(The Standard 23 Jan, 2014) Newspapers are finding themselves at the center of news as
talk about press freedom in the SAR becomes an increasingly hot topic.
The controversy over the change of editor-in-chief at Ming Pao has been
played out in the headlines in recent days. Now there's unconfirmed reports of
companies pulling out ads from newspapers, including Apple Daily and am730.
There are claims that chief executive Leung Chun-ying has been influencing
major companies not to advertise in these two papers, which have been critical
of him.
This is hardly the first time such rumors have circulated, but this time
things are far more fascinating and rich in political conspiracy theories.
The current rumors claim that, in order to tame the media, major advertisers
are under pressure to stop placing ads in the two dailies. Companies cited
include HSBC, Standard Chartered Bank and Bank of East Asia.
But are such conspiracy theories logical?
Take Standard Chartered as an example. One of the accusations is the bank - a
major Apple Daily advertiser - has been reluctant to work with the government in
boycotting the paper. Because of this, so the rumors go, Leung refused to meet
the bank's top officials when they gathered in Hong Kong for an important
meeting.
Also, he purportedly kept the bank guessing over whether or not he would
attend next month's mega marathon event, which is sponsored by Standard
Chartered.
This rumor is based on the premise that Leung is exerting pressure on the
bank not to advertise in the newspapers - and used his attendance at the
marathon as a threat.
Indeed, Leung confirmed yesterday that he will not be attending the marathon,
which makes it the first time in the event's long history that the chief
executive will be absent. Furthermore, he will be represented by a relatively
junior member of his team - Home Affairs minister Tsang Tak-sing - rather than
his number two, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor.
So what's behind Leung's no-show at this high-profile event?
Barring his being on vacation or needing to work, the most logical reason -
if the above premise is correct - would be that Leung failed to exert his
influence on the bank not to advertise and, in a fit of pique, refused to attend
the marathon. If that's the case, then we should be seeing ads in the newspapers
and hearing victorious remarks from Leung's opponents. But neither has happened.
So another argument goes that, even though the bank had given in to Leung's
pressure, he still chose not to attend the marathon.
The convoluted logic behind this train of thought is that, should Leung
attend, it would make it too obvious that there was a trade-off.
Again, this is flawed. Would Leung be so naive as to expose himself to such a
connection? It would be a huge scandal for him if the bank turned around and
pointed an accusing finger at him.
The supposed logic of the conspiracy theory is the very thing that renders it
illogical.
This whole media conspiracy theory is intriguing for a couple of reasons.
First, neither am730 owner Shih Wing-ching nor Apple Daily boss Jimmy Lai
Chee-ying named any advertisers that had pulled out. Second, the firms quoted
were named via second-hand sources. Strictly speaking, there is no plaintiff or
defendant, only a complainant. In the absence of both, there isn't even a prima
facie case.
Mary Ma
