Hong Kong Law Reform Commission

Chapter 2 - Findings of opinion polls

2.1 A number of opinion polls have been conducted on the proposals of the Privacy Sub-committee and media ethics in general. The findings of these opinion polls should be kept in mind when examining whether there is a pressing social need to protect individuals from unwarranted media intrusion and, if so, what is the most suitable mechanism to address this problem.

2.2 The HK Policy Research Institute - The Institute conducted four opinion surveys in August, September, October and November 1999 to track public opinion on the Sub-committee's proposal. The results of these surveys consistently indicated that more than half of the respondents supported the Sub-committee's proposals. The following were the major findings:[14]

(a) The November survey shows that 52% of the respondents agreed that the incidence of media intrusion was "serious", representing a 10% increase compared with the finding of the September survey. Those who disagreed consistently remained below 10%, and those who were unsure amounted to about 40%.

(b) Sixty one per cent of the respondents to the November survey agreed with the Sub-committee's proposal to set up a press council to handle complaints about invasion of privacy. Those who disagreed amounted to only 21%. Since the poll was first conducted in August, the percentage of those who agreed with the proposal slightly increased, whereas those who disagreed slightly decreased.

(c) In the November survey, 56% of the respondents did not believe that the media professionals could deal with the problem by way of a code of conduct, while 44% believed they could. Although the percentage of respondents who believed that the media professionals could address media intrusion by way of a code had increased since August, those who were unconvinced that they could address the problem held steady at over 50%.

(d) According to the findings of the four surveys, about 40% were of the opinion that the proposal would have an effect on press freedom, while about 33% did not consider that it would have such an effect.

(e) When asked whether they agreed with the media professionals' comment that the Government would interfere with press freedom through the appointment of members into the Council, 34% of the respondents in the November survey replied yes, while 12% replied no and 50% were unsure. This finding is similar to those in the September and October surveys.

2.3 The Institute concludes that the trend of the public opinion indicates that the public desires a press council which is of a high standard, trustworthy, authoritative and independent, and which can effectively monitor press intrusion on the one hand and maintain press freedom on the other.

2.4 Apple Daily in collaboration with the HK Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese University of HK – Apple Daily commissioned the Institute to conduct a poll on the performance of the SAR Government and the Chief Executive in August 1999. The relevant findings were as follows:[15]

(a) Forty four per cent of the respondents generally did not believe what the local newspapers reported. Only 18% generally believed what they reported. Thirty six per cent were unsure.

(b) Sixty per cent said that abuse of press freedom and infringement of privacy were serious. Only 14% said not serious; 23% were unsure.

(c) Seventy four per cent said that abuse of press freedom and infringement of privacy occurred mainly in the entertainment pages.

(d) Sixty per cent agreed with the Sub-committee's proposal that a PCPP be established to investigate privacy complaints and impose sanctions. Only 24% disagreed with the proposal.

(e) Thirty nine per cent agreed that the PCPP, which would comprise Press Members and Public Members in equal share, be formed by an Appointments Commission appointed by the Chief Executive (sic), while 38% disagreed.

(f) When asked whether they agreed that an offending newspaper should be subject to a maximum fine of $500,000 for the first offence and $1,000,000 for the second and subsequent offence, 48% responded that the level of fines was appropriate and another 7% said it was too low. Those who thought the level of fine too heavy amounted to 35%.

(g) When asked whether they were worried that press freedom would be undermined if the PCPP was formed, 47% responded no while 35% said yes. Twelve per cent were unsure.

(h) When asked whether they agreed that it was more desirable to have a council similar to a professional body and formed by the press industry than a council whose authority derived from the Chief Executive, 59% said yes and 28% said no.

2.5 The HKU Journalism & Media Studies Centre in collaboration with the HKU Social Sciences Research Centre – The Research Centre conducted an opinion poll in collaboration with the Media Studies Centre in September 1999. The following were the major findings:[16]

(a) Thirty nine per cent of the respondents replied that the news media in Hong Kong were "quite irresponsible" or "very irresponsible" in their reporting, while those who considered that they were "very responsible" or "quite responsible" amounted to only 18%. Thirty four per cent were unsure.

(b) Sixty five per cent of the respondents said they "could do nothing or did nothing" about it when dissatisfied with the performance of the newspaper usually read by them, while 17% said they did not buy the newspaper again or bought another newspaper. Only 5% said they would complain to the newspaper, the Government or other organisations.

(c) Fifty three per cent "strongly agree" or "quite agree" with the suggestion of the Sub-committee to set up a Press Council that would have the authority to hand down a judgement and impose a fine. Those who chose "not quite agree" or "strongly disagree" amounted to 21% and 4% respectively.

(d) When asked to what extent did the setting up of the Press Council affect press freedom, 40% answered it had a "great effect" or a "considerable effect"; 16% answered it had a "general effect"; while 24% answered "not much effect" or "definitely no effect".

(e) Forty three per cent thought the press could not fix itself. Those who thought otherwise amounted to 33%.

2.6 The Society for Truth and Light – In October 1999, the Society interviewed 646 persons by asking them questions on the streets.[17] Eighty five per cent of the respondents considered that privacy intrusion by newspapers was serious, especially for artistes and public figures. About 75% did not believe that the news media could regulate itself, mainly because there was keen competition within the industry which had prompted media organisations to strive to boost sales without regard for professional ethics. Seventy three per cent supported the proposal to set up a PCPP. Eighty per cent considered that the press council should also deal with issues concerning inaccurate reports in addition to privacy.

2.7 On the composition of the council, over 60% of the respondents considered that it was acceptable for the Government to appoint some of the members. Seventy per cent of those who held this view considered that the number of members appointed by the Government should be less than 50%. In relation to members not appointed by the Government, about half of the respondents considered that they should be elected by industry associations and private bodies outside the industry. Less than 20% of the respondents supported the LRC's proposal that the press council should be indirectly appointed by the Chief Executive. About 20% of the respondents categorically rejected any Government appointment of council members. However, nearly 70% supported the Sub-committee's recommendation that any organisation found to be in breach of professional ethics should be liable to a maximum fine of $500,000 for a first offence and $1,000,000 for a second or subsequent offence.

2.8 The Cooperation Scheme of School and Social Work – The Cooperation Scheme conducted a questionnaire survey in November 1999 to evaluate the performance of the media at various social service centres and secondary schools.[18] The main targets of this survey were teachers, social workers, parents and students. All four respondent groups were most dissatisfied with the media in the following areas: extravagant depiction of sex, propagating violence; inaccuracy in news coverage; glamorising immoral or improper conduct; and hyping up scandals. Media intrusion, the focus of the LRC, was ranked sixth and only 19% of the respondents were dissatisfied with such media practice. However, 80% of the respondents thought that the media should be monitored. Most respondents preferred the industry forming a voluntary trade organisation to monitor the media and vest this organisation with the statutory authority to punish or reprimand offenders who have breached a code of conduct. The option: "Government to set up a trade organization with statutory authority to punish offenders who breach the code of conduct", did not find much favour amongst the respondents.

2.9 The Hon Bernard Chan – Bernard Chan, the legislative councillor representing the insurance sector, conducted a survey in October 1999 to collect opinion about the Press Council proposal from the chief executives, presidents, managers and executives of big insurance companies in Hong Kong. The following were the findings:[19]

(a) Fifty seven per cent of the respondents supported the creation of the Press Council while 43% objected.

(b) "Many" believed the council should include members appointed by the Government (directly or indirectly) and representatives elected from the media. "Some" also wanted to include academics and legal professionals to ensure that the council can run fairly.

(c) Forty five per cent disagreed that a body formed by media representatives should be a better way to curb media's intrusion into privacy, while 43% agreed.

(d) Seventy five per cent said press freedom was being abused in Hong Kong. Out of these respondents, 55% said the abuse was "serious" or "very serious".

(e) Fifty five per cent said they worried that freedom of speech would be harmed if a Press Council as proposed by the Government (sic) was set up. The same number of respondents feared Hong Kong's well-established image as a free city would be damaged by the establishment of a media watchdog. Forty two per cent worried that it would affect foreign investors' confidence.

2.10 The Democratic Party – The Party conducted a telephone opinion survey in October 1999 in order to find out the views of the public on the issue.[20] The findings showed that almost 60% of the 519 interviewees responded that the extent of privacy intrusion by newspaper had reached a serious level, which reflected that the public was expecting improvement in this area. Furthermore, more than 50% of the interviewees thought that a press council appointed by the Government to monitor the press would undermine press freedom. With respect to what kind of mechanism should be adopted at the present stage to monitor the media, the survey showed that 40-odd percent of the interviewees opined that the public and the industry should bear the responsibility at this stage. Almost 30% believed that there was no need to set up other ways of monitoring. Only 15% considered that it was more appropriate to have a governmental mechanism to monitor the media.

2.11 The HKNEA, HKJA, HKFJ and HKPPA in collaboration with Lingnan University – The survey, commissioned by the four journalists' associations, was conducted by Lingnan University in October 1999 to collect the views of members of the media industry on the PCPP proposal, and their views on media ethics and self-regulation. A total of 1026 reporters and other media professionals responded. The following were the major findings:[21]

(a) Over 50% of the respondents were "not satisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with the professional ethics of the local media. Only less than 5% of the respondents were "satisfied" or "very satisfied".

(b) Forty four per cent of the respondents agreed that "not paying enough respect to individual privacy" was a major problem, while 30% considered "using unfair means to obtain news materials or photographs" a major problem. As for "untrue or exaggerated reports", 59% considered it a major problem.

(c) Seventy two per cent "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" that the "government-appointed Privacy Commissioner" should be responsible for approving or formulating a code of practice on privacy matters for the news media to follow.

(d) Seventy four per cent "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" with the proposal to set up a "government-appointed" Press Council for the Protection of Privacy which would have power to receive complaints, initiate investigations, and to take punitive measures against the media.

(e) Eighty five per cent "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" that members of the council should be indirectly appointed by the Chief Executive as proposed by the Sub-committee.

(f) When asked which mechanism is the most desirable way to strengthen professional standards, 52% replied "setting up an internal regulatory mechanism within the industry", while 35% chose "setting up a non-governmental statutory monitoring body". Those who preferred a press council formed by the Government amounted to 4%. This shows that 39% considered that setting up a statutory monitoring body is the most desirable way to strengthen professional standards.

(g) In a separate question specifically on the desirability of setting up a non-governmental statutory monitoring body in Hong Kong, 56% of the respondents "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that Hong Kong should have such a body. Another 15% were unsure. Respondents who "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" amounted to only 24%.

(h) Sixty per cent of those who neither "disagreed" nor "strongly disagreed" that a non-governmental statutory monitoring body be created considered that the ambit of the statutory body should cover "untrue or exaggerated media reports". Other functions, ranked by the number of respondents choosing them, included: "too much sex and violence" (46%), "inappropriate newsgathering methods" (38%), "media intrusion upon privacy" (36%), and "the media contravening social morals" (27%).

(i) Fifty seven per cent of those who were in favour of a statutory body agreed that it should have the power to initiate investigation. Those who disagreed amounted to only 17%. In addition, 54% agreed that it should have power to openly censure individual media organisations and media practitioners; 34% agreed that it should have power to "require" an offending media organisation to publish its verdict and to exempt a media organisation from liability for defamation for publishing or reporting the verdict; and 25% agreed that the statutory body could impose a fine.

(j) Thirty five per cent of all respondents considered that the statutory monitoring body would bring a "positive impact" or a "very positive impact" on press freedom. Only 26% considered that it would bring a "negative impact" or a "very negative impact". Forty per cent were neutral or chose "don't know or no comment".

2.12 Preliminary observations on polls conducted shortly after the Consultation Paper – The following are our preliminary observations on the findings of the surveys conducted shortly after the publication of the Consultation Paper:

(a) The majority of the respondents in the public opinion polls conducted by the following bodies agreed that privacy intrusion by the media (or newspapers) was serious: the HK Policy Research Institute (52%); the HK Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies (60%); the Society for Truth and Light (85%); and the Democratic Party (60%).

(b) The majority of the respondents in the opinion polls conducted by the following bodies agreed with the Sub-committee's proposal to set up a press council for the protection of privacy: the HK Policy Research Institute (61%); the HK Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies (60%); the HKU Social Sciences Research Centre (53%); the Society for Truth and Light (73%); and the Office of Hon Bernard Chan (57%).

(c) Although 74% of the respondents in the survey targeted at media professionals were against the establishment of a "government-appointed" press council for the protection of privacy, 56% agreed that Hong Kong should have a non-governmental statutory press-monitoring body.

2.13 The HK Press Council in collaboration with the HK Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese University of HK – The HKPC commissioned the Institute to conduct a poll in January 2002 on the mechanism for the handling of public complaints against newspapers. The following were the major findings:

(a) As many as 58% of the respondents considered that invasion of privacy by newspapers was serious. Only 11% considered the problem of newspaper intrusion not serious. As for inaccuracy in reporting, 52% considered it serious, while 12% replied not serious.

(b) Seventy per cent did not know where to lodge a complaint against a newspaper. Those who said they would lodge a complaint with the newspaper concerned or another media organisation amounted to 9% and 11% respectively, while those who preferred lodging a complaint with a journalists' association or the HK Press Council amounted to only 4.8% and 4.7% respectively.

(c) Eighty five per cent agreed that Hong Kong needed an independent body to monitor the newspapers and accept complaints. The majority considered that the following persons should be represented on that body: academics (83%), newsmen (83%), public members (81%), professionals (75%), legislators (67%), government officials (57%) and judges (54%).

(d) Seventy two per cent considered that the most desirable method of establishing the monitoring body would be for both the press and the public to join hands in setting it up. Those who preferred the Government making the appointments or the press establishing the body itself amounted to only 8% and 4% respectively.

(e) Out of those who were aware of the existence of the HK Press Council, 56% considered that it had little effect on improving the ethics of newspapers. Those who believed that it had a huge effect amounted to only 6%.

(f) The majority believed that a press council should have the following powers: openly condemn a newspaper that is guilty of unethical conduct (90%); impose a fine on an offending newspaper (73%); immune from libel actions for exercising its adjudication function (64%). Forty nine per cent also believed that media reports about the adjudications made by the Council should be privileged.

(g) When asked whether introducing legislation to protect the Council from libel actions and grant privilege to media reports about the adjudications would have an impact on press freedom, 49% said it would not have an impact. Twenty six per cent even believed that it would have a positive impact. Those who believed it would have a negative impact amounted to only 25%.

2.14 It is worth noting that the survey commissioned by the HK Press Council was conducted 18 months after the establishment of the Council, or two and a half years after the publication of the Consultation Paper. Nonetheless, as many as 58% of the respondents in the 2002 survey considered that invasion of privacy by newspapers was serious. When compared with the findings of the surveys conducted by the HK Policy Research Institute, the HK Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, the Society for Truth and Light, and the Democratic Party conducted in late 1999, it appears to suggest that the establishment of the HK Press Council in 2000 has done little to improve the situation, and press intrusion is still a public concern which has not yet been adequately addressed.

2.15 Although the findings of the public opinion polls suggest that a majority of those polled support the Sub-committee's proposal to establish a statutory but independent press council for the protection of privacy, a significant proportion of those polled had misgivings about the proposal's impact on press freedom. They were concerned in particular at the mechanism for appointing the members of the council. We will therefore review the various aspects of the original proposal in the light of the latest developments and examine whether it is really necessary to establish such a statutory body despite the objections of the press. Before we explore whether media intrusion is serious in Hong Kong and whether the self-regulatory initiatives are effective in addressing the public concerns, we explain in the next chapter how press freedom can be reconciled with privacy in the media context.