When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Thursday 14 June 2012
Mainland media must clean up its act
Hu Shuli says the practice of a pay-off in return for good
press hurts journalists’ credibility and undermines their role as a public
watchdog, to society’s detriment
Hu Shuli says the practice of a pay-off in return for good press hurts journalists’ credibility and undermines their role as a public watchdog, to society’s detriment
14 June 2012
A recent Caixin report on the media extortion racket over public listings on the mainland hit a nerve with readers. In phone calls, e-mails, text messages and online comments, many people expressed their outrage at the “open secret” that some media organisations make money from companies preparing for an IPO launch by threatening bad press.
Many readers denounced the practice, but felt there was little to be done. We disagree.
Companies are increasingly paying off media outlets to ensure glowing reports on their listing plans. Our investigation shows that the problem has become more rampant in recent years, but many details about the under-the-table deals remain unknown because people with knowledge of the cases are not prepared to go public.
Such conduct oversteps journalistic integrity and borders on the criminal. In view of its harm to China’s development, we must not let the perpetrators get away with it - especially when the problem can so easily be used as an excuse to clamp down on media freedoms. Chinese society will suffer with any further erosion in the media’s role as a watchdog.
Paying off the media is wrong and possibly criminal. So why do companies do it? The reasons partly stem from China’s flawed application system for initial public offerings. Companies are being asked to comply with some rules that are plainly unreasonable. Inevitably, some firms find themselves caught out by conduct that may be reasonable but is against the rules. When found out by the media, they try to buy their way into a cover-up.
The recent round of reform on securities regulation should help to refine the media’s role as a public watchdog. Clearer rules on what’s permissible will help above-board companies defend themselves against an underhanded media campaign. Meanwhile, crooked companies that collude with the media to cheat the public will find it harder to do so.
As for the media companies, there can be no excuse. Accepting a benefit for a report is morally wrong, and reflects the mismatch in the mainland media environment between restrictions and freedoms, and between self-discipline and regulations.
To date, no single law governs China’s media, only a heap of administrative rules. The neglect means professional ethics are weak. Except for a handful, media practitioners on the mainland have largely lost their moral compass and tend to put money first. Many lead almost schizophrenic professional lives: while they pursue investigative reporting on some issues, they also accept advantages in exchange for positive reports. As they see it, their job is not just to protect public interests, but also to maximise private gain. One scandal is all it will take to expose the rot.
In an open society, the media has a rightful role to uphold social justice. The belief that truth can be reached only through free and open debate is now a core value of modern societies, as is a demand that restrictions on freedoms are based on reason. It can be argued that the media functions best when it is self-regulating. To some degree, the public - and the law - should make some allowances for the inaccuracies and mistakes that occur in the course of reporting. Unless there is sufficiently open and free debate, how else could citizens learn critical thinking and a society come to an agreement based on reason?
But news organisations are not above the law, especially on the mainland, where all media groups are directly or indirectly linked to the state. Those found guilty of extorting money from companies should be held to account, and the authorities should not try to shield them.
The media industry itself has a responsibility to clean up its act. It’s especially ridiculous to hear some people, in the name of protecting media freedoms, insist that media practitioners should avoid criticising each other. (Caixin was at the receiving end of such views earlier this year when it reported on CCTV’s role in the scandal over the fake origins of Da Vinci furniture, and the problem seems to have gotten worse.)
Self-discipline is vital. If we want an open and free media, journalists must regulate their own behaviour and not just rely on rules imposed from the outside. This means speaking up against malpractices in the business. A media environment that tolerates paid news and journalistic integrity that can be bought and sold will lead to the ruin of the industry.
Media misconduct is not unique to China. The phone-hacking scandal of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has already led to several arrests, and Britain’s Lord Justice Leveson heads a continuing inquiry into the case. In Britain and the US, such independent panels are commonly set up in the event of a scandal to investigate what went wrong, and report on what can be done to plug the loopholes. China, too, must do likewise.
After the publication of Caixin’s report, some officials from the securities regulator pledged to face the problem. One notable public relations company acknowledged the “indignity” of such underhand deals, and there was some serious reflection in the media.
As Marx put it, shame is a kind of anger turned inward, and if a nation as a whole felt shame, it would be “like a lion, crouching ready to spring”. Action would surely answer a society’s hope for progress.
This article is provided by Caixin Media, and the Chinese version of it was first published in Century Weekly magazine.
2 comments:
Mainland media must clean up its act
Hu Shuli says the practice of a pay-off in return for good press hurts journalists’ credibility and undermines their role as a public watchdog, to society’s detriment
14 June 2012
A recent Caixin report on the media extortion racket over public listings on the mainland hit a nerve with readers. In phone calls, e-mails, text messages and online comments, many people expressed their outrage at the “open secret” that some media organisations make money from companies preparing for an IPO launch by threatening bad press.
Many readers denounced the practice, but felt there was little to be done. We disagree.
Companies are increasingly paying off media outlets to ensure glowing reports on their listing plans. Our investigation shows that the problem has become more rampant in recent years, but many details about the under-the-table deals remain unknown because people with knowledge of the cases are not prepared to go public.
Such conduct oversteps journalistic integrity and borders on the criminal. In view of its harm to China’s development, we must not let the perpetrators get away with it - especially when the problem can so easily be used as an excuse to clamp down on media freedoms. Chinese society will suffer with any further erosion in the media’s role as a watchdog.
Paying off the media is wrong and possibly criminal. So why do companies do it? The reasons partly stem from China’s flawed application system for initial public offerings. Companies are being asked to comply with some rules that are plainly unreasonable. Inevitably, some firms find themselves caught out by conduct that may be reasonable but is against the rules. When found out by the media, they try to buy their way into a cover-up.
The recent round of reform on securities regulation should help to refine the media’s role as a public watchdog. Clearer rules on what’s permissible will help above-board companies defend themselves against an underhanded media campaign. Meanwhile, crooked companies that collude with the media to cheat the public will find it harder to do so.
As for the media companies, there can be no excuse. Accepting a benefit for a report is morally wrong, and reflects the mismatch in the mainland media environment between restrictions and freedoms, and between self-discipline and regulations.
To date, no single law governs China’s media, only a heap of administrative rules. The neglect means professional ethics are weak. Except for a handful, media practitioners on the mainland have largely lost their moral compass and tend to put money first. Many lead almost schizophrenic professional lives: while they pursue investigative reporting on some issues, they also accept advantages in exchange for positive reports. As they see it, their job is not just to protect public interests, but also to maximise private gain. One scandal is all it will take to expose the rot.
In an open society, the media has a rightful role to uphold social justice. The belief that truth can be reached only through free and open debate is now a core value of modern societies, as is a demand that restrictions on freedoms are based on reason. It can be argued that the media functions best when it is self-regulating. To some degree, the public - and the law - should make some allowances for the inaccuracies and mistakes that occur in the course of reporting. Unless there is sufficiently open and free debate, how else could citizens learn critical thinking and a society come to an agreement based on reason?
But news organisations are not above the law, especially on the mainland, where all media groups are directly or indirectly linked to the state. Those found guilty of extorting money from companies should be held to account, and the authorities should not try to shield them.
The media industry itself has a responsibility to clean up its act. It’s especially ridiculous to hear some people, in the name of protecting media freedoms, insist that media practitioners should avoid criticising each other. (Caixin was at the receiving end of such views earlier this year when it reported on CCTV’s role in the scandal over the fake origins of Da Vinci furniture, and the problem seems to have gotten worse.)
Self-discipline is vital. If we want an open and free media, journalists must regulate their own behaviour and not just rely on rules imposed from the outside. This means speaking up against malpractices in the business. A media environment that tolerates paid news and journalistic integrity that can be bought and sold will lead to the ruin of the industry.
Media misconduct is not unique to China. The phone-hacking scandal of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has already led to several arrests, and Britain’s Lord Justice Leveson heads a continuing inquiry into the case. In Britain and the US, such independent panels are commonly set up in the event of a scandal to investigate what went wrong, and report on what can be done to plug the loopholes. China, too, must do likewise.
After the publication of Caixin’s report, some officials from the securities regulator pledged to face the problem. One notable public relations company acknowledged the “indignity” of such underhand deals, and there was some serious reflection in the media.
As Marx put it, shame is a kind of anger turned inward, and if a nation as a whole felt shame, it would be “like a lion, crouching ready to spring”. Action would surely answer a society’s hope for progress.
This article is provided by Caixin Media, and the Chinese version of it was first published in Century Weekly magazine.
Post a Comment