣的是，沒有上訴機制讓受影響的記者抗辯，這些問題必須解決。

我們明白每次峰會的保安均由主辦國負責，但是我們必須指出，秘書處有責任保護峰會之名聲。

謝謝你的關注。

香港記者協會主席岑倚蘭

二零一三年十一月十四日

Michael Chapnick 的覆信內容

2014-02-13T00:37:00.003-08:00

尊敬的岑主席及任副主席,

謝謝你們就峇里事件提供的詳細敍述。

峇里峰會之記者資格審批是主辦國之責任，即印尼國際組織委員會(Indonesia’s National Organizing Committee)。他們負責的範圍除了亞太經合組織的官員和領袖的官方會議外，還包括同期舉辦的商業領袖峰會。

亞太經合組織秘書處並沒有參與採訪資格的審批，或商業領袖峰會之審備。今次事件由私人聘請之亞太經合組織商業峰會籌辦委員會傳媒小組負責。

取消採訪資格的決定由商業峰會籌辦委員會作出，旗下負責向新聞界分發採訪證之傳媒小組，則執行有關決定。

所有與有關會議中的傳媒安排之交涉或問題，應該向籌備委員會的主席辦公室，或亞太經合組織商界領袖峰會委員會主席辦公室提出。

Michael Chapnick

報紙網絡戰

2014-02-13T00:37:00.001-08:00

吳卓盈記者之聲編委

傳統報業辦即時新聞網站，往往憂慮網上新聞太進取會影響印刷銷量，不過新媒體發展已不能逆轉，部分報章正嘗試突破「印刷為本」的思維框框，其中獲美國洩密者斯諾登（Edward Snowden）獨家訪問的《南華早報》，當時便將獨家內容先發給網站，翌日印刷版雖不再「爆」，銷量仍照升兩成；《蘋果日報》亦已抽調約兩成人手組即時新聞編訪隊伍，務求令網上和印刷版各具特色。

《金融時報》（Financial Times）十月初公佈明年展開「數碼為先」策略（Digital First Strategy)，將減少在晚上報章印刷版截稿後改版，網站報道則不斷更新，並投放大量資源做好資訊圖像。報社不再重視追逐突發新聞做「回應式報道」，而重記者自己的偵查報導，呼籲員工要調整心態。

香港報章機構亦摸索各自的「數碼為先」策略。南華早報總採訪主任周松欣接受本刊訪問時表示，該報網站已不局限於將印刷版內容轉載，甚至有可能會比翌日印刷版搶先早一步發佈獨家報道。今年中，《南早》在網站率先刊載美國洩密者斯諾登的訪問，周松欣稱，「當時公司有兩種聲音，一派是擔心網站即晚發佈會影響翌日報章銷量和被行家抄，另一派認為這是一宗國際新聞，最大的讀者群是在美國，留給印刷版先發反而減低報道的影響力，而且本報的競爭對手也不是中文報章。」

結果該次網站先發的決定，不單沒減低翌日報紙銷量，反而提升約兩成，加印也供不應求，而當晚報導的點擊率高達每秒鐘600次。周稱，此後南早會嘗試將一些獨家報道先放上網，特別是中國新聞，以吸引外國讀者，「一般突發新聞我們都會即時上網，若是一些偵查報道，尤其是關於本地的，就會留給印刷版。」

另外，網站也有專屬編輯組，「網站記者也會做多一些趣味性報道，它們未必會放在印刷版，例如有個故事是寫早前廣州有個男人將心愛的烏龜打扮成漢堡包以便偷運上機。」

《蘋果日報》的新聞網亦建立一隊獨立的即時新聞隊伍，該報記者指，公司從港聞（包括靜態、法庭、突發等）組抽調了約兩成人手專做即時新聞，「基本上所有故仔都會做即時，除了『小圍故』。就算是獨家，公司都會在晚上11點後將文章的lead（首段）放上即時新聞。」他向本刊指出，同一則新聞，即時新聞的點擊率遠高於翌日報章出版後才在網站轉載的版本。一則即時新聞故事如有數千至逾萬個點擊，翌日網站日報版的同一宗報道往往只餘數百個點擊，「就算日報版會較深入，讀者可能覺得前一天已經知道大概了，就不會按下去看」。只有是頭版或比較重大的新聞，日報版才會維持到較多的網上讀者。

另一蘋果資深記者指，即時新聞點擊率亦影響了「坐堂」的新聞取捨，「例如有五條即時簡訊要選出三條放在印刷版，或者要選幾個故事優先追尾的時候，的確是會考慮點擊率高低，而且在寫稿時會參考讀者留言的一些好意見。」但他強調，高層亦並非視點擊率為最高指標，「有些題材其實是票房毒藥，例如大陸鄉村的人權問題，點擊率是低，但同事仍舊會做，因為關乎大是大非。」

丟架的記者

2014-02-13T00:36:00.001-08:00

孔雪茵前經濟日報金融版副採訪主任

這是一個鬧記者的Post，如果有人要對號入座，無任歡迎，但不用公開核實文中人物的身分。咁鐘意核實，不如留返工作用。

自以為做人都化化哋，有時見到行家處事失當或無病呻吟，最多同朋友、同事笑吓就算。不過今日收到一個電郵，呢個moment我真係同醬爆一樣，要爆啦。

是咁的，某上市公司搞睇樓團，4日3夜去西安、北京及東京。管理層訪問安排最後一日，維時大約1小時。管理層是新加坡人，同場也有新加坡記者，訪問主要以英語（講白點其實是Singlish+Chinglish）進行，偶有夾雜普通話。

坦白講，Singlish是有點難聽，但也不至於完全不明白。公關事前已分派該上市公司的資料，而且聽不明白的話，當時亦有充足時間向管理層問清楚。

訪問完結，上車時我瞓著咗，醒後有行家告訴我，同團有幾個香港記者要求公關為剛才的訪問出「新聞稿」。

以為自己聽錯，「出乜新聞稿？」這不是新聞發布會，是訪問喎。行家也嘆氣︰「最初佢叫公關寫返訪問出現過的數字，然後就叫公關出稿，仲要催人地早啲交。」

嘩，我的震驚久久不散，心諗乜事？剛才明明見到大家都有錄音。聽不清楚可以重聽錄音，或翻看筆記。公關出「新聞稿」，記者仲要做乜呢？就係按Copy and paste？那幾個記者由頭至尾都沒出過聲，他們在整個參觀團，究竟做過乜？

懶記者見得多，臉皮厚得來，廉恥又薄成咁，第一次遇上。

翌日公關小姐真的把訪問Transcribe出來，還逐點整理好，呢個moment我就爆了。

今日就要鬧爆這班丟盡全行架的記者。

現在都有個怪現象，記者會一結束，行家不是跑去跟管理層傾多幾句，而是圍成一圈。圈中間有個人會唸唸有辭，而其他人則低頭怒抄。

佢地話，呢啲叫駁料喎。

駁料？駁乜料？你話有個數字、有句quote聽不清楚，想互相check吓無問題，過去我亦曾駁／被駁料。但現在駁料是「你可唔可以由頭駁一次？」

Q&A環節由頭講一次？咁你呢位大哥大姐剛才記者會時做乜？不如我駁個腦畀你﹐仲有用啦。

有人會話︰「可能管理層講英文、普通話，聽唔明哩。」Well，都不要討論記者的語文水平如何。但我見到廣東話進行的記者會，都出現駁料圈。

「財經新聞好深，無咁易明。」無問題，但財經新聞深極都係講緊地球話。如果管理層台上講時聽唔明，行家台下駁料畀你又會明咩？

我是新聞系畢業，入行時也不懂財經，明白「唔知對方講乜」那種怯。只要勤力少少做吓功課，睇下公司過去幾年新聞（都唔好話要求睇年報咁大件事），更缺乏財經根底的合理成年人，也不會完全聽不懂記者會發生乜事。

「唔出聲可能係怕醜啫！」之不過我見過好多次，這批「聾啞」記者在飯局、參觀團突然不怕醜，並踴躍發音。「聾啞」記者是不限年資、不限性別。

我出差多年見過「聾啞」記者的要求有︰

「我要食炸蝦。」公事飯局呀，你當自己出街食飯？「點解酒店無Wifi？」問來自己上網玩，不是公事傳稿。「點解要咁早酒店大堂集合？」9點都話早，無人叫你前一晚3點瞓。

更妙絕的是，部分「聾啞」記者會埋怨待遇差，工作辛苦。見／聽到時，我從不搭嘴，今日真係一次過鬧埋。

在埋怨待遇差時，其實閣下有沒有反省過自己的工作態度？求求其其、抄抄貼貼、呃飲呃食、渾渾噩噩又一day，仲想人工高？開早又嘈，收夜又嘈，幾多人真係日日做足12小時？扣返中間hea、發白夢、吹水、tea、上網，其實又做過乜？

有時睇吓這些怨男怨女寫出的Product，如果真係用足12小時寫只能夠寫交出這種質素，不如轉行啦。

真㗎，怨乜呢？我成日都唔明。又無人逼你做記者。我做了13年記者，大部分時間樂業，不明白行家的怨氣何來。

埋怨人工低？有沒有反省自己入錯行，抑或工作能力和態度有問題？

有能力的財經記者，人工都算decent。懷才不遇？轉吓工就會遇到伯樂。也許我的薪金會比金融界、財經公關低，但是我的見聞、自由、工作滿足感已抵銷。這是取捨問題。

寄語患上「聾啞兼盲怨症」記者，人生苦短，趁後生轉行，也不要影衰財經記者這個行業。

感謝。

萬大事頂硬上

2014-02-13T00:35:00.001-08:00

張嘉雯

人稱「岑倚」的岑倚蘭是行家眼中的超級前輩，聽她說傳媒的「前世今生」，尤如看「楝篤笑」，但平日說話七情上面、尤如「機關槍」的她，訪問時卻自爆「最唔鍾意講嘢」。今屆「頂硬上」做記協主席，最不習慣就是要經常接受訪問，一直不敢重看和重聽訪問內容，「唔想見到自己個樣，唔想聽到自己把聲。」她甚至為了此事邀請教會朋友為她祈禱。

岑倚與記協的情緣始於20多年前，當年行家李月華邀請她當執委，她因為在前線忙得不開交，最終沒有答應；直至數年前她離開《iMoney》，放下工作重擔，才突然想起要「還債」，結果加入執委第三年就被選為主席，她形容加入記協後的心情是「唔知咁大鑊」，最深體會是「Mak姐（上任主席）果然是全能」。

她憶述今年10月香港記者因向出席亞太經合會議的菲律賓總統阿基諾三世發問而被沒收採訪證一事，一天內就接了13個訪問，「又廣東話、又國語，網絡呀、歐洲、內地……乜都有，咪照答佢囉，Shirley（副主席任美貞）答英文又答咗7、8間。」她笑言答得聲線沙啞，希望自己可逐漸適應。

岑倚的六大計劃


計劃	簡介
(1)裝修記協辦公室	更改大門位置，洗手間納入辦公室內，保障使用者安全；靈活分隔空間，方便舉辦聚會；增設咖啡機、提供零食，希望成為行家聚腳的地方
(2)師徒制	為年資三年以下的行家提供訓練，由行內重量級人馬貼身跟進
(3)緬甸考察團	計劃今年4月舉辦緬甸考察團，了解當地報禁終止後，傳媒發展的現況
(4)傳媒教育講座	每年在校園舉行30場傳媒教育講座，讓公眾了解記者工作及新聞自由的重要性
(5)記協之友	讓已轉行、退休等的前行家透過另一種形式了解及支援記協
(6)恒常投資小組	由兩名記者及三名社會人士負責，定期就記協儲備向執委會提供投資建議
資料來源：記協主席岑倚蘭

主席大計

2014-02-13T00:34:00.001-08:00

張嘉雯訪問主席岑倚蘭

跟其他行業不一樣，新聞人是「無樣睇」的，三尖八角「踢拖」的，西裝骨骨拿咪高峰的，統統可以是記者；日常聚頭，個個口水多過茶，討論像吵架更像放煙花，10個人有12個意見，所以無論去屆主席、心思慎密的麥燕庭（Mak姐），還是今屆主席、性格豪邁的岑倚蘭（岑倚），要主理這個風眼中的小組織，都要有一種壓得住場的霸氣。

但霸氣不可以當飯吃，霸氣頂不住國家機器，無法凝聚行家，記協是「nothing」，所以岑倚上任後首個任務，是聽起來很不「新聞自由」的——記協辦公室大裝修。

「有次我見到阿Bond（會計）喺度做嘢，上面吊櫃度門搖搖欲墜，好似就嚟冧咁，記協點解要做到咁呀？整親人，真係揹唔起。」記協會址位置不算隔涉，但殘舊內櫳讓人不想久留，「豆膶咁細，都唔駛搞到咁㗎，成個貨倉咁，幾百會員，個個上嚟交完嘢就走。」

岑倚蘭即席在餐紙上解釋，記協會址的裝修設計。

按照執委的計劃，首先會址大門會向左移，原本向電梯的洗手間門會封閉，洗手間入口改為辦公室內，保障會員安全；室內原有的固定間隔會拆走，改為活動間隔，「第日可以搞吓分享會，借畀人搞吓活動，擺部咖啡機喺度、買啲零食，聚吓啲行家，雜物就入倉，同埋文件會電子化，慳返啲位。」預計本月完工。

另一岑倚一手一腳湊大的「Project」則與前線行家有關。記協邀請了多名資深傳媒人，包括陳伯添、陳慧兒、麥燕庭等擔任「師傅」，為新入行記者提供新聞訓練課程，每位參與行家都將獲派師傅，指導工作，「宜家啲記者成日都畀人批評唔問嘢、無禮貌，又話要公關幫手寫埋稿，我哋請佢哋嚟指點吓啲新行家。」課程暫定收費300元，完成全期訓練後可退回，供3年或以下年資的行家參加。

海外活動方面，岑倚表示，執委正構思緬甸考察團，預計2014年4月出發，與行家同遊解放報禁後的緬甸，詳情待定。至於已經不在新聞行業，卻「身在曹營心在漢」的前行家，執委亦計劃推出「記協之友」，令已轉行或半退休的「老鬼」仍然可以與記協緊密聯繫，「宜家佢哋想關心，都無一個渠道，所有會員資格佢哋都唔符合，呢樣嘢我哋會喺嚟緊會員大會提出討論。」

另外兩個較為長遠的計劃，是設立恒常投資小組及傳媒教育工作。前者由兩名記者和三名外來專業人士組成，就如何使用記協的儲備，定時向執委提供意見；後者則由新開設Campaign Officer同事全力協助，每年為中學舉辦30場傳媒教育講座，「好多人成日都會話『記者大晒呀？』唔明點解記者會嘈，唔知背後有咩問題，我哋會去派發單張，同埋講解點樣去接收資訊，點樣睇新聞。」

岑倚形容，香港社會到了關鍵時刻，新聞自由面對前所未有的嚴竣考驗，記協的團隊非常重要，當權者已發展至「明刀明槍去砌你」的程度，香港媒體本身雖未至於資本壟斷，但卻是「意見壟斷」，絕大部份傳媒已「歸邊」，社評立場很近似，新聞行業要自救，記協要把新聞自由的議題帶到國際層面，「唔係淨係識得發聲明」，同一時間亦要謹慎行動，站在捍衛新聞自由的立場發聲。

執法機構索取新聞材料破壞傳媒公信力

2014-02-13T00:34:00.000-08:00

黃凱宜記協總幹事

糾纏兩個月的官司終於完結！

廉政公署今年8月透過律政司向高等法院申請法庭命令，要求商業電及《陽光時務週刊》，交出年初兩機構訪問全國政協委員劉夢熊的原始新聞材料。審訊期間，商台的代表大律師指，已交出誓章，交代商台在網上的聲音檔案已是完整的訪問內容，在廉署同意下，法官撤銷要商台交出新聞材料的申請，至於涉及《陽光時務週刊》的案件，廉署最終亦決定撤回申請。

事情劃上句號，但廉署作為執法機構為查案，動輒要求需要保持客觀中立的新聞從業員交出採訪資料，舉動令業界嘩然。假如成事，新聞機構按要求交出錄音訪問和筆記，那等同將消息來源公告於世，公眾日後如何能夠信任記者？

為讓外界了解新聞業界對本案的關注，同時佐證執法機構有濫用法例之嫌，香港記者協會和香港攝影記者協會邀得熟悉傳媒法的甄美玲博士撰寫意見書，表達本會的立場。

甄美玲在意見書開宗明義指出，「新聞工作者應盡全力妥善保管新聞原始材料，以保護秘密消息來源及維持新聞工作的中立性，這是新聞行業賴以正常運作的命脈，並對捍衛新聞自由、確保傳媒能夠發揮第四權的角色、促進資訊流通、維護公眾利益至為重要」；她強調消息來源保密的重要性，「為確保被訪者能夠毫無顧慮地向傳媒提供資料和訊息，不擔心身份被公開，引致尷尬場面或被秋後算帳，記者手上的新聞原始材料，不應輕易交給執法人員。這不單是新聞從業員必須遵守的行業操守，也關係到新聞自由和重大公眾利益，對整個社會的褔祉起著重要作用」。

記者不是執法人員，記者需要中立，不偏不倚，確保報道客觀。甄美玲亦在意見書提及，「記者的職責是採訪和報道新聞，而執法人員的職責則是偵查和防止罪案，兩者都涉及重大公眾利益，但應各司其職，不能因一方的便利而損害另一方的工作」。

今次案件令人憂慮之處，是可能成為先例，執法機構日後會隨意索取新聞材料，甄美玲表示「今次是執法部門首度引用法例申請交出令，索閱新聞原始材料。記協和攝協擔心此例一開，執法機構日後查案時，動輒引用法例強行向傳媒『攞料』，這將導致交出令被濫用，使記者淪為調查或檢控案件的工具。」；她又認為廉署作為申請人，無法令新聞界信服申請交出令很有必要，做法實屬濫用交出令，「在今次申請中，被要求交出原始新聞材料的傳媒機構、新聞工作者並非疑犯，沒有參與任何罪行，與被調查的案件完全無關……再者，記協認為，廉署未能證明訪問劉夢熊的所有錄音和筆記都可能對調查罪行有重大價值，或成為檢控的相關證據」。

甄美玲在意見書的後半部，列舉美國及英國等地的案例，「執法和檢控部門採取法律手段強迫傳媒機構和新聞從業者交出新聞材料，有關申請都要經過很仔細的考慮，並需符合更嚴謹的審批程序，以防交出令等機制被濫用，帶來寒蟬效應，影響新聞自由」。其中英國警方曾被法官批評濫用交出令，警方曾申請要求傳媒機構和記者交出所有錄影片段，總數達一百多小時，但卻無法具體講出證據對調查罪案有否很大的幫助，「警方使用這種方法取證，可比喻為沒有鎖定目標地亂鎗掃射，而法官無從知悉錄影片段能否提供更多的證據」。

美國方面，隸屬司法部的政府律師調查案件時，不時向法院申請傳票、命令、搜查令，強行取得新聞機構或從業員持有的資訊和記錄，今年五月，美國總統奧巴馬下令司法部檢討這方面的政策和做法，兩個月後，司法部發表檢討報告，並製定新指引，「司法部表示，向新聞機構搜集證據，是其極特殊的做法 (extraordinary measure），只應在採取其他合理的調查方法後，才作為最後一個手段使用 (only as a last resort)，而有關證據須對成功調查或檢控起著關鍵作用」。

總括而言，新聞工作者應盡力保管原始新聞材料，堅守傳媒的中立性，同時記協認為，所有執法機構都應檢討查案作風，承諾不會動輒索取新聞材料，令記者淪為檢控工具。

The chairperson’s Grand Vision

2014-02-13T00:32:00.001-08:00

Text by Kaman Cheung
Translated by Tong Cheung

Unlike most other professionals,journalists don't have a standardised look: they can be wearing flip-flops, they can be in business suits and carrying microphones, they can be talkative, and to put it in a common Cantonese saying, they can even be triangular, octagonal or come in all kinds of shapes.

It means that to manage the Journalists Association – as a small body made up of such a diverse group of people – its chairperson has to possess an authoritative character, and an ability to manage difficult situations.

Our new chairperson Sham Yee-lan –just like her predecessor Mak Yin-ting –has that ability, but since it is of little use when it comes to uniting reporters, Sham chose to start her chairmanship on a softer note instead: doing home re-furnishing.

Sham explained the design for renovation on a paper.

“It all started [in the summer] when I saw a broken cupboard, with a door hanging right above our accountant Ah Bond,” Sham recalled.“ It looked like it was going to bash Bond’s head, so I thought,‘what’s wrong with the HKJA?’ We can't afford to get people injured here!”

“Our office, albeit small, doesn’t have to look like a warehouse. It doesn’t have to be a place where hundreds of our members only stop by for a second and doesn’t bother to stay,” she said. It was from this thought that the association recently moved the office main entrance and the toilet’s door to better locations, and replaced some walls (legally, of course) with moveable panes to create space.

“We can hold gatherings or even let[members] book our premises for their own activities,” Sham said.“ I am also thinking of adding a coffee machine and some snacks so reporters can hang out here. Other stuff will be put into storage and the documents will be digitised to save room.”Another project on Sham’s mind is a training course for reporters with less than three years of experience.

Sham revealed that veteran journalists such as Lucy Chan Wai-yee, Mak, Hong Kong Economic Journal’s former chief editor Chan Pak-tim were invited to help as teacher-mentors. She hoped that the course would change people’s impression that fresh reporters are either reluctant to ask questions, or felt impolite if they did ask a question.

On external affairs, the association is planning a trip to Myanmar next April, as the Southeast Asian nation had lifted a ban earlier this year and allowed its people to publish newspapers.

A“ Friends of HKJA” programme is also under consideration for former or retired journalists to understand and support the association.

There are also long-term plans on Sham’s mind, including a five-strong Investment Advisory Group to make

regular investment suggestions about the association’s financial reserves, as well as a plan to organise 30 school talks a year for students to understand journalism.

“Sometimes people would ask whether reporters believe that the world should evolve around them,” Sham said. “They may not understand why we are critical about things, and they don’t know the problems behind our concerns, so we want to...explain.”

Sham warned that press freedom was under unprecedented challenge in Hong Kong, and it was important for the HKJA to unite.

“Since most of the local media seem to have similar political stances, the association must try to save our news industry [from self-censorship] by bringing up press freedom issues to an international level, instead of just issuing statements [for the local press to report on],” she stressed. The association will also act cautiously to safeguard Hong Kong’s civil liberties,Sham vowed.

SHAM’S MAJOR PLANS

1. Re-furnishing the association’s office:

Relocating its entrance, giving it a coffee machine, a snacks corner and a new toilet – making it a place for reporters’ to hang out.

2. Mentorship programme:

Reporters with less than three years experience will be mentored by veteran journalists.

3. Tour to Myanmar:

To study the development of journalism in the country after the ban ís lifted.

4. School Talks:

30 school talks a year for students to understand reporters’ work and the importance of press freedom.

5. “Friends of HKJA”:

A programme for former or retired journalists to understand and support the association.

6. Investment Advisory Group:

Set up a five-strong body, consisting of reporters and non-members to make regular investment suggestions on the association’s financial reserve.

Letter to APEC

2014-02-13T00:27:00.001-08:00

Text by Phyllis Tsang

Translated by Tony Cheung

Mr Michael Chapnick

Head of Communication and Public Affairs

APEC

14 November 2013

Dear Mr Chapnick

Re: Disqualification of some Hong Kong Journalists during the 2013 APEC Summit

The unreasonable disqualification of some Hong Kong Journalists is undoubtedly a stain on the success of the 2013 APEC Summit. None of us would want to see that from happening again.

I understand from our recent meeting with Mr David Dodwell, Executive Director of Hong Kong-APEC Trade Policy Group, that you have been looking for recommendations for a better press arrangements for the coming meetings.

We look forward to this. However, any future planning must be built on correct understanding of the past. A review of the Bali incident will shed light on the insufficiency of the current arrangements and the improvements that are needed.

I am therefore writing to give you a factual account of the incident prepared from a series of interview with journalists affected and officials involved by the HKJA.

1. The justification for disqualifying the Hong Kong press

We have received no official explanation on the incident from neither the APEC Secretariat nor the Indonesian authorities despite our written request.

The only explanation is provided by Mr Gatot Dewa Broto, the Indonesian communications ministry official who is in charge of the Apec media centre, to the press on October 7, 2013.

He said: “We deemed it improper for media to act that way, as they don’t talk normally but they were very demonstrative, like they were protesting.” “So we did this (deactivation of the press accreditation) due to security concerns.”

2. The so-called “out of the line” and “demonstrative” questioning of President Aquino

Fact: On 6 October 2013, three Hong Kong journalists and a cameraman waited at the entrance to the APEC business leaders’ meeting for the arrival of Philippines President Aquino. The president arrived with an escort of more than 15 subordinates. At a distance of about six feet from the President, the journalists asked the following questions:

Q1:Have you met CY Leung (Hong Kong Chief Executive)?

Q2:Are you going to apologize to Hong Kong People for the hostage incident (which has resulted in the killing of eight Hong Kong residents)?
Q3:So you are ignoring Hong Kong people, right?
Q4:Can you give us an answer?
Q5:It has been three years. Can you give us an answer?

President Aquino left without answering. The journalists did not tail him but remained where they were. While the tone of the questions reflected the culture and language of the Chinese-speaking journalists, the setting is far from being demonstrative.

HKJA’s concern: What criteria will be employed by the APEC security authorities to define a media questioning as “out of the line”?

3. The so-called Security Concern

Fact: The questioning of President Aquino took place at the door step to a meeting room of the Bali International Conference Centre. This is an area which is accessible to all accredited media. The journalists have not entered any embargoed area.

In fact, in the morning, the same group of journalists has questioned Premier Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore at exactly the same spot under the same setting. None of the security officers present raised any issue with the journalists.

HKJA’s concern: What criteria will be employed by the APEC security authorities to define a press activity as a security threat? The location, the nature of the questions, or the feeling of the guest?

4. The Kick-out

Fact: Ten minutes after President Aquino’s departure, a female officer confronted the journalists and snatched the press badge of one. Without identifying herself, the officer shouted: “Do you understand decency includes no screaming? Do you understand that?...Now out.”

Another Indonesian official said: “You are ambushing one of our visitors. That’s not the way. Get out now.” He did not identify himself. Two journalists on the spot identified him as Mr Wishnu Wardhara who is a member of Indonesian APEC ABAC and the Chairman of APEC CEO Summit.

Several unidentified officers snatched the press badges and pushed the journalists into one of the shuttle buses outside without telling them the destination. The journalists had no idea of their own safety until arriving at the media centre.

HKJA’s concern: Who will be empowered to declare a journalist or a press activity as security threat and decide the following up action? It’s the security authorities, any guest present (like Mr Wardhana) or the APEC Secretariat? What procedures will be in place to ensure a fair and transparent handling of the journalist concerned?

5. Who was punished?

Fact: A journalist and a cameraman took part in the questioning of President Aquino. An hour after the removal of their press badges, other journalists, cameramen and engineer of the Now TV also found their press badges invalid upon their entrance to the media centre. No official explanation has been given to them.

HKJA’s concern: When an individual is declared security concern and disqualified, under what criteria will the authority decide to apply the same penalty on others from the same media? Who is to decide?

6. The lack of redress

The affected journalists immediately sought explanation and help from Mr Broto. He said he had no idea of what had happened and how he could help. He promised to try and left the journalists his mobile number.

Repeated calls to his mobile have not been answered. One of the journalists switched from an Indonesian number into a Hong Kong number and called Mr Broto again. He picked up the phone. Upon hearing the question, he said: “You have been disqualified from the APEC event. There is nothing I can do for you.” No official explanation for the disqualification has been given to the media affected. Neither was there any appeal channel.

In a meeting with our representative, a senior official of the Hong Kong Government Information Service said his office has contacted the Indonesian Foreign Office to seek assistance and explanation. The latter promised to “review” the incident but provided neither explanation nor assistance.

The affected media had no idea that they had been declared “security concern” until the next morning when Mr Broto told a press meeting of their verdict.

HKJA’s concern: What procedures and criteria will be in place regarding the disqualification of a journalist and an organization from an APEC event to ensure it’s fair and transparent? What redress mechanism will be there in case of unfair or improper disqualification?

7. The“Punishment”

Fact: Mr Broto told the press meeting: “They (the disqualified journalists) were free to remain in Bali, but could no longer access the media centre or venues being used for the summit of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.”

The punishment went beyond that. The morning after, several journalists found themselves tailed by Indonesian officials. One of the journalists recalled how her driver refused to go until men on several unidentified motorbikes were ready. Her vehicle was escorted by two unidentified motorbikes.

Several journalists were barred from entering their hotels at checkpoints. Instead, a policeman told them a senior police officer wanted to meet them and took them to a police station. After a three hours’ wait at the police station, a police officer told them they could no longer return to the hotel because it was a conference venue. The officer did not identify himself. The barred journalists were denied access to the hotel to regain their luggage.

HKJA’s concern: When an individual is declared a security concern, does it mean he or she will lose not just the press accreditation but also his or her personal freedom?

I sincerely hope that the above account will give you a better understanding of the Bali incident. The journalists were doing their job fully in line with the security rules and professional practice.

Their disqualification was the result of a chain of arbitrary decisions by the Indonesian authorities. They have been arbitrary in calling the journalists a security concern and in determining the degree as well as the scope of the penalty. Worst of all, there was no redress. These are the issues to be addressed in the coming events.

I understand the hosting country of each APEC summit is fully responsible for its security. However, integrity of the Summit is for the APEC Secretariat to preserve.

Thank you for your kind attention. For further queries, please contact me at 852-2591 0692.

Yours sincerely,

SHAM Yee Lan

Chairperson

Hong Kong Journalists Association

Reply from APEC Secretariat

2014-02-13T00:26:00.001-08:00

Dear SHAM Yee Lam and Shirley Yam:

Thank you for providing a detailed account of the incident in Bali.

Media accreditation for Leaders' Week was the responsibility of the host economy in 2013 (Indonesia’s National Organizing Committee) and that included the APEC CEO Summit which runs alongside the official meetings between APEC officials, ministers and leaders.

The APEC Secretariat was not involved in the accreditation process nor in the organization of the APEC CEO Summit. This incident was handled by the privately-hired APEC CEO Summit host committee media team.

This committee oversaw the distribution of overpasses to cover the APEC CEO Summit in Bali and took action remove the credentials of the media. The decision to remove the accreditation was taken by Indonesia’s National Organizing Committee.

Questions relating to interaction with the media at the these events should be addressed to the Office of the Chair of the Indonesia’s National Organizing Committee in relation to APEC Leaders' Week and to the Office of the Chair of the APEC CEO Summit Committee.

Sincerely,
Michael Chapnick

Taking the bull by the horns

2014-02-13T00:25:00.003-08:00

Written by Kaman Cheung, translated by Tony Cheung

Sham Yee-lan, or “Sham Yee”, is an extraordinary veteran is the eyes of many reporters, and listening to her talk about the media is like watching a standup comedy.

Sham, who is regarded as a passionate and speedy speaker, told The Journalist in an interview that she “dislikes speaking” – and she is still trying to get used to being interviewed.

She said she is still worried about watching or listening to her interviews because she “doesn’t want to” see her face or listen to her voice on the electronic medium. She even asked her friends to pray for her about this, Sham added.

While she took the helm of the association in the summer, Sham’s ties with HKJA goes back more than 20 years – when she was invited by veteran journalist Lee Yuet-wah to become an executive committee member. She declined Lee’s invitation at the time because she was too busy reporting from the frontline.

It was not until a few years ago, when she left finance magazine iMoney, that she realised that she should pay her “debt” and run for a post in the association’s executive committee.

After working as an executive committee member for three years, she succeeded Mak Yin-ting as chairperson in June.

Looking back at the last six months, Sham said she never realised the magnitude of her challenge and that Mak, her predecessor was “really all-powerful”.

In October, the Apec summit staff in Bali, Indonesia, were criticised for “stifling press freedom” after Hong Kong journalists were ejected from the venue and their press passes taken away for "screaming" questions at Philippine President Benigno Aquino.

Sham said that in the aftermath of that episode she was interviewed 13 times in one day.

“[Those interviews] were in Cantonese, Putunghua, and [the journalists represent] media on the internet, from Europe and the mainland,” Sham recalled.

Her deputy Shirley Yam also shared her burden and handled several interviews in English.

Sham said the frequent interviews broke her voice and she hoped to get used to it soon.

Joint Submission on the ICAC’s Application for the Court Order on the Surrender of Journalistic Materials

2014-02-13T00:25:00.001-08:00

Hong Kong Journalists Association and Hong Kong Press Photographers Association, 2 September 2013

Foreword

The Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) is the largest union of frontline jouranlists in Hong Kong with around 500 members. Established in 1968, the objectives of the HKJA are to safeguard the rights of journalists, to promote freedom of press and to uphold moral principles of the meida industry.

The Hong Kong Press Photographers Association (HKPPA) was formed in 1989 and has more than 100 members. HKPAA aims to improve the moral standards of news photography in Hong Kong and to deal with issues such as press freedom and digital photography.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) sought a court order in mid-August demanding iSun Affairs Magazine and Commercial Radio to surrender raw journalistic materials relating to the interviews with Mr Lew Mon-hong. The HKJA and HKPPA make a joint submission on this matter.

In this submission, we first explain the positions of the two associations, and then we discuss the latest positions of the issues in overseas jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom.

A) The Positions of HKJA and HKPPA

Raw journalistic materials refer to the notes, recordings and video footage obtained by journalists during interviews with that particular person or persons, which may or may not have been published. Such materials are obtained based on the mutual trust between journalists and interviewees, and a promise by the said journalists that the materials should be retained and kept properly. All in all, the journalists have to ensure confidentiality of the source of information.

The HKJA and the HKPPA stress that journalists must keep raw journalistic materials with their best efforts in order to protect the source of information, which are often secretive. Moreover, journalists should also maintain the impartiality of journalistic work. Both are vital to the normal operations of the media industry. Thus, it is utterly important to safeguard press freedom, ensuring that the media could play the "fourth estate" role properly, i.e. as a watchdog to the society and to promote the freedom of information and to safeguard public interest.

1) The importance of confidentiality

During media interview, an interviewee may disclose background information or news clues to a journalist on condition that he would promise to keep the source of information confidential, or even not to disclose any part of the information to the public. Such information obtained by a journalist is often recorded in the written notes or audio recordings of journalists, and may have massive public interests or may be of highly sensitive. This are what we called raw journalistic materials.

Raw journalistic materials should not be given to law enforcement authorities easily. This is to ensure that interviewees would provide information and their views to the journalists , without any worries about the disclosure of their identities and yet, made themselves feel embarrassed or unintended consequences. These are the moral principles of the industry that the journalists must follow. This also involves massive public interest and press freedom, and play an important role to the welfare of the society as a whole.

If journalists break their promises and allow law enforcement authorities to inspect raw journalistic material and let the confidential news source or information being disclosed to the public, this would lead to the chilling effect -- the informants would no longer trust journalists and dare not to disclose to important information or facts to the media.

When the source of information is shunned off, the media would no longer report the truth or reveal inside stories to the public. The role of the watchdog could certainly not be played, and it would be the public who ultimately suffer.

The problem is: when the government departments or big corporation attempt to conceal certain “scandals” and did not want to reveal to the public, the citizens would not be able to know the truth and could not demand for remedial measures should the journalist not able to report the issues cogently due to the lack of reliable news sources. In such a case, the public would no longer have sufficient information to judge whether those politicians or officials did their work properly .

2) The importance of maintaining impartiality

In some occasions, some raw journalistic materials might not require confidentiality, or even some have already been published. Nevertheless, journalists should also not to hand over such notes, recordings or video footage to law enforcement authorities. The role of journalists is to report news and conduct interviews, and it is the work of law enforcement authorities to undertake investigation on possible criminal offences and to prevent crime.

Although the work of journalists and police are very much related to massive public interests, but they should properly do their work accordingly, and should not damage the work of the others for the sake of convenience.

If law enforcement authorities try to obtain information from media organizations during their investigations, this will surely affect public perception, which might think that the two sides are of the same coin.

In such a case, the media industry would lose its independence and trust from the public. And, journalists might not be able to conduct interviews or filming in a normal manner. For example, demonstrators will not accept interviews by the journalists, or they might disallow journalists to film on the scene, and may even chase after journalists.

If the media cannot report on demonstrations, the public would be unable to learn more about social conflicts. And if there are clashes break out, the public would be unable to judge the cause of such clashes, and whether the police might be using disproportionate forces during the conflict.

3) Avoidance of the abuse of court orders

This is the first time for the law enforcement authorities to apply for a court order to ask for the surrender of raw journalistic materials. The HKJA and HKPPA are concerned that if a precedent is established, law enforcement agencies would frequently apply the relevant laws to obtain information from the journalists and media industry in their future investigations. This will lead to the abuse of such orders and make journalists become their investigative tools for future prosecution.

In fact, law enforcement agents must follow stringent legal procedure to inspect journalistic materials. The ICAC is required to follow the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (the Ordinance) to apply for a court order, and they have to prove that they have fulfilled the three requirements set out in Section 84 therein. Generally speaking, law enforcement authorities could only apply for a court order only after they are unable to convince media organizations or journalists to surrender the journalistic material voluntarily. Thus ,it may not be difficult for the ICAC to prove that the second condition is satisfied, i.e. they cannot obtain the relevant information by other means.

But the ICAC, as the applicant, is unable to convince the media industry that it is necessary to apply for a court order: the first condition under Section 84 of the Ordinance that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an arrestable offense has been committed, and the relevant journalistic materials may be of great value to the investigation of such crime or become evidence for prosecution.

In this application, the media organizations and journalists who are asked to surrender journalistic materials are not the suspects of the relevant case. The media organisations and journalists were not involved in any criminal offences, nor do they relate to the relevant case under the investigation of ICAC.

The ICAC should therefore use its professional means to prove whether the suspect had committed an offense, instead of searching recklessly (or “fishing” tactic) for everything that may or may not be related to case. Furthermore, the HKJA considers that the ICAC is still unable to prove that all recordings or notes of the interview with Mr Lew Mon Hong may still be of great values to criminal investigations, or become evidence in the future prosecution.

The HKJA and HKPPA must emphasize that this application by the ICAC is unable to fulfill the third condition mentioned in Section 84 of the Ordinance -- that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest that an order should be granted, having considered the benefits the order would bring to the investigation and the situation of the parties which possess the materials.

Firstly, the interpretation of the ICAC on "investigation needs" is too wide, and using "fishing tactics" in investigations is certainly inappropriate. Secondly, surrendering journalistic materials would have negative effects to the independence of journalism and the confidentiality of journalistic materials, however, the ICAC ignored this.

So, apart from simply fulfilling the three conditions listed in Section 84 of the Ordinance, the court should also consider the overall situation of the case to decide whether issuing an order would violate public interest. Otherwise the ICAC would still be unable to obtain the order based on Section 89 of the Ordinance.

The HKJA and HKPPA reiterate that the ICAC does not use its professional means to investigate the case, but, during the whole investigation process, the ICAC actually “forces” the journalists to violate their moral principles which utterly damage the independence of journalistic work. The whole process of the ICAC is certainly against public interests and does not benefit to the general public afterall. In fact, the ICAC is abusing the use of such Court order.

(B) Latest overseas developments

At the end of 2009, in Financial Times Ltd. and Others v The UK, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the United Kingdom had violated the freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). The court reiterated the importance of protecting anonymous sources of information, and that the local court should not force several media organizations to hand over certain documents that would help the plaintiff to identify the source.

As early as mid-90s, in Goodwin v The UK, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK had breached Article 10 of the Convention when the UK law penalized a journalist who refused to identify his source. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the source because it was the basic element of the freedom of the press. Unless there exists overriding public interest, the court said journalists should not be forced to disclose their source because it would constitute the chilling effect to the media.

For similar cases and the definition of “overriding public interest”, the article The Protection of Sources Under Fire would have more information. Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal in England has in recent years ruled that the protection of journalistic sources is of paramount public interest and the media organizations or journalists should not be called to testify in court easily.

1) The abuse of delivery order on the part of UK police (2012)

In Hong Kong, the ordinance regulating law-enforcement officers’ application for a production order was similar to the UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which was passed in 1984. However, academics and lawyers in the UK have for years criticized the law based on the fact that, first, the police for their arbitrary applications for production orders, and secondly, the courts for their lax gate-keeping efforts, which led to insufficient protection to journalistic material.

In a recent judicial review case at 2012, the High Court - in striking out a production order granted by a lower court – made such criticisms and worries.

In the judgment, the High Court Judge said a production order would undoubtedly assist police investigations to a large extent, but the freedom of the press is protected by Article 10 of the Convention. To balance the two different aspects of public interests, the court should not deem the granting of production orders a mere part of routine work and make it too easily obtainable for the police. When a judge exercises his discretion given by PACE, he should carefully weigh the police’s grounds: what could the footage help to find out? Comparing with other ways of collecting evidence, how important would be for the police to obtain evidence from the footage? The High Court Judge also emphasized that the judge must base his analysis on the protection enshrined by Article 10 of the Convention when scrutinizing the reasons submitted by the police.

The High Court judge noted that the police was asking for over 100 hours of video footage from the media organization and the journalist, and unable to explain how this could help the criminal investigation. The reason given by the police was that the angle of the media’s clipping was better than its own copy only. The police’s way of obtaining evidence can be compared with the act of shooting randomly without aiming at anything, and the Court has no way to find out how much evidence could the footage provide.

The High Court judge was also of the view that the lower court which granted the order had neglected the impact it had on the media industry. The lower court judge should have realized that journalists – with their inherent neutrality - could risk eroding public trust if they surrender news material too readily. The High Court judge pointed out that the journalists’ neutrality that protects them during the course of work, and empower them to freely record and transmit the news.

2) New guidelines in the United States (2013)

In the United States, government attorneys under the Department of Justice routinely apply for summons, orders and search warrants in court to force news media organizations and their staff to surrender information and records from. In May 2013, the President of the US ordered an overhaul of such practices and policies. Less than three months later, the Department of Justice published a review report and established a new set of guidelines.

The Department of Justice stated that it would be an extraordinary measure collect evidence from media organizations that should only be used as a last resort after every other reasonable means fails, and the relevant evidence must be of key importance in a successful investigation or prosecution. The Department of Justice also noted that it had made an undertaking with the President to urge the Congress to pass a federal media shield law that gives protection for undisclosed sources and news material. Those principles stated in the new guideline would be incorporated into the legislation if passed.

The new guideline aims at strengthening protection for the media. First, A new mode of operation will be adopted by the government attorneys which requires them to talk to the relevant media organisations and their staff in order to obtain the relevant materials, rather than applying directly for a search warrant on the excuse that noticing media in advance might slow down investigation. Secondly, if the government attorneys plan to apply in court for summons, orders or search warrants, they should produce details of their applications to a designated department in the Department of Justice for a preliminary assessment with a view to ensuring all attorneys’ practices are consistent. Thirdly, the Department of Justice would set up a high-level permanent committee with supervisory power that can give advise to the Attorney General and his assistants on the approval of relevant application. This guideline also suggested that, the threshold for the approval search warrant approvals should be uplifting in order to avoid the unnecessary expansion of the scope of investigations. According to the guideline, the Department of Justice has to set up a mechanism under to communicate with the media regularly, in order to review and give recommendations on evidence collection policies from the media.

3) General Comment No. 34 (2011)

The United Nations Human Rights Committee issued the General Comment No. 34 in mid-2011. This document explains the protection of freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which all signatory countries and regions should comply with.

The 45th paragraph of the General Comment No. 34 states that “[S]tates parties should recognize and respect that element of the right of freedom of expression that embraces the limited journalistic privilege not to disclose information sources”.

Conclusion

In conclusion, journalists should do their best to protect raw news material and their sources, and to maintain neutrality. The Journalists Association is concerned that the ICAC’s unprecedented application of a production order for raw journalistic material would lead to future abuses of such orders, reducing journalists to the tools of the investigations or prosecutions conducted by law enforcement agencies. In recent years, countries like the UK and US, the applications of the law enforcement authorities and prosecution to force the journalists to disclose any material have been under very thorough scrutiny, not to mention the stringent procedures. This is done to ensure that production orders would not be abused, chilling effect would not be constituted, and the freedom of the press would not be undermined.

Journalists' Rights should be Upheld

2014-02-13T00:24:00.002-08:00

Text By Tracy Wong

translated by Teddy Ng

There have been concerns in recent years that journalists do not ask questions at press events and what they do is simply record whatever the interviewees say. Ironically, when Hong Kong journalists raised questions to Philippines President Benigno Aquino in Bali, they were regarded as being offensive and had their media passes confiscated. The journalists were even subjected to close surveillance by Indonesian authorities. Hong Kong Journalists Association issued two statements on two consecutive days, stressing that it was not wrong for journalists to ask questions and that it was unreasonable for the reporters to be banned from covering the APEC summit. The HKJA also condemned the Indonesian authorities for restricting the personal freedom of the journalists, and found it unreasonable of them to accuse the journalists of posing a security risk to Aquino.

In addition, the HKJA also sent letters to the Indonesian authorities demanding the journalists be given back their media passes, and to be freed of surveillance. The HKJA also sent letters to President Xi Jinping and Chief Executive Leung Chunying, hoping they would personally follow up the matter. It is disappointing to learn that the journalists were not given back their passes. Leung only said that he felt“ sorry”about the incident.

However, the HKJA will continue fighting for the protection of basic journalistic rights. The HKJA, together with the International Federation of Journalists, representatives of RTHK Programme Staff Union and other journalists, presented petitions to both the Indonesian and Philippines consulates in Hong Kong.

The HKJA also sent letters to journalists associations belonging to APEC member states and other international journalist groups, soliciting support to condemn the Indonesian authorities and calling on future host countries of APEC to protect the rights of journalists.It is of grave concern that such chaotic press arrangements will not recur when Hong Kong hosts the APEC finance ministers meeting next year. The Information Services Department said they would come up with appropriate press arrangements that would be convenient to the media after consultations with APEC secretariat and the Ministry of Finance of China, and taking into account the conditions of the conference venue.

The HKJA will continue monitoring,to ensure that journalists rights will be respected and smears against journalists will be avoided.

Renovating the Association’s Office

2014-02-13T00:24:00.001-08:00

Written by Cheng Wai-keung, translated by Tony Cheung

While it is the Journalists Association’s solemn mission to serve as a platform for unity among frontline reporters, our office’s softer role should not be forgotten. It is supposed to be a fun and cosy place for all reporters to hang out, to talk about their work and everything else.

But 16 years after we bought this place on Lockhart Road, people may not know that our furniture has turned old, the floor has got dirty, paint peeled off the walls and storage space has run out.

All these made our office less attractive, and so we decided in September to renovate it to revive some of its glory.

First, let’s talk about why our little home is so important. Some may remember that we bought our place shortly before the handover – not just because we wanted a cosy place but because we were concerned about possible changes in the political climate after 1997. There was also the determination to pass on the torch for safeguarding press freedom in the city.

And, as happening in Hong Kong in recent years, property prices have been skyrocketing...it has simply been hard to find another decent place.

The association had originally resorted to asking the city’s last colonial governor Chris Patten to offer us an office..in the end we decided to raise funds among members to buy a place instead, to avoid having to keep on the move if we couldn’t afford a new lease.

When we were planning our renovation earlier this year, money was also a major concern. We have to be accountable to our members and spend wisely since our income relies mainly on membership fees and donations.

Another major challenge was to preserve our “brick wall” – an artefact covered in signatures and messages signed by donors who helped to make our office possible 16 years ago – including the six Chinese characters meaning “long live press freedom”, signed by late veteran journalist Lu Keng.

After months of tendering, budgeting, designing …etc...the project has been completed, and our office – to an extent – rejuvenated finally.

I would like to thank our re-furnishing team for their help and their effort, and I want to take this chance to invite all reporters to visit us – to hang out, have a cup of coffee, as well as joining and supporting us and our members.

We hope that in the future, our office would be a place for press conferences, as well as workshops to foster new blood.

A Toothless Chief Executive

2014-02-13T00:23:00.000-08:00

Text By Chan Pik-ki
translated by Teddy Ng

Bruce Lui, a senior journalism lecturer at Hong Kong Baptist University and a former veteran journalist specializing in China news, says it is outrageous that Indonesian authorities confiscated media passes of Hong Kong journalists, and ordered them out of the conference venue. He believes it is unreasonable of the APEC host committee to say the Hong Kong journalists posed a security risk to the Philippines president,and those officials have shown total disrespect for press freedom.

Lui has covered many international conferences during his journalistic career,including the APEC summits in Mexico（2002）, Yokohama （2010）and Hawaii（2011）, but he never encountered any situation similar to the incident at Bali. He said it was common for journalists to ask questions loudly, and to enter restricted areas. The host committee would usually politely ask journalists to leave the restricted area.

Lui and his cameraman entered the hotel where then Chinese President Jiang Zemin was staying when covering the APEC summit in Mexico. Local officials took away their press cards and asked them to leave the hotel. Afterwards, their media passes were returned, and they were given a warning by local officials. But Mr Lui said the local officials were polite. “Local officials should liaise with the journalists if they are dissatisfied with the way they cover the event. The officials can first give the journalists a verbal warning, and have no need to be ruthless.”

The Hong Kong Journalists Association and the media organizations involved called on the Information Services Department to deal with the incident with Indonesian authorities. Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying only said he felt “sorry”that the journalists had not been given back their media passes. “The incident shows that our Chief Executive is powerless. If he only express our frustration verbally without taking concrete action, then he would definitely be ignored,” Mr Lui said.

Mr Lui said Mr Leung should be able to demand assistance from the Chinese Foreign Ministry and raise a solemn protest, demanding the Indonesian authorities to investigate the incident and return the media passes to the journalists before the conclusion of the investigation. Hong Kong and the mainland government could consider boycotting conferences or bilateral meetings with Indonesia and the Philippines should the request be not accepted.

Journalists Deemed to be Terrorists

2014-02-13T00:21:00.002-08:00

Text by Yip Yiu-kwan
Translated by Teddy Ng

It is a reasonable expectation for the host nation of any international summit such as APEC to respect press freedom,and it is rare that a host nation of such APEC summits to be accused of mistreating journalists. I was not worried at all before departing for Bali, but this was something I had never expected to happen three days after I landed there.

I was assigned to standby at the venue, where Aquino was to deliver a speech. I was supposed to ask him if he would meet with the Hong Kong Chief Executive, and the reasons why Manila did't respond to the email enquiries of the HKSAR government.

I was at the entrance of the venue with journalists of two other media organizations. We found out that security wasn't as tight as imagined, even though security guards were deployed. The security guards just didn't take any close look at the journalists and even did not cordon off the area which the VIPs would pass through. This was a rare arrangement at an international summit attended by state leaders.

Press passes confiscated without reason

Aquino was chatting with a conference guest as he walked past us. It was noisy at that time, and we had no alternative but to ask loudly to ensure that he was aware of our presence. I asked the first question but there was no response. Aquino did not even make eye contact with us. Other reporters asked other questions, but Aquino ignored us. We asked not more than 10 questions in less than a minute before Aquino entered the conference hall.

Then something unexpected happened when we thought we had finished our reporting stint. Several people wearing official passes seemed to be frustrated with us. One APEC committee official then asked us what we were doing, and I gave him a short reply. He then told us that he needed to take us to the media centre, because we were outside the press area. But he later told us that we had violated rules. I argued with him, but he ignored us and snatched our media passes. He then told us to leave, saying our media accreditations were cancelled.

It is unacceptable for the organizing committee of any international conference to cancel accreditation of journalists without giving a proper explanation. We had no hope that our media passes would be returned as the information officer of HK government information services told us that the incident “would not be settled within a short period of time.” But still, more unwelcome happenings occurred in the coming days.

Surveillance by security guards

The next day there were more than 10 security guards deployed to our hotel.I did not know how serious the matter had become, and thought there were just some important guests at the hotel. I did not expect we would be monitored by the Indonesian authorities. One of the guards rushed at me, using his mobile phone to take a picture of me, when I was leaving the hotel for lunch. What I had suspected was proven. I just did not have any strong feeling when other journalists told me that we were under a watch list.

I was left alone when the summit concluded, after two days of being monitored. CE Leung said he felt sorry

that we could not have our media passes returned when he wrapped up his Bali trip. It has been two months since the incident, and till now, I am still very confused.

Hard to accept authoritarian management

First, I still don't know what rules I have violated that led to my passes being confiscated. The APEC organizing committee probably believed we had committed two violations: asking questions in an area not designated for the press and shouting. But I could not find such rules in the media guidebook, and no penalties for such violations were stipulated in the guidebook. There was also no notice in the conference venue to tell journalists that asking question was prohibited.

The APEC organizing committee should inform media of such a rule – if there was any – in an effective manner. Failure to do so simply means that the committee is operating without transparency, or it is not well prepared to deal with the media. On the other hand, if journalists were expelled just because the conference delegates had shown frustration, the organizing committee was resorting to authoritarian management. It is unimaginable that the committee of such an international summit would resort to such uncivilized handling.

Also, there was no reason for the host nation to ban us from covering the summit, and deploying security guards to stalk us. The four Hong Kong journalists did not possess any prohibited objects or weapons, and they did not clash with anyone in the conference venue. What they did was just asking question and taking footage, but they got their media passes taken away, and being followed by security officers everywhere. They were treated as terrorists.

I am glad that the whole incident was recorded on camera, and we can use the footage to determine who is right and whois wrong. China and Hong Kong will host the APEC summit next year, and I don't think journalists will be mistreated. But it is still uncertain whether I can carry out my journalistic duties in other hosting nations in the future.

Digital First or Print First ?

2014-02-13T00:21:00.001-08:00

Translated by Joyce Ng

Newspaper editors often have concerns about putting stories online before the print edition rolls off the press, fearing it would lower circulation the next day. But the time to stick to the print-first operation mode should is over, as two papers in Hong Kong are already riding the tide in different ways to keep, or even broaden, readership.

A new wave of media reform was triggered when the international newspaper the Financial Times announced its “digital first” strategy in October. The FT said it would stop making incremental changes to multiple editions through the night. The print product would derive from the web offering. Effort would be made to enrich the print edition with data and graphics. Reporters would shift away from reactive news gathering to value-added“ news in context”and investigative journalism. The chief reporter called on editors and reporters to brace themselves for the changes.

The press are also testing their digitalfirst strategies. Chow Chung-yan, chief news editor of the South China Morning Post, says his paper’s website does not always wait for the print edition to break stories. Notably, the scoop with U.S.intelligence leaker Edward Snowden was first published online, not in print, when Snowden came to Hong Kong in seek of refuge this year.

“At that time we had two views in the newsroom,” Chow told The Journalist.“ One side was worried that putting all the stories online at night would affect circulation the next day and other newspapers would copy our materials immediately. The other side saw this as international news that would draw the largest audience in the United States. Reserving it for print the next daywould lower the stories’ impact,” he said.“After all, we don’t see the local Chinese press as our competitors.” Instead of hitting the circulation, the online-before-print decision raised it by 20 per cent the next day. Copies went out of stock. Chow found the Snowden stories online receiving a hitrate of 600 clicks per second.

In view of the experience, Chow said the paper would continue to post some exclusive stories on the web before printing, especially China news, in order to draw more eyeballs from overseas. “Normally, most breaking news stories will go online first. We will reserve investigative works, especially those on local issues, for the print edition,” he said. The online desk has been given an editorial team independent of the print team.“ Online reporters are free to write fun stories, although those stories may not always go into print. For example, we had a colleague writing about a man in Guangzhou disguising his beloved turtle as a hamburger to try to smuggle it on the plane, which was very popular online.”

Apple Daily has also set up a full team for online news. It has taken about 20 per cent of the staff from the Hong Kong desk,including the general news, court and crime teams, according to a reporter from that newspaper.“ Basically all the stories are put online first, except those interviews offered to a so-called selected‘ small group’ of newspapers,” he said. “In the case of scoops, the introduction of the stories are put online from 11pm.”

The reporter points to the fact that a story usually receives a far higher hit-rate for the rougher online edition on the first day than the online edition the next day, which is what appeared in print and is developed with more details and analysis. There can be thousands, or tens of thousands, of clicks for the rougher version and just a few hundred clicks for the complete version the next day. “Even though the later version from the print edition is more in-depth,readers probably feel they already had a rough idea what happened the day before, and won’t bother to look again,” he said, adding that only the front page or major news enjoys a continuous high hit rate.

A senior reporter from Apple says the hit rate has also affected editors’ decision in deciding which stories should be given more importance. “For instance, when you have five online briefs and you have

to choose three to be developed and put in print, we will pick those with a higher hit rate. When writing the stories, we’ll also take into account good online comments by our readers,” he said. But he stressed that

the hit rate is not necessarily the decisive factor. “Certain issues like human rights in rural China are always unpopular subjects that draw low rates. But colleagues report them all the same because, after all, these

are serious moral issues."

It's Our Job to Ask Questions

2014-02-13T00:20:00.001-08:00

Text by Tracy Wong
Translated by Teddy Ng

“I am just questioning. I am not screaming.”

“That’s okay… You are not going to offend his Excellency. Now, out!”

Asking questions is the job of all journalists. But it is always controversial whether journalists should step back, compromise or silence themselves when they are expelled from press events or have their accreditations confiscated after asking questions, leading to deprivation of the right to cover events or interview officials.

Many media organizations of Hong Kong sent reporters to cover the APEC summit in October in Bali, Indonesia. Journalists from three electronic media organizations, including NOW, RTHK and Commercial Radio, raised the question with Philippines President Benigno Aquino whether Manila would apologize to the victims of the hostage crisis. The journalists also asked if Aquino would meet with Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chunying.The journalists did not only fail to get a response from Aquino, but were mistreated by several APEC officials. The reporters were accused of shouting loudly at Aquino. Mr Wishnu Wardhana, chairman of the APEC Business Advisory Council, said the journalists had offended Aquino and ordered them to be taken out of the conference venue. Four journalists were expelled after their media passes were confiscated. The media passes of another journalist and engineering staff of NOW TV were also deactivated, even though they were not at the conference venue at the time the incident happened.

The saga did not end there. The journalists concerned were placed under watch list of the APEC organizing committee and closely monitored. Some journalists were ordered to change to another hotel after their media accreditations were deactivated. Indonesian authorities said the Hong Kong journalists posed a security

threat to Aquino. A spokesman for Aquino also said the journalists had “crossed the line” and were posing a security risk to the Filipino president.

Yip Yiu-kwan, the RTHK journalist who raised questions to Aquino, gave a written account of the incident. “It is unimaginable that the committee of such an international summit would resort to such uncivilized action,” he wrote.

第二十九屆「記協盃」開鑼！

2014-02-11T23:43:00.003-08:00

鄭偉強記協職員

記協歷史最悠久的活動「記協盃足球賽」，雲集十多間傳媒的足球隊、逾三百名新聞工作者於全港各大人造草七人足球場，競逐傳媒足球體壇的最高殊榮。

記協盃始於1984年，至今已踏入29年歷史，
是為傳媒業界最受注目的足球盛事。

記協盃始於84年，至今已踏入29年歷史。多得各界的支持及贊助，記協盃才可以舉辦至今。今年第29屆記協盃足球賽於11月30日正式展開，請定期留意記協盃facebook專頁(https://www.facebook.com/HKJAcup)發布的最新賽程，並前來捧場，為行家打氣。熱心人若有意贊助記協盃，請隨時與記協聯絡，好讓這項傳媒界盛事一直辦下去！

鳴謝：

第二十九屆「記協盃」承蒙以下人士慷慨資助，令賽事得以順利開展，香港記者協會特此鳴謝！

何鴻燊博士
中國香港體育協會暨奧林匹克委員會會長霍震霆先生

《記者之聲》 2013年12月號目錄

2013-12-31T23:30:00.000-08:00

專題：記者被當成恐怖份子　　　Focus: Journalists being deemed as terrorist

標題 Item Title	作者 Author
封面故事｜記者以提問為生　　提問乃記者天職，然而，當提問成為沒收記者採訪證及驅逐記者的藉口，新聞自由被粗暴踐踏，公眾知情權被無理剝削，記者是否就此退縮、妥協、滅聲？......	黃凱宜
封面故事｜記者被當成恐怖份子　　在亞太經合組織的國際峰會，主辦國賦予傳媒新聞自由是理所當然，實際上過往亦鮮有主辦國被指對待記者不周的批評。這一切背景都令我出發到峇里前少一份擔憂，但想不到抵達當地第三天，就發生令人意想不到的事情。......	葉曜坤
封面故事｜合理採訪權不容踐踏　　近年經常聽到記者被同行批評不發問，部分人有如錄音機，將受訪對象的說話內容錄下翻聽就了事。早前在印尼峇里，香港記者主動向菲律賓總統阿基諾三世提問，似乎為同行平反，可惜，有關記者竟被亞太經合大會指是冒犯嘉賓......	黃凱宜
封面故事｜特首無牙力	陳碧琪
封面故事｜給亞太經合組織的信	記協
業界專題｜報紙網絡戰	吳卓盈
業界專題｜丟架的記者	孔雪茵
業界事務｜主席大計	張嘉雯
業界事務｜第29屆「記協盃」開鑼	記協
業界事務｜執法機構動輒索取新聞材料　勢破壞傳媒公信力	黃凱宜
行家動態｜人物專訪：陳曉蕾	曾善璘
行家動態｜記協會址新面貌	《記聲》
------------------------	-----------
------------------------	-----------
Cover Story｜It's Our Job to Ask Questions Asking questions is the job of all journalists. But it is always controversial whether journalists should step back, compromise or silence themselves when they are expelled from press events or have their accreditations confiscated after asking questions, leading to deprivation of the right to cover events or interview officials......	Tracy Wong
Cover Story｜Journalists Deemed to be Terrorists It is a reasonable expectation for the host nation of any international summit such as APEC to respect press freedom, and it is rare that a host nation of such APEC summits to be accused of mistreating journalists. I was not worried at all before departing for Bali, but this was something I had never expected to happen three days after I landed there......	Yip Yiu-kwan
Cover Story｜Journalists' Rights should be Upheld There have been concerns in recent years that journalists do not ask questions at press events and what they do is simply record whatever the interviewees say. Ironically, when Hong Kong journalists raised questions to Philippines President Benigno Aquino in Bali, they were regarded as being offensive and had their media passes confiscated......	Tracy Wong
Cover Story｜A Toothless Chief Executive	Chan Pik-ki
Cover Story｜Letter to APEC	HKJA
Industrial Talk｜Digital First or Print First?	Joyce Ng
Industrial Talk｜The chairperson’s Grand Vision	Cheung Ka-man
Industrial Affairs｜Taking the Bull by the Horns	Cheung Ka-man
Industrial Affairs｜Joint Submission on the ICAC’s Application for the Court Order on the Surrender of Journalistic Materials	HKJA & HKPPA
Feature｜Personal interview with Leila Chan － To be a live-long journalist	Eva Tsang
Feature｜Renovating the Association's Office	The Journalist