The 10th anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to China is, in many quarters, cause for celebration. But not for proponents of a freer press, who argue that the SAR has seen a creeping rise in self-censorship of local newspapers, fuelled by media barons that are increasingly looking to tote a more Beijing-friendly stance.
The trend is nothing new. Asia has — by an ignominious margin — the world’s worst record for press freedom. Not a single Asian country features in the top 20 of the worldwide press freedom index (published by Reporters Without Borders), and seven Asian countries — Vietnam, Laos, Pakistan, Nepal, China, Myanmar and North Korea — languish in the bottom 20. Singapore and the Philippines, sit just outside of the bottom 20 . Only Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Hong Kong and Malaysia make the top 100.
1 Press freedom took another beating in Asia this month, and not just on the editorial side. In China, four Chengdu Wanbao sales staff were sacked for allowing an ad to be published that paid to tribute to victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre. Incidences of creeping censorship (Pakistan, Thailand, Singapore), imprisonment (Thailand, Vietnam) and murder (Pakistan, the Philippines, India, Cambodia) have befallen journalists since May. In the region’s ‘freest’ press market, Korea, moves are afoot to reduce media access to government departments.
2 But do advertisers really care if the press is ‘free’ or not? Agencies report that in China, press freedom is never mentioned as a concern by clients, even behind closed doors. “Since all media is state-controlled — and will remain so indefinitely — it’s a moot point,” says one China media agency chief. “As long as my clients reach their audience, they’re not bothered. In fact, some prefer the safer, more predictable environment of a controlled press.”
3 For advertisers of edgier brands there are newspapers such as Hong Kong’s gleefully contrarian Apple Daily. In 2003, Kin-ming Liu, general manager of Apple Daily, was reported as saying: “Controversy sells newspapers. People will only pick up a paper if it’s interesting. The market has rewarded us by making us one of the most profitable titles in Hong Kong.”
True, then. But being too outspoken against Beijing has not helped revenues of late and controversy-shy advertisers, including some of the city’s biggest spenders have fled the title in droves (revenues fell 10 per cent this year).
4 So what about the consumer? In China’s wealthy Guangdong province, more people watch Hong Kong’s ATV and TVB than they watch Chinese state TV. But this could be explained by higher programme quality, says one agency boss. “If China liberalised its press laws, you’d first see a spike in audience numbers as people rushed to sate their appetite for opinion and gossip. But I’d wager the numbers would soon return to where they were before.”
The World Association of Newspapers (WAN) would beg to differ. Korea, Taiwan, Brazil and the Ukraine have seen a sustained explosion of media launches and, in turn, audience numbers since the liberalisation of their press markets, notes WAN’s director general, Timothy Balding (see panel).
5 So what’s the point of censorship in a world that’s gone online? China and Singapore censor websites and Malaysia has clamped down on bloggers, but they can’t shut it all out. Motives vary. “Some parts of China are more developed than others. The Government feels that some Chinese are not ready for evaluative news and commentary,” says an agency source. “Besides, the authorities need to show the hardcore communists that they are trying to keep China ‘pure’.”
6 Which takes us to the moral end of the story. “The most important challenge for the press in developing markets is to become free from censorship, and to serve readers independently and honestly,” says Balding. “As long as you are held back by controls and taboos, you will never realise your full potential, nor play the vital role in driving economic, political, social and cultural development.” Of course, not everyone sees it that way. “What do you mean by ‘free’ anyway?” asks one Singaporean media man. “Are the stilted truths we read in The Straits Times less worthy than the half-truths printed in Western tabloids?”
What it means for…
Clients
Not a lot, apparently. In numbers-obsessed Asia — China in particular — a free press means not having to pay for it.
As WAN’s Timothy Balding points out, after Korea liberalised its media in 1987, the number of newspapers doubled, the number of weeklies more than doubled and 400 new magazines appeared — all in the space of a year. More recently, Taiwan, Brazil and Ukraine tell similar stories.
Media owners
A free press and state-owned media do not sit comfortably in the same sentence. Yet, most countries — especially developing ones — might profit from a freer press market. But expect competition to rise quickly as new players — local and international — emerge.
Even in the most conservative Asian countries — especially in advancing democracies such as the Philippines and internationally-minded ones such as Singapore — a more liberal media is an inevitable path to progress.
Even so, in countries where direct censorship is falling away, expect the subtler ways of control now becoming fashionable in the Middle East: licensing red tape, control of paper supplies and heavier taxation.
