“Under such circumstances, given the one-sided nature of evidence available, the HKJA has at times found it very difficult to come to a definite conclusion. We note that the media complain loudly if the government and large companies refuse to answer questions. Yet media organisations, despite their great influence on society, often refuse to abide by the same standards.”[235]

4.10 Even if a journalist or news organisation is found guilty of unethical conduct, the responsible organisation is not bound to publish the result of the adverse ruling. A member of the Ethics Committee describes the complaints procedure of the Association in the following terms:

“The HKJA’s mechanism of receiving and adjudicating on complaints is unique, because it is the only channel in Hong Kong by which members of the public can lodge complaints on media ethics. However, it may be too self-flattering to think that this mechanism enjoys modest success. In fact, our system is often considered to be highly ‘passive’, in that the HKJA simply waits for complaints. Some even say that our adjudications are ‘useless’ because the association has no power to discipline media workers or organisations for ethics violations. ... We would also like to stress that the HKJA has no interest whatsoever in playing the role of a ‘watchdog with teeth’. Indeed, we are totally against the idea of forming a statutory body with the power to discipline media workers or media organisations.”[236] (emphasis added)

4.11 Apart from a Code of Ethics, the Association occasionally issues guidelines on important issues. The Association explains that such guidelines are labelled as “recommendations” because it wants “to avoid the impression that the HKJA wished to impose its will on members.” The Chairman of the Ethics Committee made it clear that the Association preferred a non-confrontational approach “insofar as the union does not impose standards on journalists”.[237] It would seem that the Association does not wish to force its members to comply with the minimal standards it has set down, even in those areas where it has found that it is necessary to regulate the conduct of its members.

4.12 As far as members of the HKJA are concerned, a serious breach of the provisions of the Code may, in theory, lead to expulsion from the Association. But since membership of the Association is not compulsory for journalists, this sanction will not have any effect on the contractual relationship between the expelled member and his employer. In any event, in a poll of HKJA members on media ethics, only 13% of the respondents supported the idea of “threaten[ing] to expel unethical members” in a bid to improve ethical standards.[238] The HKJA is therefore playing an important but nevertheless limited role in regulating media intrusion. The experience in the United Kingdom shows that a code drafted, issued and enforced by the industry is unlikely to command the confidence of the public.

4.13 The role played by other professional bodies in promoting journalistic ethics is also limited. One of the objects of the Society of Hong Kong Publishers is to enhance the professional standing of publishers in Hong Kong, but news-gathering activities and reportage in newspapers and magazines are not its major concerns. Besides, only a minority of local newspapers is members of the Association.

4.14 The Newspaper Society of Hong Kong, which represents most of the proprietors of Chinese- and English-language newspapers, organises three major functions each year: a meeting to discuss the pricing of newspapers, an annual ball, and the Best News Writing and Photography Competition.[239] The maintenance of journalistic ethics is not the major concern of the Society. Even if it were anxious to maintain high journalistic standards, the fact that three mainstream newspapers, i.e. Apple Daily, Oriental Daily News and The Sun are not members of the Society makes any positive efforts undertaken by the Society in the area of journalistic ethics of limited consequence.[240]

4.15 As for other journalists associations, the newly formed Hong Kong Federation of Journalists told us that they did not have any Code of Ethics for their members. The prime concern of the News Executives’ Association and the Hong Kong Press Photographers Association has been the preservation of press freedom. The constitution of the Hong Kong Press Photographers Association does contain two paragraphs under the heading of “Code of Ethics”. But these provisions are more concerned with upholding press freedom than with maintaining ethical standards among its members.[241] They fail to offer any guidance to press photographers as to how the conflict between press freedom and individual privacy may be resolved in specific circumstances.

4.16 At the meeting of the LegCo Panel on Home Affairs held on 26 April 1999, a representative of the Press Photographers Association stated that the Association could issue a letter or public statement criticising a newspaper for publishing an offensive and objectionable picture in breach of professional ethics. However, the newspaper might take legal action against the officers of the Association if the letter or statement was issued. He said that since their membership was small and they did not have much resources to defend legal action taken by massive newspapers, the Association had not taken an active role in promoting media ethics. The Chairperson of the HKJA concurred by saying that adverse comments by a journalist about a newspaper might result in the newspaper taking legal action against him. The comments made by the representative of the Press Photographers Association and the Chairperson of the HKJA illustrate that even if the news associations are willing to play an active role in restraining intrusive practices, they will not, except in extreme cases, point their fingers at a particular newspaper and hold it accountable for these practices lest it will take legal action against members of the association in retaliation.

4.17 A sizeable public outcry over media ethics emerged in October 1998 over the television and press reports on the bizarre behaviour of the widower of a woman who committed suicide by flinging herself to her death after allegedly pushing her two sons from the balcony of a high-rise. Television interviews made by entertainment program crews reported the widower having no remorse over the tragic death of his wife. Later, Apple Daily made a serial front page account of the man looking for women in Shenzhen, with a photograph showing him embracing two women in bed. Subsequently, a large number of complaints were made to various institutions including the Broadcasting Authority, Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority, HKJA and the media organisations concerned.

4.18 That incident did not involve an intrusion upon the privacy of a living individual, as the widower admitted consent on his part and further claimed that he freely sold these details of his private life in return for money. The lament of the public related to the general ethical standards of the media, such as chequebook journalism and bad taste. One religious group went as far as urging the public to boycott Apple Daily but as newsvendors reflected, the call had not caused any impact on the sales of the newspaper. Subsequently, Apple Daily published an apology admitting that the way they reported the story was inappropriate. The effect of any individual boycott of a newspaper is marginal because newspapers are complex packages of which only a portion might offend the readers.[242]

4.19 In the wake of the controversy, the HKJA organised a seminar to consider the moral health of the media. Not unexpectedly, no solution was offered as to how to improve and maintain a high ethical standard for the media, except to remind the industry again to guard against any government attempt to intervene using ethical issues as a pretext. Nonetheless, as more and more people expressed their dissatisfaction with the professional and ethical standards of the media, the Association announced in November 1998 that it was “attempting to set up a [Media Ethics Forum] which could lobby for better ethics, offer education, and handle public complaints.”[243]

4.20 Subsequently, the Broadcasting Authority fined Asia Television Ltd $100,000 and Television Broadcasts Ltd $50,000 for their “exploitative” coverage of the widower’s activities in Shenzhen. The Authority stated that Asia Television Ltd “went to great lengths to provoke and prompt [the widower] to dwell on his personal life, sexual needs, and his indifference towards the death of his wife and two sons.” It ruled that such coverage was “a very serious breach” of the provisions of the Commercial Television Code of Practice on Programme Standards in relation to human relationships.[244] Although the television companies have been criticised and fined for their misconduct, Apple Daily has neither been censured nor punished by any regulatory body - there being no regulatory body monitoring the ethics of the press; nor is there any industry-wide code of ethics applicable to the press.

4.21 At the LegCo Panel meeting held in April 1999, the News Executives’ Association informed that they were drafting a Code of Ethics for Hong Kong Journalists. They said they would consult news executives in various news organisations and revise the draft after consultation. The revised draft would then be published for comments by members of the profession, academics and members of the public. Further revision would be made thereafter. A representative of the Association admitted at the meeting that it was difficult to reach a consensus in the industry. He pointed out that since market considerations outweighed all other concerns, the industry might be unwilling to abide by the requirements set out in the “gentleman’s agreement”. He said that in that event, the Association might have to give consideration to setting up a news council to receive complaints.

News Council

4.22 The World Association of Press Councils declares that independent press councils can maintain and enhance the freedom and the responsibility of the press. Its constitution stipulates, inter alia, that a press council provides “a democratic, efficient and inexpensive forum for the hearing of complaints against and by the press, and for maintaining and assisting in the enhancement of its freedom, responsibility and accountability”. [245] As neither the Newspaper Society nor the Hong Kong Chinese Press Association represents all newspapers in Hong Kong and both associations do not play a significant role in the maintenance of journalistic ethics, a news council which oversees and enforces an industry-wide code of practice on privacy matters might be created to regulate media intrusion.

4.23 One of the main functions of a news council is to prevent abuse of press freedom. It provides a mechanism through which the standards of care and responsibility on the part of the news media can be maintained without jeopardising freedom of the press. Investigation and public condemnation of bad journalism by a news council would contribute to higher professional standards. Citizens unwilling or unable financially to bring proceedings against the media may hold the media accountable by lodging a complaint with the council. Publishers and broadcasters can also save legal fees and court costs. The public is more likely to have a higher respect for journalism if the news organisations are subject to the scrutiny of an independent body. Members of the public would be more willing to assist journalists in gathering news. Furthermore, the industry would attract more talented students to join the profession.

4.24 However, a voluntary news council may not be the most effective means of reviewing and investigating media complaints. It may lack sufficient funds to set up the complaints mechanism. If the public are represented in the news council, some media organisations may be unwilling to participate and give their support. Moreover, a voluntary body would not have power to compel organisations to co-operate in complaint investigations. Nor can the organisations be forced to abide by its determinations and publish the findings with due prominence.

4.25 The idea of setting up a news council is not new to Hong Kong. Indeed, the Hong Kong Journalists Association was in favour of this idea in the early 1980’s. In 1985, Robin Hutcheon, then Chairman of the Newspaper Society of Hong Kong, set up a preparatory committee to put this idea into practice. He invited private individuals as well as journalists to join the committee. Subsequently, he gave the chair to Hon Mr Justice Simon Li who was then a judge of the Court of Appeal. This move was ill-received by the industry. There were considerable misgivings about a committee which was chaired by a person who had no experience of the industry and which was comprised of members of the public as well as journalists. The industry speculated that the Government was behind the move. In the face of opposition from the industry, the committee decided to dissolve itself. The idea of maintaining professional standards by means of a news council has remained shelved since then.

4.26 The unsuccessful attempt to establish a news council shows that some sections of the industry were unwilling to leave ethical issues in the hands of a body which comprises members of the public. But the experience in the United Kingdom indicates that a body established and dominated by the industry which has press freedom as one of its avowed objects cannot be relied upon to balance the interests of the industry and the individual’s right to privacy.

4.27 Although many would think that journalists do not want to have a body looking over their shoulders, there is hard evidence that the majority of journalists in Hong Kong think that there is an urgent need to have a press or news council. In a comprehensive survey conducted by three academics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in 1990, 58% of the 522 journalists surveyed considered that there was an “urgent” or “very urgent” need to set up a press council. Only 9% said there was no urgent need.[246] Although Hong Kong Journalists Association expressed no objection to the setting up of a press council in late 1980’s, it remained sceptical of this idea in the run-up to the handover in 1997. In any event, the Association is against the establishment of a statutory body with power to discipline journalists and media organisations:

“we are totally against the idea of forming a statutory body with the power to discipline media workers or media organisations. Such a body, put in simple terms, could invite outside interference in an industry which should remain autonomous to the largest extent possible.”[247]

“We believe that it is better to take a decentralised approach, through the application of a code of ethics and the drawing up of related documents on specific ethical issues, for example, election coverage.”[248]

4.28 Subsequent to the incident involving the widower, there have been calls for the establishment, or at the least the consideration of the establishment of a news council. The feasibility of establishing a media council has been discussed on four episodes of Media Watch produced by the RTHK. At the Legislative Council hearing in November 1998, the Chairman of the Hong Kong News Executives’ Association stated that the Association “in principle has nothing against [a media council] provided it is established on the media industry’s initiative, without any government involvement whatsoever.”[249] The Chairperson of the HKJA also stated at the hearing that the Association did not object to the idea of setting up of a media council in principle, but that “any initiative or involvement on the part of government would be unacceptable.”[250] Despite such encouraging remarks, the industry has not taken any initiative to set up such a council.

4.29 To be successful, a news council requires the support and participation of the overwhelming majority of news organisations. A major newspaper can spoil the whole scheme by not co-operating with the council or giving minimal or no coverage to its adjudications. Bob Shaw, a founding member of the 30-year-old Minnesota News Council in the US says:[251]

“If the managing editor or publisher of the largest daily newspaper(s) in your area wants a council, ... or if the manager of your state’s newspaper association and significant members of his board want a council, it could work. If, on the other hand, a person outside the press wants to start a council and does not consult the press during the formative stage, that project, I believe, is doomed.”

4.30 Although we would welcome the establishment of a voluntary news council in Hong Kong to raise the ethical standards of the news media if there is any chance of success, there is no reasonable prospect that one will be established in the foreseeable future. Apple Daily, Oriental Daily News and The Sun are not members of the Newspaper Society. In any event, the Newspaper Society is silent on this subject. There are also no signs that the overwhelming majority of the news organisations would give their whole-hearted support to the establishment of a news council.

Self-restraint by individual news organisations

4.31 Given that Hong Kong does not have a news council, self-regulation would, in the end, mean nothing more than asking journalists to gather and report news in accordance with their conscience, or refer to the Code of Ethics issued by the HKJA for guidance whenever they are caught in a difficult position. Most newspapers exercise restraint when reporting rapes, kidnapping cases and other major crimes. Where a complaint about inaccuracies is received, the newspaper may publish a correction or apology. As regards unfair coverage, it may be dealt with by publishing the complaints as letters to the editor. However, as noted by a member of the Ethics Committee of the HKJA, “There remains considerable scope for the media to institutionalise letters to the editor pages. Some newspapers do not have regular letters pages, and some of the more well-known publications are known to have refused potentially controversial correspondence.”[252]

4.32 The Chairperson of the HKJA was reported as saying that the media’s self-discipline and public monitoring would be more effective weapons against intrusive press coverage.[253] Others have argued that the press is primarily responsible to the readers for their performance, not to any outside body. It is the job of the press to uphold the standards of the industry. It should be up to the industry itself to strike the balance between the duty owed to the publisher or broadcaster and the interest of protecting an individual’s privacy from media intrusion. In our opinion, this is a difficult if not impossible task, unless the industry has an acceptable and enforceable code of practice which is binding on both journalists and proprietors alike, or all proprietors are willing to incorporate into the contracts of employment the provisions of a code of practice which is acceptable to both the industry and the public. There are no signs of either of these two scenarios becoming a reality in the foreseeable future.

News ombudsman / Readers’ representative

4.33 One way to improve accountability of a news organisation is to appoint an ombudsman. The task of a news ombudsman is to act as an arbitrator and conciliator between the news organisation and its audience. He receives and investigates complaints about the conduct of journalists. Some ombudsmen also consider complaints about accuracy, fairness, balance and good taste in news coverage. The duties of an ombudsman in a newspaper company may include the following:[254]

a) to receive, investigate and reply to complaints from readers;
b) to supervise the preparation of corrections;
c) to monitor news and feature columns;
d) to write memoranda to management evaluating performance of reporters and editors;
e) to write internal newsletters about readers’ views; and
f) to write critical columns published in the newspaper.

4.34 A news ombudsman helps to explain the newsgathering process to the public and overcome the belief that the news media is arrogant and insensitive to public concerns. The credibility of the news organisation concerned can thus be improved. His presence in a news organisation also prods reporters and editors to exercise more care and give more thought to their work. The Organisation of News Ombudsmen articulates the reasons why a newspaper or broadcaster should have an ombudsman:[255]

a) the quality of news reporting could be improved;
b) the newspaper or broadcaster would become more accessible and accountable to its readers or members of its audience;
c) its news professionals would be more aware about the public’s concerns;
d) time for publishers and senior editors, or broadcasters and news directors, could be saved by channelling complaints to one responsible individual; and
e) some complaints that might otherwise become costly law suits could be resolved.

4.35 In the opinion of Charles Bailey, a former editor of the Minneapolis Tribune, ombudsmen are better attuned to the public temper than editors who are burdened with other professional and administrative duties. They help reduce public hostility toward the press and increase understanding of how the press functions. The ombudsman “helps his newspaper to be fair, and helps persuade the public that it is fair”.[256]

4.36 The establishment of news ombudsmen to take up complaints and breaches of a Code of Practice was supported by the Newspaper Publishers Association in the United Kingdom.[257] However, the Calcutt Committee was critical of such a scheme:

“However high his standards and however much independence he may be given to criticise, a readers’ representative cannot be, or be seen to be, wholly independent of the newspaper which employs him. This may reduce public confidence in him and hence his effectiveness. His role in preventing unjustified intrusions into privacy is likely to be limited to criticising them after the event. By then any damage has already been done. Furthermore, he can only advise or exhort: the final say about what should be published rests with the editor.”[258]

4.37 Robert Haiman, president of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, holds the same view. He thinks that what journalists need is more systematic and independent criticism from the outside, not more criticism from their peers. The ombudsman is an insider, despite attempts to foster his independence.[259] Cliff Bale, a veteran Hong Kong journalist, noted that this option might be difficult for the newspapers to accept because there would be a financial cost involved. Nonetheless, he conceded that this could, in the long run, become the most effective way to prove that media organisations are fully accountable to the public.[260]

4.38 According to our understanding, Next Magazine was the first and only media organisation in Hong Kong which had appointed a news ombudsman. Kenneth W Y Leung, associate professor of the Department of Journalism and Communication in the Chinese University of Hong Kong, was appointed by the magazine to investigate and comment on complaints lodged against the magazine. His comments were posted on the website of the Nextmedia Group.[261] After inviting the journalists concerned to respond, he replied to the complaint and gave his own comments on the issues involved - some of which were critical of the magazine. This experiment was discontinued in September 1998. The publisher explained that “in over a year, we had less than 10 complaints.”[262]

4.39 Despite the inherent limitations stated above, we support the appointment of ombudsmen by news organisations. However, news ombudsmen are no substitute for scrutiny from the outside. We believe that it is only through an independent body that the news media can be made accountable to the public.[263]

Conclusion

4.40 Yuen Ying Chan, senior consultant for journalism and media studies at the University of Hong Kong, observes that the following elements of a free press are lacking in Hong Kong:[264]

“One of the features which distinguishes professions from other groupings is that the former have criteria and procedures for admission to membership, and disciplinary procedures and measures (including the withdrawal of the right to practise), which are designed to impose and uphold standards of ethics and responsibility which protect those with whom the professional has to deal. Until journalism adopts a professional organisation of this sort, its claim to be free of regulation in the public interest will always be suspect.”[267]

4.45 It has been suggested that criticism from other newspapers is effective in ensuring that the press complies with the ethical standards of the news media. This suggestion appears to be out of touch with reality. Take Ming Pao Daily News as an example. Its editorial board occasionally receives letters from its readers complaining about the conduct of other newspapers. But the board’s stance is that Ming Pao Daily News will not handle such complaints. One of its editors declares that Ming Pao Daily News is not an ombudsman and that it has no wish to turn itself into an enemy of other newspapers.[268] He says:

“the fact that readers [send in the complaints] reflects that they are dissatisfied with the conduct of the media but could find no avenues to voice their grievances. To avoid being accused of infringing press freedom, the Government dare not regulate even the publication of Guide to Call Girls Service in newspaper columns, and allow such publications to continue corrupting the morals of our teenagers. Since members of the Legislative Council want to attract more publicity, they also dare not antagonise the media; thus leaving the responsibility to speak out for the public, to the media which fails to live up to people’s expectation.”[269]

4.46 We shall examine in the next chapter whether and to what extent the existing framework established under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance can be utilised to regulate media intrusion.

[229] Hong Kong - A New Era: A Review of 1997 (HK: Information Services Department, 1998).
[230] One of the objects of the Hong Kong Chinese Press Association is to promote the press industry in Hong Kong. The majority of its members have a special interest in covering horse-racing news.
[231] The Society maintains a group of local publishers and local representatives of foreign publishers in the newspaper and magazine industry. It works to establish standards and guidelines for publishers relating to quality control, auditing, circulation and advertising.
[232] The Foreign Correspondents’ Club provides social facilities to its members and organises a range of professional activities, including news conferences.
[233] J M Chan, P S N Lee & C C Lee (1996), above, 45.
[234] But note that the Committee made the following statement in November 1998: “The HKJA plans to publish all the complaints it receives, subject to consent from complainants. The aim is not to embarrass any media outlet. Indeed we discourage any attempt to analyse these complaints to find which outlets are more ethical than others.” HKJA Ethics Committee, “Media Ethics: The HKJA Mechanism”, 22 November 1998, p 1.
[235] HKJA Ethics Committee, “Media Ethics: The HKJA Mechanism”, 22 November 1998, p 3; FONG So, “Media Ethics: The HKJA Mechanism” in HKJA 28th Anniversary (1996), 30-31.
[236] FONG So, “Media Ethics: The HKJA Mechanism” in HKJA 28th Anniversary (1996), 28.
[237] C Bale, “Journalistic Ethics - The Rights and Wrongs”, in HKJA 25th Anniversary (1993), 51.
[238] HKJA Press Release, 22 November 1998.
[239] Not much publicity has been given to the contest because only newspapers whose journalist has won an award would report the event.
[240] The HKJA reported in 1998 that Apple Daily and Oriental Daily News shared about 70% of total newspaper readership in Hong Kong: HKJA and ARTICLE 19, Questionable Beginnings - Freedom of expression in Hong Kong one year after the handover to China (1998), at 34. It reports that a survey conducted by AC Nielsen shows that Apple Daily and Oriental Daily News had an average daily readership of 1,917,000 and 1,891,000 in February 1998 respectively. See HKJA and ARTICLE 19, above, at 35.
[241] The section provides: “1. The HKPPA acknowledges the public’s right to freedom in searching for the truth and the right to be informed through the use of pictures. 2. The HKPPA believes that photographers should at all times maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct and strive to maintain freedom of the press and access to all sources of news and visual information.”
[242] Thomas Gibbons, Regulating the Media (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998), pp 46-48 (arguing that the mere possibility of market transactions should not be allowed to dictate the regulatory approach).
[243] HKJA Press Release, 22 November 1998.
[244] Paragraph 5(h) of the Code states: “The portrayal of family and similarly important human relationships and the presentation of any material with sexual connotations shall be treated with sensitivity and not in an exploitative or irresponsible manner. Respect shall be maintained for the sanctity of marriage and the importance of the home. ...”
[245] At <http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/wapc/const.html> (18.1.99). The Association has 17 members in 1998.
[246] J M Chan, P S N Lee & C C Lee, Hong Kong Journalists: A Summary of the Survey Findings (c. 1991), para 4 and table 19. The following are the results shown in table 19: Very Urgent (22%); Urgent (36%); Doesn’t Matter (23%); No Urgent Need (7%); Not Urgent At All (2%); No Opinion (10%). Although the survey included questions on the need to have a code of ethics and a news council for the press in Hong Kong, J M Chan et al do not reveal the findings in their book published in 1996.
[247] FONG So, “Media Ethics: The HKJA Mechanism” in HKJA 28th Anniversary (1996), 28.
[248] FONG So, “Growing Awareness of Media Ethics” in HKJA 27th Anniversary (1995), 20. The HKJA conducted a poll of its members on media ethics in October 1998. There were 178 responses representing a response rate of 27%. When asked what should be done on ethical issues, only 20% of the respondents supported the idea of “urg[ing] the government to set up a Press Council with powers to fine newspapers”.
[249] Raymond R Wong, “Statement to LegCo Panel on Home Affairs – Special Meeting on Wednesday, Nov 25, 1998”. He said that the council’s membership would include representatives from the media, “news consumers’ ombudsmen” and academics. He stressed that the function of the Council is not to set standards and codes of practice “as the individual media organisation would be more appropriate to do this themselves.”
[250] South China Morning Post, 16 Nov 1998.
[251] B Shaw, “How to Start a News Council”, at <http://www.mtn.org/newscncl/General/Shaw. html> (4.5.98), p 3.
[252] C Bale, “Media Ethics: Press Council Overkill?” in HKJA 26th Anniversary (1994), 23.
[253] Hong Kong Standard, 8 September 1997.
[254] E B Lambeth, Committed Journalism (Indiana University Press, 2nd edn, 1992), 114.
[255] ONO, “The Organisation of News Ombudsmen”, at <http://www5.infi.net/ono/intro.html> (4.5.98), p 1.
[256] C W Bailey, “Newspapers need ombudsmen”, Washington Journalism Review, November 1990, p 32.
[257] See the Declaration issued by the Association in 1989.
[258] Report of the Committee on Privacy and Related Matters (London: HMSO, Cm 1102, 1990), para 13.14.
[259] R J Haiman, panel discussion, American Society of Newspaper Society Convention, 22 April 1981, Washington, DC. His arguments are summarised in: E B Lambeth, 115.
[260] C Bale, “Media Ethics: Press Council Overkill?” in HKJA 26th Anniversary (1994), 23.
[261] At <http://www.nextmedia.com.hk/mn>.
[262] Quoting Yeung Wai Hong; in Frank Ching, “Learning Self-Control – Hong Kong’s media are torn between ethics and profits”, Far Eastern Economic Review, 17 Dec 1998, at 25.
[263] The National Heritage Committee of the House of Commons in the UK suggested that a regulatory level was needed beyond that of a Press Commission. It recommended that a statutory Press Ombudsman be appointed with power to investigate complaints submitted to the Press Commission whose outcome was not satisfactory to one of the parties. He would also have a right to institute investigations where no complaint had been made. The Ombudsman would have authority to require the publication of corrections, retractions or apologies and, where appropriate, to supervise their wording. He would also have authority to order the payment of compensation to those affected by breaches of the Code and to impose a fine on publications which are responsible for flagrant or persistent breaches of the Code. Where a newspaper refuses to pay a fine or compensation, the Ombudsman would be able to seek a court order requiring it to be paid. A newspaper which dissents from the Ombudsman’s decision would be entitled to ask the court to discharge the order. We think that it is unnecessary to consider the creation of a statutory news ombudsman at this stage.
[264] Y Y Chan, “Building the Infrastructure for a Free Press in Hong Kong”, 26 Jan 1999.
[265] International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, Many Voices One World (Chairman: Sean MacBride SC) (UNESCO, 1980).
[266] “No obvious media censorship: poll”, South China Morning Post, 15 June 1998.
[267] D Feldman, Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 590.
[268] Tai Wu-tsz, “Ming Pao Daily News is Not an Ombudsman”, 23 Nov 1998, D6.
[269] Above.