How the media got it wrong in Hong Kong
The Western notion of democracy as a core value and the
best possible form of government framed how most media
interpreted the 2014 Hong Kong protest.
WHEN THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS called for a weeklong boycott of classes to demand open candidate
nomination for Hong Kong’s upcoming Chief Executive
election, the narrative of Hong Kong residents’ quest
for “genuine” universal suffrage struck a sympathetic
chord with the Western media. The latter not only
parroted the protestors’ claims, but reported the
ensuing protest within the frame of a Hong Kong
seeking democracy from an authoritarian China.
Thus Western media rejected other plausible
explanations for the massive unrest, such as the
youthful demonstrators’ sense of dislocation, scarcity
of desirable jobs and affordable housing, other
economic factors and antipathy towards China and
Chinese mainlanders. The antipathy, which some
called an identity crisis, proved to be especially
difficult to fit into the media’s democracy frame
because it led young people to demand a return of
Hong Kong to the UK. But Hong Kong was a colony,
never a democracy, under the British. Before and
during Occupy Central, as the protest was collectively
termed, Hong Kong youth demonstrated this desire
in various marches by prominently displaying the UK
colonial flag with the message: “I am a Hong Konger,
not a Chinese”.
Early in the protest, the media often downplayed
the context for the Hong Kong police’s use of force.
They discounted the fact that the first confrontation
between the police and students was actually
precipitated by one of the student leaders. In coverage
in which it was reported that protestors were urged
by the student leader to break into the off-limits
forecourt of a government complex, the subtext was
Hong Kong protesters, dubbed the “umbrella revolution”,
needed umbrellas during a lightning storm on 30
September 2014. S O U R C E : S T U A R T L E AV E N W O R T H / M c C L AT C H Y
clear: protestor actions were understandable given
that Beijing rejected demands for “free elections”,
while police use of tear gas in the ensuing chaos was
inexcusable.
The media framing brought out many more Hong
Kong residents to occupy the central district, bringing
the city to a standstill. Police attempting to disperse
the crowd on 28 September were shown in a video
titled “Who initiated the attack”. Vastly outnumbered,
police stood tensely behind low barricades against a
surging crowd of angry protestors. They raised a red
banner warning the crowd to “stop charging or we will
use force”. Suddenly, protestors at the front charged
the police with their pointy umbrellas.
Media coverage of this incident generally started
10
with the police crackdown that followed the umbrella
charge. The non-contextualized image of police
tossing tear gas into the crowd helped mobilize those
who thought the police action was unwarranted and
excessive.
Participants of the 2013 protest, which was also
called Occupy Central, joined the students at this point
and assembled en masse to swell the protest after
28 September. Although the original instigators of the
2013 Occupy Central had hoped for a turnout of a few
thousand supporters at their 2014 demonstration, the
media delivered massive mobilization beyond their
wildest dreams.
The Western media clung to the myth that the
“protestors were peaceful”, but as early as 3 October,
they were blocking an ambulance from reaching a
collapsed policeman. Being incongruent with the
narrative of a peaceful demand for democracy,
incidents of protestor violence went unreported: offduty police officers were attacked, fire extinguishers
were turned on, and weapons such as bricks or boards
spiked with nails were used against the police.
Also unreported was a nine-day petition drive in late
October (garnering 1.83 million signatures) supporting
police action to return the roads to the citizens.
Responsible media would have explored what the
protestors had in mind when labelling the protest
“pro-democracy”. Did Beijing, as protestors claimed,
contravene the principles set forth in the 1984 Sino–
British Joint Declaration and betray its promise of
universal suffrage? Despite it being a central rallying
point, do protestors have a clear notion and an agreedupon definition of “democracy”?
What is “genuine” universal suffrage and
“open nomination”? What, if any, are the rules
and procedures of an “open nomination”? Is open
nomination—a form of direct democracy—the only
acceptable model? Or would the representational
democracy of the West suffice? The media failed to
address these questions.
With their ingrained prejudice against China and
idealized assumptions about the protestors’ motives
and demands, Western media outlets were not only
biased, but failed to appreciate the complexity of the
situation. Instead, they streamlined the coverage to
fit into their preconceived notions about democracy.
Thus the saying “if you don’t read the news, you
are uninformed; if you do read the news, you are
misinformed” is a fitting description of the Western
media’s coverage of the protest in Hong Kong.
Ivy Lee
Reprinted with permission from the East Asia Forum.
SHARE
Journos behind bars
The welcome release of
Australian journalist Peter
Greste from imprisonment
in Egypt should remind
us of the dozens of other
scribes who are jailed
around the world for
having exercised what
should be the basic right of
freedom of expression—in
all countries.
11