Hong Kong’s “Apple Daily” was arrested again yesterday. The National Security Department of the Hong Kong Police raided the headquarters of One Media Group and the “Apple Daily” newspaper and arrested five newspaper executives including Luo Weiguang, the editor-in-chief of Apple Daily, on suspicion of “conspiracy to collude with foreign countries or foreign forces to endanger national security.” This is the second large-scale operation since the Hong Kong police arrested Next Media boss Li Zhiying in August 2020 and conducted a blockade investigation on the Next Media building. The police claimed that the “Apple Daily” since 2019 has involved dozens of articles in Chinese and English calling for foreign countries to “sanction China” and endanger national security, and accordingly freeze the three companies of Next Media (including the daily newspaper, printing and Internet) a total of 18 million Hong Kong dollars in assets. The Secretary for Security Li Jiasheng said that the relevant personnel involved in a large-scale “conspiracy” plan were acting under the guise of journalism to endanger national security.
Regardless of the fact that the police started collecting evidence in 2019, they were arguing that the “Hong Kong version of the National Security Act” did not mention the retrospective period and Chief Executive Carrie Lam claimed to “bear the past”. The authorities deliberately created “Apple” and other issues at the press conference. The media’s opposing impression: On this side, “Apple” “uses news as a tool to endanger national security”, “collaborates with foreign forces,” and calls for sanctions on China, and participates in what the bureau considers to be a “conspiracy” plan related to national security; on the other side, the bureau Fang emphasized that “general normal journalism work” is not in the ranks of the authorities’ crackdown. As long as other media professionals and media companies clean themselves, draw a clear line, and do news in accordance with the law (emphasizing the Hong Kong version of the National Security Law), they do not need to worry.
But what exactly is the “conspiracy” plan? What is the boundary between “conspiracy” and “normal journalism”? What specific articles can be used as evidence? Is it the commentary article or the interviewee quoted in the report? Why can an arrest be carried out if the evidence has not been collected? … The bureau did not explain this. After all, the case is still in the “investigation stage”, and the “national security” that is always inexplicable and inexplicable transcends all procedures.
However, it can be said that the significance of this incident has far exceeded the level of a media being suppressed by politics. When buying a copy of “Apple Daily”, it is not certain whether it will not violate the national security law at all. It is the various participants in the news. (Including readers, reporters, editors, advertisers, and investors) create a rupture to hit the information dissemination chain of the entire civil society; it creates a dualistic contradiction between ourselves and the enemy in the Hong Kong news industry, trying to “purify” the industry ecology and induce serious Self-censorship; it wants to regulate “normal” and “abnormal”, which in fact robbed the definition of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. As for how long the “Apple Daily” whose assets have been frozen and is still in the eyes of the regime can survive? A pro-government media reporter’s question on July 1st at the press conference probably revealed Sima Zhao’s heart.
A reporter outside the Apple Building in Tseung Kwan O on June 17, 2021.Photograph: Chen Zhuohui/Duan Media
“Collusion” vs. “Normal News”, the rewritten Hong Kong news field
The arrest this time has sounded an indispensable wake-up call to local journalists. The five persons arrested included Zhang Jianxiong, Chief Executive Officer of Next Media, and Zhou Daquan, Chief Operating Officer of the Group, Chen Peimin, Vice President of “Apple Daily”, Luo Weiguang, Chief Editor, and Zhang Zhiwei, Director of Apple Mobile News Platform. “Apple” content production. In other words, almost all the persons involved in the administrative, operational, and content departments that maintain the normal operation of a company are prosecuted by the police.
Faced with media questions, Li Jiachao only repeatedly emphasized that this incident involved a “criminal conspiracy crime” and needed to be distinguished from “normal journalism.” As for what is “normal” and “normal” journalism, Li Jiachao responded that media workers only need to consider their own goals and intentions. If they do not violate the law or endanger national security, they will not be subject to legal regulation. However, in response to the article published in Apple, both Li Jiachao and the police refused to disclose details on the grounds that the investigation was underway.
Regardless of the specific content of the article involved, this incident is essentially a case of guilty of words under the framework of the National Security Law. The bureau claimed that “Apple” “calls for sanctions on China”, and the articles involved are news content published in “Apple”, which highlights the current regime’s understanding of national security coverage and its contradiction with press freedom.
Even though the articles published by Apple have their political stances and arguments, they have always been within the scope of freedom of speech and press freedom in Hong Kong society. The dispute mainly revolves around whether the media has the function of “advocacy” (action). And on this point, even in journalism, there are different considerations, and there are different forms of practice in the industry. In Hong Kong, the “initiative” is clearly defined as its own position, and “Apple” is not even the first media. Those who support the “advocacy” function of the media believe that an initiative is just a revival of one of the ancient communication functions. In fact, every media has an advocacy function, but the specific handling methods are different. “Advocacy news” is like “happy news” and “slow news”. It is only non-traditional news. It still has to abide by the basic rules and ethics of news. Even if the method is controversial, it should be left to the community’s own debate and correction. However, this incident shows that the government has enough confidence to drive the power granted by the National Security Law to invade the space that should belong to the freedom of the press.
When a journalist is accused of violating the National Security Law for publishing articles, and Li Jiachao tries to distance the incident from “normal” journalism, the effect is not so much pacification, but rather a rewrite of the definition of “normal” journalism. In the journalism professional system, reporting facts, presenting different opinions in society, and disseminating information through various media such as text or video are themselves normal and legitimate professional operations. The most direct impact of this incident is that the regime uses the National Security Law to define normal journalistic work understood by the public as “criminal activities,” and it calls journalists “criminals” and newspaper assets as “dark money.” This generality also reflects the regime’s instructions to the Hong Kong press to divide the “normal” and “legal” sections that meet its needs, so as to rectify the Hong Kong press.
This intention has repeatedly appeared in the Q&A between Li Jiachao and the media. He has repeatedly called on other media to draw a clear line from “criminals”, and accused the “Apple” employees involved in the case of using news as a tool to commit crimes. On the one hand, it set up “Apple” as a negative example, requiring other media to be vigilant. On the other hand, it also slandered the journalism profession of “Apple” employees, and even meant that “Apple” was excluded from the news. This is exactly the same as the tactics used by the authorities to “tear apart” Hong Kong society after the Anti-Amendment Movement in 2019: activists are all “anti-China violent elements”, and “ordinary citizens” must be cut apart from them.
There is a more far-reaching impact behind this, which is to divide the voice of political dissent represented by “Apple” outside of the legal news space, and disguise the legal publication of political dissent. The particularity of “Apple” in the Hong Kong press is that it has always been a clear-cut politically dissident newspaper. It is not afraid to publish criticisms of China and the Hong Kong government, and it clearly positions itself as a dissemination platform for the Hong Kong democracy movement. In terms of rigorous journalistic professional standards, the combination of “Apple”‘s democratic appeals and journalistic operations is indeed controversial in journalism ethics. This has always been a topic of discussion in Hong Kong society, the press and academic circles. Now that the government interferes with the operation of “Apple” with public power, it is nothing more than to convey a message:
Critical politics and dissent with advocacy elements will not be allowed in the space for speech under the National Security Law.
Because Duan Media is a paid website, the full text is not available for reprinting. If you want to read the full text, please click here to go to Duan Media’s website to read after purchasing a member