Uncovering alternative ‘journalism crisis’ narratives in Singapore and Hong Kong: When state influences interact with Western liberal ideals in a changing media landscape

Abstract

The topic of journalism crisis has become increasingly pertinent as criticisms mount against news media systems that have prioritized private over public interests and/or failed to meet the challenges brought on by the Internet. Much research on journalism crisis, however, is set in the Anglo-American context and couched within a liberal-democratic ideological framework; little is known about how journalism crisis is experienced in societies that may be heavily exposed to Western liberal ideals but whose media systems continue to experience some form of authoritarian influence or control. Evaluating all journalism realities through the Western lens may create erroneous perceptions that alternative systems are lacking or deficient. This study uses a framework of crisis narratives to shed light on the web of structural-causal factors that might be influencing fears of journalism crisis in such hybrid societies. Establishing first the crisis narratives most commonly discussed in dominant journalism crisis literature, this study then notes the selective adoption of liberal ideologies by countries outside the Western world, as imperial influences interact with local histories and cultures. Of interest are two Asian ‘global cities’ in transition, Singapore and Hong Kong. Through surveys and in-depth interviews, this study uncovers stark differences in the journalism crisis perceptions of news-workers in Singapore and Hong Kong and argues the existence of a ‘crisis of legitimacy’ narrative, pertaining to the system of governance, that must be accounted for when studying journalism’s decline outside of the Western context.

Keywords

Authoritarianism Hong Kong journalism crisis liberal democracy neoliberalism Singapore

Introduction

The topic of journalism crisis is a pertinent one as criticisms mount against news media systems that have prioritized private over public interests and/or failed to meet the challenges brought on by the Internet. Much research on journalism crisis, however, is set within the Anglo-American context and couched within a liberal-democratic ideological framework; it becomes interesting then to further problematize the concept of ‘journalism crisis’ as it is conceived in societies that may be heavily influenced by Western liberal ideals but whose media systems continue to be subjected to some form of authoritarian control or influence. Indeed, as processes of globalization intensify and cultures become increasingly hybridized, societies have evolved in ways that do not align with one philosophical tradition or one model of democracy (Christians et al., 2009). Continuing to view journalism realities through the Western lens may result in erroneous perceptions that these systems are lacking or deficient (Shome and Hegde, 2002; Wang, 2010).

Through the identification and analysis of journalism crisis narratives and their intersections, this study aims to shed light on differences in the web of structural-causal factors that influence fears of journalism crisis outside the Western context. In particular, it argues the existence of crisis narratives not mentioned in dominant crisis literature that must be accounted for when examining societies influenced by the West but continue to practice a semblance of authoritarianism. The reasons for journalism crisis fears must first be understood before public attention and political action may be drawn toward resolving them.

This study begins by acknowledging the crisis narratives most commonly discussed in Anglo-American journalism crisis literature, related to the civic adequacy of the press, its financial viability in the digital age, and the plummeting public confidence in the news media. While noting the global nature of processes that stem from the West, like neoliberal capitalist expansion and cultural imperialism, this study highlights the selective adoption of liberal ideologies by countries outside the Western world as imperial influences interact with local histories and cultures.

Of specific interest are two cities in Asia – Singapore, a city-state, and Hong Kong, a Special Administration Region of the People’s Republic of China. Standing at important historical junctures – with the passing away of prominent statesman Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore and the rise of the ‘Umbrella Revolution’ in Hong Kong – these two places offer interesting points of comparison as ‘global cities’ and former British colonies that have made them susceptible to influences from the West but are subjected to some form of authoritarianism in the way that they are governed (Boniface and Alon, 2010; Harvey, 2005; Rodan, 2003). Through a comprehensive survey with 160 journalists and in-depth interviews, this article will detail findings that reveal stark differences in the journalism crisis perceptions of news-workers in Singapore and Hong Kong and argue the existence of a ‘crisis of legitimacy’ narrative, pertaining to the system of governance, that must be accounted for when putting together a theoretical framework to study journalism’s decline outside of the West. In the final analysis, this study will also offer its perspective on a ‘successful’ neoliberal authoritarian state.

Theorizing journalism in crisis: Dominant crisis narratives and their intersections

Journalism studies in the West tend to be couched within a liberal-democratic ideological framework, tied to ‘classical’ liberalism (Hackett and Zhao, 1998: 146), which stresses respect for civil liberties and political rights, and the creation of spaces for popular participation in decision-making and a more open and accountable government (Robinson and White, 1998: 19). Liberal democracy is also aligned with economic freedom and competition; it advocates that a free market system would lead to high economic growth, improve the well-being of the population, and create an enduring democratic society (Robinson and White, 1998: 2). The state is deemed as a potential threat to individual freedom and therefore should just be a ‘neutral referee’ that facilitates the growth of the marketplace by enforcing its rules and maintaining social order (Hackett and Zhao, 1998: 146). Liberal democracy has been viewed by many as a ‘superior’ variant of democracy because it ‘provides a check on authority and is a more perfect embodiment of equality and freedom than other polity’ (Sim, 2001: 46).

Within the model of liberal democracy, journalism is seen to have the following normative functions, according to McNair (2009: 238–240). First, journalism should provide objective, accurate reports with information that would help citizens make rational informed choices. Second, journalists should perform a ‘watchdog’ function (i.e. the ‘Fourth Estate’) and closely scrutinize the powerful in society. Third, journalists should be the conduit between the people and the politicians, ensuring that the voices from the ground get heard by the powerful. Fourth, journalists should advocate different political positions and perspectives to the people to encourage political debate and to champion the people’s interests. Indeed, the function of the media based on the liberal-democratic ideal is one that stresses free expression and political engagement (Wang, 2010: 4). A liberal press system is also subjected to little or no government control (Siebert et al., 1956: 3).

Interestingly, the American press system, described by many scholars to epitomize the liberal model of the press, has received particular scrutiny in recent years for failing to work in the interests of the public, succumbing to political and economic pressures and privileging the voices and agendas of the elites as they focus on maximizing their profits as commercial entities (McChesney, 2003: 307); in the age of the Trump presidency in the United States, there has been a gravitation toward Trump’s frequent tweets and sensationalized remarks in the press (Chanda, 2017), often in a bid to increase audience ratings. Moreover, journalists have been said to be more likely to cover news geared toward more lucrative markets and audiences, and corporate misdeeds and government wrongdoings are less likely to be reported in the media, so as not to ruffle feathers and threaten the media’s bottom-line (McChesney, 2003: 312). News agencies are also cutting costs to boost their profit margins – journalists are expected to work across multiple platforms, more expensive journalism such as international news and investigative journalism become replaced by sensationalized content, and journalists rely more on public relations firms to spoon-feed them the news, putting in less effort to uncover the truth in news stories (McChesney, 2003: 308). Hopes that the Internet would address the democratic deficit in the United States by letting citizens become media producers have presented new challenges – the drop in advertising revenue and circulation as audiences migrate online has seen traditional media adopt more cost-cutting measures that further threaten journalism standards (Freedman, 2010: 35).

The use of the word ‘crisis’ to describe journalism’s decline came at about the turn of the 21st century (McChesney and Pickard, 2011), precisely with the economic recession of 2008 threatening media revenues, the widespread use of the Internet, the shift in media consumption habits of audiences, the increased commercialization of the press, the consolidation of media ownership, and the loss of public trust in mainstream media (Blumler, 2010; Fenton, 2010; Freedman, 2010; McChesney, 2003; McChesney and Pickard, 2011). ‘Crisis’ here can be theorized as ‘some combination of perceived suddenness, disruption, urgency, loss and the need for external assistance in order to offset helplessness and reach recovery’ (Zelizer, 2015: 3). Bauman and Bordoni (2014) point out that crisis occurs when the order of things is disrupted, causing a surge of uncertainty and ‘the urge to intervene’ (p. 7). Crisis also often results when there is a disconnect between ‘expectations and reality’ (Zelizer, 2015: 6), when the normative conception of how things ‘should be’ does not gel with the empirical state of how things actually are.

From a theoretical standpoint, the journalism crisis as depicted in dominant Anglo-American literature can be viewed through a series of crisis narratives and their intersections. The intensified commercialization of the American news media from the 1960s, fueled further by the nation’s global neoliberal drive alongside the United Kingdom in the 1980s, has created a system driven by profits – a result of capitalism’s inherent profit-seeking tendencies – leading to the pandering of news organizations to commercial and elite interests and creating a crisis of civic adequacy of the press where the public interest is underserved and active citizenship is undermined. This has resulted in reduced faith in the feasibility of liberal-democratic civic institutions. The inability of the press to perform its public service role to report news fully, accurately and fairly, in turn, has resulted in plummeting credibility and sparked a crisis of public confidence and trust in the press system. In the Internet age, a new dimension of the journalism crisis – related to new media – has emerged, involving the siphoning off of revenues from traditional media outlets to online platforms and audiences less willing to pay for their news, worsened by plummeting confidence in mainstream media. This has led to the crisis of financial viability of news organizations, as news agencies struggling to survive collapse, journalism jobs are lost, and resources needed for quality journalism get cut. Again, the crisis narratives tied to capitalism’s inherent profit-seeking tendencies and the civic adequacy of the press are implicated. The crisis of public confidence in the media worsens as a result, as audiences realize that more topics and perspectives are tabled for discussion online than in the mainstream media. On top of that, it is unclear whether the surge in online and citizen journalism is in fact benefiting or hurting the news media system. On one hand, new media is likely to promote the circulation of unverifiable news and gossip; on the other hand, it may also table issues and perspectives that capitalist elites choose to withhold or manipulate to meet their self-interests, and present a multitude of content that can better inform the citizenry.

Based on the above analysis, it becomes evident that crisis narratives in dominant journalism literature – related to the civic adequacy of the press, public confidence in the media, capitalism’s profit-seeking tendencies, widespread use of new media, and financial viability of news organizations – do not stand alone; rather, they intersect in ways that exacerbate or alleviate each other, influencing how journalism crisis is perceived as a whole in the Anglo-American context.

Where Asia fits in: Contextualizing news and journalism in Singapore and Hong Kong

Looking at Asia in particular, the Asian region’s stance on adopting Anglo-American liberal ideology has always been a selective one. During the Cold War, several Asian territories such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong aligned themselves with American capitalism and became important ‘bastions’ for the American fight against communism (Hadiz, 2006: 12); post–Cold War, efforts of the United States at spearheading neoliberal globalization saw transnational capital move easily into the Asian region, with many Asian countries ‘regarding US hegemony as a condition for prosperity and development in the region’ (Hadiz, 2006: 3). However, Asia’s adoption of liberal ideologies has always been strategic, usually with the goal of increasing the country’s competitive advantage while still adopting a model of development that is largely state-driven (Hill et al., 2012: 2).

Notably, efforts of resistance against Anglo-American ideals came in the form of concerns voiced by Asian countries during the New World Information and Communication Order debates that took place at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in the 1970s, alleging that the West was leveraging on its free market ideals to revive an era of cultural colonialism (Schiller, 1989). These talks came to an abrupt halt, however, when the United States and United Kingdom pulled out of UNESCO, insisting that they were merely advocating a global ‘free flow of information’ that would benefit all nations (Preston, 1989; Schiller, 1989).

In another show of defiance – despite benefiting from close economic ties with the developed West – several countries in Asia, in the 1970s, also began to advocate an ‘Asian values’ discourse that would go against the liberal ideologies of the West, to stress instead Confucian-derived values of communitarianism, social harmony, and respect for authority, that would help to justify the strict governance of these countries (Lee, 2010; Sim, 2001); among them were China, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

In Singapore and Hong Kong specifically, uptake on the Anglo-American ideology of liberalism differs significantly, despite similarities between the two cities in their positions as former British colonies and key hubs aligned with the developed West in the global capitalist economy.

Singapore, post-independence from British colonization, was a struggling port-city – it had no natural resources (Seow, 1998: 1) and was plagued by racial conflict between its different ethnic communities and shaky relations with neighboring Malaysia (Banerjee, 2002: 524). As such, Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, called on Singaporeans to unite in support of a ‘comprehensive survival strategy’, one which would give the ruling People’s Action Party ‘a sweeping mandate for strong and decisive rule’ of the country (Means, 1996: 105). Democracy would become ‘a distant goal to be contemplated only when national survival was finally secured’ (Sim, 2001: 53). This nation-building project became the rationale for the government to establish tight controls on the country’s media system – rather than acting as a ‘Fourth Estate’, the Singapore press took on the role of cooperating with the government to achieve social stability and economic growth (Bokhorst-Heng, 2002; Sim, 2001); laws such as the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act and the Undesirable Publications Act ensured that the media did not cross the out-of-bounds markers to disseminate messages that would harm public order and harmony (Bokhorst-Heng, 2002). The ‘Asian values’ discourse advocated by Lee’s government in the 1970s further shaped journalistic norms, such as the need to ‘report with sensitivity’ (Massey and Chang, 2002: 989).

Today, the Singapore press system is made up largely of a duopoly between two media organizations – Mediacorp, which is fully owned by the Singapore government’s investment arm, and Singapore Press Holdings, which is publicly listed but has close ties to the Singapore government; its former chairmen include S. R. Nathan and Tony Tan, who eventually became presidents of the republic. At this point, the Internet is the freest medium in Singapore, loosened further in the 2011 general election by the Singapore government in a bid to appeal to young voters who called for more say in the politics of the nation (Macan-Marker, 2011). That said, the publishing of ‘objectionable material’ online is still subject to prosecution (George, 2005: 55), and new licensing regulations were put in place in 2013 that required domestic news websites to remove content that was ‘against the public interest, public security, or national harmony’ (Wong, 2013); again, these out-of-bounds markers have not been clearly defined. With the passing away of Singapore’s first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew in 2015, it remains to be seen whether the government will loosen its grip on the press.

Hong Kong’s development trajectory, unlike Singapore’s, has largely been laissez-faire rather than state-led. The colonial nature of the territory, under the British pre-1997, saw its British leadership intent on maintaining the city’s economic prosperity but with little national ‘will to develop’ (Chu, 2004: 150) – there was minimal government intervention in the city’s economy, civil society, and press system. With Hong Kong being a base for political dissidents fleeing the imperial Chinese government, the press in Hong Kong expectedly took on a critical nature as anti-authority papers critiquing the Chinese government began to thrive there (Lai, 2007: 8). Post-1997, when Hong Kong was handed over to China, the new ‘one country, two systems’ policy ensured that Hong Kongers would be afforded more freedoms than their mainland counterparts, including freedom of assembly, speech, and the press (Boniface and Alon, 2010: 795).

Today, Hong Kong’s news media system continues to be extremely vibrant, with over 50 daily newspapers, five commercial television companies, and two commercial radio stations, all privately owned by businessmen; only public broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) is funded by the government (Hong Kong Fact Sheets, 2016). Despite this, the relationship between China and Hong Kong is a tense one. There is fear that the Chinese government would impinge increasingly on the freedoms of Hong Kong – as it is, media owners in Hong Kong are often businessmen with strong business interests in China who have no wish to report on news that will ruffle any feathers (Chan and Lee, 2007; Fung, 2007; Lee, 2007), and fear of repercussions if one does not report on what is ‘politically correct’ has also created a strong culture of self-censorship in Hong Kong newsrooms (Lee and Chan, 2009: 113). Indeed, Hong Kong’s veneration of liberal ideologies may be coming under threat. Yearly pro-democracy rallies in Hong Kong (Boniface and Alon, 2010: 801) – the largest being the ‘Umbrella Revolution’ in 2014 – are testament to the frustrations of Hong Kongers toward the authoritarian Chinese leadership.

While there have been numerous reports in Singapore and Hong Kong on government control and influence of the news media, there has been little to no academic research that comprehensively examines the web of crisis narratives on perceptions of journalism crisis. Historically, an analysis of the evolution of press and politics in Singapore and Hong Kong suggests a glaring dissimilarity that makes them particularly interesting to compare – the Singapore government seems to have been more successful in engineering broad-based consent for its rule over the country and press system through ideological and material means, while the authoritarian system of governance in China seems to have caused immense tensions within Hong Kong, whose citizens are used to their democratic freedoms. This study, therefore, seeks to uncover whether additional crisis narratives may be revealed through a comparative study of these two cities.

Methodology

A two-part study was conducted, involving a comprehensive survey and in-depth interviews with journalists in Singapore and Hong Kong – individuals most likely to have firsthand accounts of journalism’s decline, if any – with the goal of discovering how journalism crisis is perceived in these two cities. Four research questions were generated to guide this research:

RQ1. What issues of concern do journalists in Singapore and Hong Kong perceive to be present in their day-to-day journalistic work?

RQ2. What roles do journalists in Singapore and Hong Kong think their ‘ideal’ news media system should play?

RQ3. How do journalists in Singapore and Hong Kong define ‘journalism crisis’?

RQ4. Do journalists in Singapore and Hong Kong view journalism in their cities as being ‘in crisis’?

To obtain answers to these questions, a survey questionnaire was constructed which respondents had to fill out online. For RQ1, issues of concern that might arise within a journalist’s work were divided into four categories, informed by existing literature on journalism crisis in the West, namely, (a) journalism practices, (b) newsroom resources and working conditions, (c) challenges of online media, and (d) news agendas and interests; journalists were asked to rate the issues listed on a scale of 1 to 5, from ‘not of concern at all’ to ‘very much of concern’. The question was subsequently left open-ended for journalists to bring up unique concerns that pertained to their specific locales. For RQ2, characteristics of press systems that are associated with the liberal model and those that are associated with the developmental press model were toggled for journalists to choose which ones they felt would be a part of their ‘ideal’ news media systems; the question was also subsequently left open-ended for journalists to include press characteristics that were not already listed. For RQ3, journalists were asked to define ‘journalism crisis’ based on their own understandings, and then for RQ4 determine whether they felt the press system in their city was in crisis or not, and explain why.

In total, 160 journalists from Singapore and Hong Kong were surveyed over the period of December 2014 to May 2015, with 80 respondents per city. These journalists were contacts from professional networks who would then recommend other journalists for the survey, as well as contacts obtained from the professional networking website LinkedIn, where journalists had listed their job designations and resumes in their profiles. Overall, about 30 percent of all the journalists contacted responded. Face-to-face interviews were subsequently conducted with 22 senior journalists and news editors in these two cities to gain insights into the more interesting or controversial survey results.

Here, ‘journalists’ were defined as all those who had at least some ‘editorial responsibility’ in the production of news content (Weaver and Wilhoit, 1986: 168) – survey respondents included general news reporters covering beats spanning politics, defense, courts, education, healthcare, lifestyle, and business, with a wide variety of job scopes including newswriting, photojournalism, and documentary production within local news outfits. The snowball technique was used to locate journalists working across different newsrooms; because of the vast number of journalists working in a wide variety of news outfits in these two cities, it would be difficult to obtain a representative sample of all the news-workers in these two locales; neither were there official statistics available. Rather, emphasis was placed on obtaining a mix of journalists working across a broad spectrum of media platforms (i.e. newspapers, television, radio, and online) and languages (i.e. English, Chinese, and other languages spoken). Notably, only local news outfits were included in the survey; research has shown that journalists working in foreign media sometimes have more leeway in their coverage than the local press because they are targeted more at foreign audiences (Sciutto, 1996: 141).

Study findings

Singapore

In the case of Singapore, the survey and interview results revealed that while Singaporean journalists may continue to look up to liberal-democratic ideals, as influenced by exposure to Western journalism scholarship in school and everyday interactions with Western media, local historical experiences and the existing political culture have created new sensibilities. There seems to be widespread agreement that the collaborative role that the press has taken on in Singapore has worked so far for the betterment of the nation, particularly in terms of economic growth and comfortable material lives for Singaporeans, and has become a way for local journalists to contend with their own conflictual feelings about wanting a more liberal press. As one journalist puts it, ‘I grew up seeing stability as a priority – if freedom of speech leads to polarization of the society to the extent that it creates instability, then it is not worthwhile’. This trust in the system has been built over decades on the trust that the Singapore government would ‘do the right thing’ and build a press system that is first and foremost ‘pro-Singapore’ – this is entirely aligned with the ‘survivalism’ ideology and the ‘Asian values’ discourse that is so deeply entrenched within Singaporean society; where such views are internalized, crisis perceptions are also influenced as expectations are able to be reconciled with actual journalism realities. Journalists simply contend with finding other ways to make their work meaningful, such as focusing on social issues rather than political ones.

Key issues that plague Singaporean journalists in their daily work suggest the relevance of a number of crisis narratives that might be aligned with journalism crisis concerns in Singapore.

First, respondents point out the cutbacks in newsroom resources and manpower. Their top three issues of concern in the survey related to the lack of staff (67.5%), cutback on newsroom resources (65%), and low wages (61.3%). This is often tied to the increasing workload of a ‘digital first’ newsroom, the difficulties in finding suitable people for the job, and the unwillingness to invest in quality journalism. These would relate to narratives such as the crisis due to new media, particularly related to finding digitally skilled personnel for the job, as well as the crisis due to capitalism’s inherent profit-seeking tendencies, where resources are directed to areas that generate the highest profit (e.g. entertainment) rather than the news department, and workers are exploited to maintain profit margins for the capitalist media owners.

Second, respondents note the lack of political criticism (61.3%) and the lack of investigative stories (60.1%) in the press, due in part to a strong culture of self-censorship in the newsrooms, signaling the likely presence of a crisis of civic adequacy of the press, where the respondents feel the news media is unable to fully and fairly inform the public and meet civic needs and interests. This concern is present although Singaporean journalists seem to consensually agree that the Singapore press should partner with the government in nation-building; this suggests the influence that decades of exposure to liberal ideologies in Western journalism literature and Western media have had on Singaporean journalists and their desire to see more pushing of boundaries, that is, without harming the established system.

Third, respondents are concerned with the threat of online media to traditional media (56.3%) – in terms of the drop in advertising and circulation numbers experienced by traditional media as audiences migrate online, but, more significantly, from the damage that the Internet is causing to the credibility of the mainstream media. It is in line with the crisis due to new media, generating concerns on the financial viability of traditional media, as well as fears of a crisis of public confidence experienced by traditional media platforms as alternative issues and viewpoints not tabled by the mainstream media are able to be broadcast on the Internet.

These were the top issues that surfaced when the respondents were asked about journalism crisis in Singapore. Here, they defined ‘journalism crisis’ as a state where ‘core values of journalism’ – such as accurate, fair, and unbiased reporting; serving the public interest; acting as a check on the powers-that-be; and editorial objectivity and integrity – become undermined, suggesting the impact of Western liberal scholarship on the way they conceive of their journalism ideals.

However, when asked whether they felt journalism in their city was ‘in crisis’ or close to being in one, only 43.8 percent of the respondents surveyed said yes, a close figure to the 35 percent of respondents who said no; the rest were undecided. Crisis narratives found in the dominant literature seemed to be present to a lesser extent in the case of Singapore.

First, when it comes to the crisis of civic adequacy of the press, there seems to be a consensus that the news organizations, under the purview of the Singapore government, are continuing to work for the betterment of Singapore society, presenting news coverage that is largely socially responsible. In addition, the widespread use of new media in Singapore has created a vibrant online landscape that is seen to be capable of keeping the traditional media organizations on their toes. When issues and perspectives become widely discussed online, traditional media journalists cannot ignore them without damaging their news outlet’s credibility; this gives journalists more leeway to push boundaries further and request that stories that may be previously deemed sensitive or controversial be covered in some way in the mainstream media. The public is then able to become better informed in the process.

The narrative of a crisis due to capitalism’s profit-seeking tendencies, described in dominant journalism crisis literature, is also less significant in the Singapore context. Despite the media outlets competing for audiences and advertising dollars, the mainstream media in Singapore does not operate within a free and competitive media landscape in the traditional sense, given that it is a duopoly of two media organizations with strong ties to the Singapore government. This greatly reduces the possibility of drastic cost-cutting measures related to fierce competition in the news industry that might potentially disrupt the system. Relatedly, any potential crisis due to new media that is tied to financial viability is also less likely, given the state support of Singapore’s media duopoly.

Hong Kong

As for the case of Hong Kong, the survey and interview results revealed that journalists there seem to be particularly frustrated with how their media owners view the role of the press – not necessarily as instruments that can champion the interests and voices of the people but as tools to aid them in their business dealings with China. This means that these media owners are likely to urge their news editors to tread more cautiously when politically sensitive or controversial news stories surface – over time, the culture of self-censorship develops where, as one journalist says, ‘[Journalists] will incline towards what their boss wants’. This is what Hong Kong academics have termed as the use of the media as ‘symbolic capital’ or ‘political assets’ for these media owners (Chan, 5 May 2015, personal interview; Lee, 21 May 2015, personal interview).

Another consequence of the use of media outlets as political assets is that profit-making becomes less of a priority; most of the news organizations in Hong Kong merely break even amid the very saturated news media landscape – this means thinning out staff wherever possible, less money and desire to invest in investigative journalism and digital media strategies, and extremely low journalist wages. Coupled with an influx of journalist graduates seeking jobs from mainland China, this means little incentive to grow wages, which has resulted in a slew of factors that is causing journalistic standards to decline in the city – from the inability to retain good, experienced journalists who can train the younger ones, to the lack of qualified staff to fill positions that empty out, and the inability to perform investigative and analytical journalism. Journalists say that inexperienced news-workers ‘don’t even know where to start’ when it comes to investigative work and tend to be ‘easier to control’ by the powers-that-be.

Crisis narratives typically described in dominant journalism literature can therefore be evident in the Hong Kong case study.

First, respondents point out the lack of staff (66.3%), cutbacks in newsroom resources (62.6%), and the presence of stagnant low wages (61.3%) as their top three issues of concern in the survey, suggesting the relevance of the crisis narrative about capitalism’s inherent profit-seeking tendencies. Here, capitalist media owners, in attempting to maintain or improve the profit levels of their media organizations within a highly competitive environment, choose to cut the resources to their newsrooms and keep the wages of journalists depressed. This then leads to a potential crisis of civic adequacy of the press, where the quality of the journalistic product is compromised; low wages mean fewer experienced news-workers capable of producing investigative and analytical stories, and cutbacks in resources and manpower mean existing journalists become overworked and have less ability to produce critical news pieces. Given that the goals of these media owners are to amass greater political and economic power with China in the long run, the ability of the news product to adequately meet civic needs and interests becomes a lesser priority.

Second, respondents note the challenges brought on by online media, specifically to the advertising and circulation numbers of traditional media (43.8%), and the struggle of many news outlets to find a viable business model in the digital age (56.3%), that is, by properly leveraging on the online platform to boost audience reach and revenue. These concerns seem to align with a crisis due to new media, particularly relating to a crisis of financial viability, since Hong Kong’s news outlets are already competing in a very saturated market. Stiffer competition with online news sources would mean cutbacks to already low resources for the newsroom, greater pandering to advertisers – especially in the free newspaper market – and a drop in the quality of the journalistic product to adequately meet civic needs and interests; this will subsequently cause a dip in public confidence in the news media to meet its public service role. In addition, when politically sensitive events such as the Occupy Central protests occur and a whole host of opinions and issues not tabled in mainstream media surface online, the civic adequacy of Hong Kong’s mainstream media becomes further questioned and public confidence in the press worsens.

Third, respondents are concerned with a lack of investigative stories in the Hong Kong news media (46.3%) and excessive partisanship and bias in news organizations (45.1%). These contribute to fears of a crisis of civic adequacy of the press, where highly partisan content may mean a less informed citizenry rather than a more informed one, since respondents note that audiences, particularly the older generation, tend to be loyal to the news outlets that align with their political views. When content becomes too ‘extreme’, therefore, it polarizes Hong Kong society. In turn, this leads to a likely crisis of public confidence in Hong Kong’s news outlets, when audiences become distrusting of what they read in mainstream news media, sensing that news outlets are prioritizing political and corporate interests rather than public interest.

In addition, journalists in Hong Kong are also particularly concerned about reports on assaults on pro-democracy journalists and news editors – while these have not been widespread enough to disrupt the system, they are nonetheless prompting fears of a worsening crisis of civic adequacy of the press, as journalists feel the need to self-censor politically sensitive or controversial content to ensure their own well-being.

These were the top issues that surfaced when the respondents were asked about journalism crisis in Hong Kong. Here, ‘journalism crisis’ was defined by respondents as a ‘drifting away from the journalistic ideals of impartiality, telling the truth, being accurate, being a watchdog of those in power and giving a voice to the people’. Like in Singapore, the way Hong Kong journalists understand journalism seems heavily influenced by Western liberal scholarship. Unlike the case of Singapore, however, such liberal ideologies have been further entrenched in Hong Kong society from the period of British colonialism in Hong Kong to its current status as a Special Administrative Region of China – the lack of a democracy and representative government has meant that people have come to rely on the press to express their voices and opinions and to act as a check on the authorities. Such local historical experiences have cemented these liberal ideologies as the foundation of ‘good journalism’ in Hong Kong and are taught religiously in Hong Kong’s journalism schools.

Notably, when study respondents were asked whether they felt journalism in Hong Kong was in crisis or close to being in one, a significantly higher 71.3 percent said yes; only 21.3 percent said no, while the rest were undecided. Coupled with the issues mentioned above, a common response from Hong Kong journalists seems to be that they do not find the authorities trustworthy and acting in their best interest. There is a desire of Hong Kong journalists to ‘resist’ and ‘defend themselves’ against this malevolent political force. As one journalist puts it, ‘At this time, our government does not have support from the public; controls on the media are not correct and should not be encouraged’. Despite having a Chinese majority population, Confucian values that advocate social harmony, consensus, and respect for authority seem to have taken on a negative connotation within the Hong Kong context, seen as smokescreens for the Chinese central government to enact stricter controls on Hong Kong society; the ‘influence of China’ can be seen to contribute significantly to the crisis of civic adequacy of the press as journalists feel the need to self-censor and to the crisis tied to capitalism’s inherent profit-seeking tendencies as capitalist media owners work to better their business relations with China. It is this influence that has prompted Hong Kong journalists to remain steadfast in defending the liberal nature of their press system.

Discussion and conclusion

Based on this study, a crisis in journalism is perceived to be more severe in Hong Kong than in Singapore. Despite more freedoms being granted to the media in Hong Kong – the city’s media landscape is vibrant and competitive and freedom of the press is constitutionally protected – 71.3 percent of the respondents surveyed felt that journalism in Hong Kong was in crisis or close to being in one. This is in comparison with Singapore, where only 43.8 percent of respondents perceived a journalism crisis, even when there are stricter state controls on the Singapore press to play a collaborative role. I argue, therefore, the existence of an additional journalism crisis narrative not found in dominant Western-centric literature – the crisis of legitimacy, particularly pertaining to the system of governance, in societies where there is some semblance of authoritarian influence or control on the press.

This crisis of legitimacy occurs when the leadership is unable to secure broad-based consent to rule through ideological and/or material means. In the case of Hong Kong, China’s authoritarianism runs counter to the strong inclination of Hong Kongers toward liberal-democratic ideologies – these ideologies have become entrenched in Hong Kong society not just as carryovers from the West but also from being cemented by Hong Kong’s own local historical experiences, first under the rule of the British and then the Chinese. Efforts at ideologizing the population otherwise have been futile, largely because, and I argue, there was no significant historical milestone that prompted the supplanting of such liberal ideals with more communitarian alternatives, like in the case of Singapore and its period of struggle post-independence. Given that Hong Kong was already prospering under the British, the socialist rhetoric adopted by the Chinese central government to champion the interests of the lower classes did not stick, and neither was the authoritarian Chinese government given the opportunity to cement its legitimacy to rule over Hong Kong by contributing significantly to its material prosperity. This has resulted in greater fears of a journalism crisis in Hong Kong, both real and imagined, whenever the Chinese or Hong Kong governments make a move to influence news content or stories circulate about assaults on journalists, advertising pull-outs, and blatant acts of self-censorship. Indeed, Hong Kong’s media platforms have been seen to edge toward more pro-government stances in recent years, often to the frustration of the journalists themselves, raising the concern of a ‘reddening’ of the press.

The Singapore case study, on the contrary, has demonstrated the successful ideologization efforts of the Singapore government to incline the populace toward the ‘survivalism’ and ‘Asian values’ ideologies post-independence. These ideologies have shaped the Singaporean consciousness toward a respect for the leadership and a subordination of the press to the will of the government. The government has in turn strengthened this public trust in them by rewarding the people in material terms with good jobs, comfortable lives, and a high standard of living.

This indicates the ability of the government to maintain its legitimacy to rule, and this has translated into the people’s willingness to forgo a number of their freedoms, including freedom of the press, for the social stability and economic growth that the government has promised. This governance strategy has alleviated fears of a journalism crisis in the city-state. In other words, a trustworthy government controlling the press means a trustworthy press. State support of the media by a trustworthy state also reduces the severity of other traditional crisis dimensions, like those tied to the financial viability of the press and to capitalism’s inherent tendencies toward profit-seeking and exploitation that may result from unbridled media competition. This seems to run counter to the belief of Western journalism scholars that a state-controlled press system is likely to worsen fears of a journalism crisis.

The work of Cox (1987: 104) on the creation of ‘historic blocs’ is relevant here; he defines this term as the ‘configuration of social forces upon which state power rests’, asserting that dominant social classes maintain their supremacy materially and ideologically – by creating a broad base of consent for their rule through ideological means while offering some satisfactory returns to the less powerful. Weaker players then consent to the leadership of powerful players with the belief that the latter are acting in the interests of the collective, voluntarily conforming to the requirements of the historic bloc with the perception that they too stand to gain (Cox, 1987: 253). This perspective stems from the Gramscian notion of ‘hegemony’, in which ‘one concept of reality is diffused throughout society in all institutional and private manifestations’ (Williams, 1960: 587), enabling the ruling class to secure the consent to rule.

This element of consent is similarly present in the work of Christians et al. (2009) on normative theories of the press, reminding us that media systems tend to take on roles based on the normative values upheld in their societies and the model of democratic governance that exists. As can be seen in this study, if a disconnect exists between these normative values venerated by the public – that have not been successfully ideologized by the ruling classes – and the model of political governance, this is when fears of crisis become amplified, including that of journalism crisis, tied to a press system that works according to the demands of the political elites rather than the expectations of the people. This is even when more freedoms are granted to the people, as evidenced in the case of Hong Kong.

In this vein, Singapore has demonstrated its ability to succeed as a neoliberal authoritarian state – while reaping material benefits from its strategic position in the neoliberal global order to provide material wealth to its people, thereby strengthening its ideologization efforts, it is adopting strategies to denounce these neoliberal measures that it may be itself benefiting from, reiterating the problems associated with a deregulated liberal press system as one that can potentially lead to social instability and chaos. This has strengthened, in the process, its decisive rule over the nation.

A number of qualifiers are warranted here, however. Due to successful ideologization efforts, the need to self-censor may have already been internalized by the respondents in Singapore, thereby making it difficult to pick up dissenting voices in this study. There might, therefore, be a wider crisis of civic engagement that remains unspoken and unaddressed; the populace may feel uneasy voicing a diversity of opinions. At the same time, the trustworthiness of the press seems to be tied to the trustworthiness of the Singapore government, and economic growth and material comforts are seen as key determinants of this trust – liberal advocates may view this focus on the economic as reductionist and inadequate to measure a country’s well-being, thereby adopting a different view on the state of the press. Finally, it is uncertain how the media’s prolonged subordination to the will of the state will have an effect on its ability to step up as a voice of the people if the level of trustworthiness of the Singapore government changes; should that happen, the inability of the press to viably organize itself to serve the people rather than the elites might be amplified.

As a line of inquiry for future research, one may consider how societies with different ties to neoliberal capital and differing political cultures and societal outlooks may face different sets of challenges to civic engagement. This study can provide the foundation to a more formal comparative study going forward, where crisis narratives may be broken down into their component parts for further examination.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Yuezhi Zhao, Robert Hackett and Katherine Reilly for their invaluable help on this project and the two anonymous reviewers for their feedback on this work.

Funding

This work was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (752-2013-2132).

Author biography

Shangyuan Wu is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information in Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; she completed her PhD in Communication at Simon Fraser University in Canada. Her research interests include global journalism studies, political economy of communication, development studies, and comparative media analysis. In particular, her research projects have involved investigations into the impact of social, political, economic, and/or technological forces on the future of the journalism industry. She is trained in journalism and worked previously as a senior broadcast journalist in Singapore, covering the areas of politics, defense, and education.

References

Banerjee

(2002) The locals strike back? Media globalization and localization in the new Asian television landscape. International Communication Gazette 64(6): 517–535.

Bauman

Bordoni

(2014) State of Crisis. Cambridge: Polity.

Blumler

(2010) Foreword: The two-legged crisis of journalism. Journalism Practice 4(3): 243–245.

Bokhorst-Heng

(2002) Newspapers in Singapore: A mass ceremony in the imagining of the nation. Media, Culture & Society 24: 559–569.

Boniface

Alon

(2010) Is Hong Kong democratizing? Asian Survey 50(4): 786–807.

Chan

Lee

(2007) Media and politics in post-handover Hong Kong: An introduction. Asian Journal of Communication 17(2): 127–133.

Chanda

(2017) News in the age of Trump: A re-evaluation of journalism ethics. The London School of Economics and Political Science. Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/polis/2017/02/08/news-in-the-age-of-trump-a-re-evaluation-of-journalistic-ethics/ (accessed 12 June 2017).

Christians

Glasser

McQuail

et al . (2009) Normative Theories of the Media: Journalism in Democratic Societies. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Chu

(2004) Hong Kong: From laissez-faire to experiments in developmental support. In: Low

(ed.) Developmental States: Relevancy, Redundancy or Reconfiguration? Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., pp. 147–159.

10.

Cox

(1987) Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History. New York: Columbia University Press.

11.

Fenton

(2010) News in the digital age. In: Allan

(ed.) The Routledge Companion to News and Journalism. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 557–567.

12.

Freedman

(2010) The political economy of the ‘new’ news environment. In: Fenton

(ed.) New Media, Old News: Journalism and Democracy in the Digital Age. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 35–50.

13.

Fung

(2007) Political economy of Hong Kong media: Producing a hegemonic voice. Asian Journal of Communication 17(2): 159–171.

14.

George

(2005) The internet’s political impact and the penetration/participation paradox in Malaysia and Singapore. Media, Culture & Society 27(6): 903–920.

15.

Hackett

Zhao

(1998) Sustaining Democracy? Journalism and the Politics of Objectivity. Peterborough, ON, Canada: Broadview Press.

16.

Hadiz

(2006) Introduction. In: Hadiz

(ed.) Empire and Neoliberalism in Asia. London; New York: Routledge, pp. 1–20.

17.

Harvey

(2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

18.

Hill

Park

Saito

(2012) Introduction: Locating neoliberalism in East Asia. In: Park

Hill

Saito

(eds) Locating Neoliberalism in East Asia: Neoliberalizing Spaces in Developmental States. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–26.

19.

Hong Kong Fact Sheets (2016) The media. Hong Kong: The Facts. Available at: http://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/media.pdf (accessed 20 October 2017).

20.

Lai

(2007) Media in Hong Kong: Press Freedom and Political Change, 1967–2005. Abingdon: Routledge.

21.

Lee

(2007) Hong Kong citizens’ beliefs in media neutrality and perceptions of press freedom: Objectivity as self-censorship? Asian Survey 47(3): 434–454.

22.

Lee

Chan

(2009) Organizational production of self-censorship in the Hong Kong media. The International Journal of Press/Politics 14(1): 112–133.

23.

Lee

(2010) The Media, Cultural Control and Government in Singapore. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

24.

Macan-Marker

(2011) Social media challenges Singapore’s rulers. Al Jazeera English. Available at: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/05/2011527124020755957.html (accessed 20 September 2015).

25.

McChesney

(2003) The problem of journalism: A political economic contribution to an explanation of the crisis in contemporary US journalism. Journalism Studies 4(3): 299–329.

26.

McChesney

Pickard

(2011) Will the Last Reporter Please Turn Out the Lights: The Collapse of Journalism and What Can Be Done to Fix It. New York: The New Press.

27.

McNair

(2009) Journalism and democracy. In: Wahl-Jorgenson

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 237–249.

28.

Massey

Chang

(2002) Locating Asian values in Asian journalism: A content analysis of web newspapers. Journal of Communication 52(4): 987–1003.

29.

Means

(1996) Soft authoritarianism in Malaysia and Singapore. Journal of Democracy 7: 103–117.

30.

Preston

Jr (1989) The history of US-UNESCO relations. In: Preston

Herman

Schiller

(eds) Hope and Folly: The United States and UNESCO, 1945–1985. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 285–311.

31.

Robinson

White

(1998) The Democratic Developmental State: Political and Institutional Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

32.

Rodan

(2003) Embracing electronic media but suppressing civil society: Authoritarian consolidation in Singapore. The Pacific Review 16(4): 503–524.

33.

Schiller

(1989) Is there a United States information policy? In: Preston

Herman

Schiller

(eds) Hope and Folly: The United States and UNESCO, 1945–1985. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 285–311.

34.

Sciutto

(1996) China’s muffling of the Hong Kong media. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 547: 131–143.

35.

Seow

(1998) The Media Enthralled: Singapore Revisited. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

36.

Shome

Hegde

(2002) Postcolonial approaches to communication: Charting the terrain, engaging the intersections. Communication Theory 12(3): 249–270.

37.

Siebert

Peterson

Schramm

(1956) Four Theories of the Press. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

38.

Sim

(2001) Asian values, authoritarianism and capitalism in Singapore. Javnost (Ljubljana) 8(2): 45–66.

39.

Wang

(2010) Beyond de-westernizing communication research: An introduction. In: Wang

(ed.) De-westernizing Communication Research: Altering Questions and Changing Frameworks. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 1–17.

40.

Weaver

Wilhoit

(1986) The American Journalist. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

41.

Williams

(1960) The concept of ‘egemonia’ in the thought of Antonio Gramsci: Some notes on interpretation. Journal of the History of Ideas 21(4): 586–599.

42.

Wong

(2013) Media development authority rolls out licence scheme for news websites. The Straits Times. Available at: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/mda-rolls-out-licence-scheme-for-news-websites (accessed 20 September 2015.)

43.

Zelizer

(2015) Terms of choice: Uncertainty, journalism, and crisis. Journal of Communication 65: 888–908.