Talk:TVB News
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] "Chicken Man"
I would suggest again, in the interests of a sensible discussion, that comments are posted BELOW this text and not defaced or removed. Be civilised.
"He interfered the news report and TVB crew members try to restrain him. He gone a bit nervous. He made for a female journalist and shoved finally. He was tackled by TVB staff. Police had been tried to conciliate Chicken Man"
Yes, I interfered with the news report. No, TVB crew members violently tackled me, not 'try to restrain'. I'm not sure what "he gone a bit nervous" is meant to mean - perhaps you should focus your efforts on the Cantonese wikipedia. I assure you, my actions were planned and well-timed, I was by no means 'nervous'. And I certainly DID NOT shove or 'make for' a journalist - my intention, and actions, were to stand behind the journalist and shout at the audience. I continued shouting until the light operator began pushing and pulling me. Later, I was tackled by the camera man. You can actually see two men in red jackets from ATV doing the same to me earlier in the evening. I am not a liar, unlike perhaps TVB and your efforts to defame me. I have been informed by a lawyer that the unprovoked phsyical abuse I suffered that evening is enough to build a case against TVB - I chose not to. Also, there are instances within the video which confirm that I was completely peaceful and did not 'shove' anyone - even the light man, who argues with a protestor in the documentary, admits this.
You will find NO evidence to support your claims, particularly that there was violence in the loading bay area shortly before the live broadcast. I have spoken to Emma Jones, a TVB reporter, who testifies that the control room wanted her to also don a helmet to add drama to the scene - she refused. The TVB crew on the evening in question even admit that the control wanted her to wear a helmet for the live broadcast, yet none of the other crew members were asked to.
I would be interested to know in what capacity you were supposedly 'at' the protest in question. I also suggest if you wish to continue contributing to the English wikipedia, you make efforts to fully understand what is being said in the above before responding. And again, please repond BELOW this post - not within it or in place of it, and I will do the same.
[edit] Response to Chicken Man
Firstly, I am glad that you admitted you are "CHICKEN MAN" - rather than act as a third-person.
I DO think I present my knowing in neutral and please DON'T label someone as "uncivilized" if you disagree with him. I should state that I DON'T THINK YOU AND THOSE JOURNALISTS want to hurt anyone intentionally. I am just stating what I saw in the loading area and TV News. You rushed forcefully to the camera and a female journalist was shoved. I DON'T THINK both are "100% peaceful". On the other hand, I should point out that when TVB's crews "surrounded" by a small part of protestors, one of the male protestors shout really closely at ears of a TVB crews member and he looked ferocious obviously, but he seemed to be "edited out" from the "documentary" (so-called). You may add anything missing into the section or you may add a "self-defense" section separately. I agree that you should have your rights to defend.
However, I can't further prove if the dialogue between you and Emma Jones really existed or not, because I am really not TVB Staff. As a audience, in overall, I don't think TVB or other TV stations greatly exaggerate their reports or try to defame those protestors. On the other hand, I quite think they reported the protest in positive manner somehow. TV Media provided enough air-time and stories for protestors and NGOs to illustrate their standpoints. I can't see any intention by TVB to defame protestors or exaggerate the danger of the protest. Moreover, I REALLY DOUBT if a safety hamlet really defamed those protestor as "rioter" or not. The "implicit" meanings of a hamlet is "over-read". According to ALL above, the benefit of the doubt should be given to TVB and other TV media. I DO think the indecent should NOT be exaggerated like that in order to show an act of someone's "personal heroism". (maybe)
I thank for your "kindly" advise on improving language level when making contributions to Wikipedia. Please feel free to correct my sentences grammar.
[edit] Additional Response
I found that you are always judging in a dichotomy (WRONG or RIGHT). I was trying to avoid absolute judgment in the section and just provide additional facts. I had agreed that you should have your chance to express your knowings, but you chose to suppress another point of views. Wiki is NOT the place for judging who is right or wrong. You claim that you did not forcefully rushed towards the female journalist and I think it is worthless to argue how forceful you had. Also it is NOT sensible that crew member pushed you toward the female journalists when they wanted to put you out of the screen. I think it would better let reader to judge oneself. We should also provide the official TV news clips at tvb.com besides the vision you qouted.
Your personal dialogue cannot be a provable reference and it can be questioned of course. Emma Jones's idea should be respected but it is not representing the "FULL VISION" of truth. If you have a knowledge basis of communication studies, you will know EVERY NEWS STORIES have its "distortion" at different levels. Someone claim to "confirm" there was distortion in media is meaningless. It is a war of Representation. Emma Jones may disagree TVB's editorial but the seriousness of "distortion" depends on personal judging. Everyone may have different answers. It can not be proven by quoting opinions from blogs. If Emma Jones told you TVB's editor said "This is only for dramatic scenes", I think you should make a video record of her words and put it on Wiki. I think it is the best chance for TVB to improve its policy of editorial if they really said so.
""...but all of the media wanted to bring the protests to their inevitable prediction - violence. It was not a riot - there were no shops being broken into, no cars set alight , no random citizens being attacked"
I should further introduce some facts to you that TVB's Cantonese news program "Tuesday Files" was just expressing what you (I) think about - It was not a riot. Moreover, "Tuesday Files" interviewed a person who surrounded TVB's Crew before and let her express her opinions about WTO without any negative description to her. You may find someone who knows Cantonese to check. I saw that TVB had been tried to make balancing reports rather than a "deadly distortion" by a small hamlet which showed on screen for few minutes.
I do not want to argue the incident incessantly and I hope the section will be rewrited in the way of NPOV.
On a sidenote, I think it is quite ironic that you said I am misinterpreting things in debate and vilify me as "TVB-CAN-DO-NO-WRONG MAN". Also, on another sidenote, I support those being victimized under WTO, but I do not really appreciate those protestors over-reacted or just want to show off his personal identity, indeed.
[edit] Response to TVB-CAN-DO-NO-WRONG MAN
Of course I am happy to admit that I am the protestor in question - but you could have hardly expected me to write in the first-person.
My reference to being civilised was regarding Wikipedia rules and etiquette and nothing to do with labeling you - again, I think the language barrier is causing problems here.
I did not "rush forcefully towards the camera" - anyone who watches the broadcast can see that such a statement is rubbish. I enter shot and remain behind the journalist - and that's where I hoped to remain until I got tackled and pulled away by the light man. Please accept this and drop your comments about me causing any kind of physical ruccus - it was instigated PURELY by TVB staff. Case closed.
It is riddiculous to suggest I would lie about talking to Emma Jones - I did a similar stunt during one of her reports and we have since spoken about TVB's editorial policy. She confirmed that the picture was deliberately distorted. I have also admitted that I could've been wiser about my actions and simply reported the crew to the Journalists Association.
Might I draw your attention to the following: http://curbside.jmsc.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=83&Itemid=33 "she put on her helmet immediately before she went live." - This fact is why I subverted the report in the first place - please wake up to the fact that it obviously had nothing to do with safety -- If I can dance around in a chicken suit, there is obviously no danger whatsoever. I'd be happy to show you a report confirming that TVB did the same helmet trick during a totally peaceful daytime march the following day.
TVB nor any media source should ever be given the benefit of the doubt - they, like the government, should be questionned and monitored at every turn. This is perhaps a concept that is foreign for Hong Kong residents who are yet to be granted democracy, but I am one of the peaceful activists who is fighting for to make this happen.
I agree TVB is not the worse offender in the Hong Kong media - and it is certainly no Fox News or CNN, but all of the media wanted to bring the protests to their inevitable prediction - violence. It was not a riot - there were no shops being broken into, no cars set alight, no random citizens being attacked - in recent history Hong Kong doesn't even know the meaning of the word riot. The Hong Kong media were scare-mongering during the WTO protests, reporting rumours of mass gas mask purchasing, suicide protest, and alleged stolen uniforms, protestors from Korea were demonised and some TV outlets referred to scuffling activists as 'militants' and the protests as a 'war zone'. I happen to have a degree in media [a fact I've no doubt you will pounce on as being another 'lie'].
As for your argument that this is an exaggerated issue of 'personal heroism' - I object any suggestion that it is to do with ego - you obviously misunderstand the nature of activsm and the media, but this is another argument I will not have here. If it were such a minor issue, you wouldn't be so passionate about censoring it. If you think the issue is blown up and 'over-read', I suggest you read the below comments. [And I can provide links should you conclude that I'm "lying" again.]
This is causing a major uproar in the websites and forums… because it cuts right to the heart of media hyping. - Curbside Indymedia
The TVB reporter was wearing a helmet. Why? Nevermind the fashion faux pas (that coat, that headgear), this was an egregious and flagrant example of media hype - Mister Bijou Blog
...but the best thing so far is the Chicken vs. Helmet incident... absolutely nothing was going on and the protests were totally peaceful. Then the Chicken got into it... - Kaiju Shakedown Blog
...there was TVB's assault (strictly, speaking a battery) on "Chicken Man" Tom Grundy (hmmm ... battery chicken - that's rather good) because he objected to their right to misrepresent the news, and their insistence (both their English and Canto stations) on having their reporters wear helmets even before yesterday's events in order to give the impression of danger when there was none. - Fumier Blog
a fellow who wears a chicken suit to demonstrations (naturally, the press has dubbed him "Chicken Man") made a big splash at last week's WTO protests for waving a sign that said "WTO Is Worse Than Bird Flu." - Slate.com Blog
Thanks to some anonymous guy in a chicken suit for delivering some well deserved embarassment to our local gossip hound reporters. - Laowai Blog
…let me tell you that I cannot believe how excited the response to The Television Reporter's Helmet was... we have had all sorts of complaints about media inaccuracies and biases. But nothing struck people like the photograph of the TVB reporter putting on a helmet when there was no imminent danger whatsoever… - EastSouthWestNorth Blog
Now do you understand the gravitas surrounding this issue? This is incredibly significant. Did you know media distortion about the actions of students was one of the causes of the Tiananmen Square protests? The media is meant to objectively inform, passively observe, and adhere to ethical practices.
[On a sidenote, your English skills are excellent compared to most Hong Kongers - I actually live in Hong Kong and I myself can only speak one language. However, you are misinterpreting things in debate. Also, on another sidenote, I'm intruiged to know in what capacity you were attending the demonstrations as it seems clear you are not on the side of the protestors, or indeed the truth.]
[edit] Additional Response
I couldn't agree more that Wikipedia is about neutrality - it is an encyclopedia which is why it would be totally inappropriate to include a section headed 'self-defence'. We should agree on a text mutually - my only objection is being defamed and things being written here which are not true. You obviously will not budge on your insistance that I somehow shoved the reporter despite there being no evidence - naturally I tried to resist being violently yanked away by the TVB light man, I certainly didn't push the journalist. What would it take to prove I am non-violent? Or will we go round in circles? I realise you want to justify TVB's actions by suggesting I was physically aggressive, but there is nothing to back you up.
As for the personal cheap-shots about it being about 'ego', I suggest you read my response again and read up a little about direct activism. Would you prefer I wear a baraclava next time I want to expose media distortion?
I'm happy to include the TVB original video, you can even view it on my personal website which has been also been linked to here (until you censored it of course).
Any separate programme TVB produced does not excuse the editorial policy of their news room or blatant instances of exaggeration. The BBC produced a documentary called The Power of Nightmares which set about proving the threat of terrorism is an eloborate smokescreen to hide the intentions of US neo-conservatives - however, its conclusions didn't become BBC News editorial policy - they still cover the 'war on terror'. So what?!
Finally, you misunderstood the inclusion of the blog quotes - I wasn't trying to prove the distortion (though I'd say it's pretty damn obvious now), in fact I was trying to quash your belief that this is a minor issue. The quotes were in direct response to your comments about the issue being blown up and 'over-read'. But, if I did wanted to use the blog quotes to support my case, they can be a good measure of public opinion/interpretation - and did you notice none actually conformed to your skewed interpretation of the night's events? I challenge you to find anyone else who believes your account of the night - online or otherwise. Every article and blog entry I come across supports me and there has never been a suggestion that I was phyiscally agressive. Seems the evidence is piling up in my favour and it's time for you to face reality and - like everyone else - accept the incident as a geniune whistleblowing of TVB's distorted WTO coverage.
[edit] Cantonese versus Cantonese Chinese
Regarding the recent edits by user:Alanmak ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]): I don't find any necessity to specify Cantonese is Chinese. There are more than sufficient information on Wikipedia addressing whether the spoken variants of Chinese are dialects of a language or languages of a language family. By saying "Something Chinese" we're effective equating them as dialects, comparing to Australian English or Canadian English. As for Putonghua versus Mandarin, although personally I do preferred Mandarin over Putonghua, Putonghua is the terminology used in English in Hong Kong. — Instantnood 18:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Delete Chicken Man Section!
We cannot let radicals take over Wikipedia and push their agendas. The charge was absolutely without merit. The reporters only used helmets to protect themselves against potential violence, a thing that did materialise in the end. Besides, Chicken Man alone is a reason why they should wear helmets.
As a journalist-in-training, I want this section deleted. It is an insult to those who only want their lives. Arbiteroftruth 14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Read the above and see new documentary on the incident
Read the above and you will see how it "cuts straight to the heart of journalistic integrity" in Hong Kong - especially in light of a recent human rights report showing how the press here is practicing self-censorship. As a journlist-in-training you should be most concerned, as am I - who has completed my degree in media. Do you really want to censor this? And your suggestion that I was violent is nothing short of defamation.
Yet another documentary has covered this incident - watch it at iFilms and fast forward to around half-way through: http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2717979?htv=12
If you are indeed "Chicken Man" (I cannot be sure, as you posted the comment above without a sig, and posted via an IP address), please understand that I did not insinuate anything about your behaviour as "violent". What I was trying to say is that there are those who believe your action is a bit "out of the mainstream" and too "Long Hair-ish" (Long Hair, of course, refers to a Hong Kong human rights activist). My friends who studies journalism with me certainly believe so, after watching a video on the internet about this event.
I understand how pictures and everything affects the way people perceive the news. Indeed, several public figures in Hong Kong (including Tung Chee Hwa's wife) were criticised for "overdressing" in certain events (just like the helmet incident). However, one has to realise the seriousness of the entire demonstration rounds.
I am politically neutral in this matter, and I did not take any sides, but I have to respectfully point out the actions of Korean protesters in the past, both domestic and abroad. Needless to say, their "passion" in the matter they are protesting have been shown on television screens across the world for years on end and have earned them a rather dubious reputation the world over. I shall refrain from pointing out any specifics. You, Mr. Chicken Man (if you are indeed him), should have access to them as readily as I do.
I believe the reporters at the protest were simply acting in self defence out of fears for potential violence, a fear that did materialise in the end. Do remember how certain Korean protesters rushed the police cordons and entered the city streets, and how teargases were fired at the protesters. I do not see anything wrong by the journalists to do what they did do.
If the reporters that night were criticised for dramatising (or whatever terms anyone uses), what about the war reporters at the forefront of conflicts? Shouldn't reporters in Baghdad just walk down the street in clothes that one would wear in Southern California? In any situation, life worths more than anything else, even work. The people of this world are not sheeps, and the media is not a shephard. People can think about matters, and they can form their conclusions without anyone's help. I have formed mine, and you have formed yours, and others have done the same thing.
So, why are we even arguing about this bias allegation? Bias only goes so far when people can see the truth. We can say all we want about how the Korean protesters were among the most peaceful in the entire universe (and some were peaceful), but when people see the riot footages before the closing of the meeting, they will know what is going on.
Mr. Chicken man (if that was indeed you), please see this issue from the other side, and try to understand why things were the way they were. Arbiteroftruth 07:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Conclusion
I have uploaded extracts from the two aforementioned videos to bring an end to this matter...
DOCUMENTARY by 'Video Power' - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EgUGTyhr6o
INTERVIEW by Edwin Lee - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG63Ur4BV2Q
As you can see, it becomes clear that no phyiscal violence was used and that dozens of other protestors were chanting for the reporter to remove the helmet and displaying more integrity. "Helmet off, helmet off", "slandering, slandering". Please also note the arguments made throughout by fellow protestors and journalists, and the concluding comments from an observer. The issue is that there was no danger or threat of danger during the evening at the loading bay - and the helmet was ONLY donned during live shots - and none of the crew were wearing protection. This is a very significant moment in TVB's coverage (as "it cuts right to the heart of media hyping") and is certainly worthy of a mention on their Wikipedia entry.
I still have my qualms about this, Mr. Chicken Man. The entire event has a bit of miscommunications attached to it, not to mention a very biased situation where people takes everything at its face value (both the protester and journalist alike). I am still against the inclusion of this section, as it teeters towards POV, and you, sir, with all due respect, aren't the ideal candidate on writing this. You were at the protest side, and you decisively took sides right there and then. Leave this to someone, and in the process of waiting, please register a username. Arbiteroftruth 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ==
You've said nothing constructive there whatsoever - I took time time to ensure the latest peice I wrote on the issue was a neutral as possible - what part of it do you object to? It's all backed up!! I think this issue has more of a place on Wikipedia than some other supposed controversy about the attractiveness of presenters. I'm happy to work on some wording that would please us both. This section is important and it stays unless you can give good, concrete, conclusive reasoning as to why it shouldn't.
I have shown the videos that you have presented earlier to my friends at the Journalism Department at my school. They have all taken Media Law classes, and all of them said that the reporters have the right to don the armours they had. Also, considering that WTO protests in the past were violent (Seattle 1999 and Genoa 2001), and that South Korean protesters are notorious throughout the world for their violent stance (regular industrial disputes in South Korea often flares into riots), the reporters have a fear, and they acted on it in the interest of their own safety. A picture speaks a thousand words, Mr. Chicken Man. If there were no riots at the time, people will see it, even if the reporter says otherwise.
Mr. Chicken Man, it is time to stop treating people like they are blind, but treat them as if they have eyes to see the things around them. Please, see the other side for once. What would you say if, by chance, the reporter you shoved during the earlier videos I saw did not don protective gears, and was injured by the Korean protesters who were rioting? Would you balk at the absense of safety procedures for journalists, or would you say "this is a fair organisation indeed?"
As an aspiring journalist, and a person who cares about the safety of those who are working in the fields, reporting news for us everyday, we must ensure that safety concerns does not become a poor excuse for media bias. Your efforts of trying to make TVB News look like Fox News Channel Asia does not do anyone justice. Arbiteroftruth 04:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] =
Acted in the interests of their own safety!? Safety procedures?! Have you not read ANY of the above? Have you actually WATCHED the video footage? The helmet was donned exclusively FOR the live segments - ONLY! as she was asked by the control to do. The crew wore NO protection! How is this still unclear?! Have I got to provide a transcript of numerous onlookers in the footage stating these things?
I have never "shoved a journalist" and I object to such absurd lies - show me this alleged video! I was passive to the physical tackling I received. And there were no "rioters" on the evening of the broadcast. Were you there? Do you even live in Hong Kong!?!
I'm making no comparisons to Fox News - TVB News are normally reputable, therefore this incident needs to be flagged up! And for the record, I too, am a recent graduate of New Media & Communications - hence I was so appauled by their integrity on the night.
Please come back to me when you've understood what actually happened, read the subtitled video and are willing to work on a neutral peice for the page. Otherwise, I suggest another Wikipedian reviews this case.
Mr. Chicken Man, you "pushed" a journalist in one of the videos, which was clearly proven when the reporter suddenly had a raise in her voice. Such a raise often signals distress or emergency.
Also, I totally understand what has happened, even though I do not live in Hong Kong. I have access to news feeds from TVB and ATV 24 hours a day, so geographical limitation is not even a factor in this. You should know better that in this day and age, people will know about things that happened in other parts of the world almost instantaneously. Don't even try to drag the Geography card into this mess.
I am open to the idea of having other Wikipedians to review this, since it is quite obvious now that our opinions on this matter will not change in the near future. I will accept any results that has been reached by consensus, and I hope you will do so as well.
Also, I suggest we let the other Wikipedians make the judgements for themselves without us trying to foist upon them our opinions on this matter.
Do you agree? Either take this deal or leave it. Arbiteroftruth 07:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] =
This slanderous claim that I pushed a journalist, I would like you to highlight exactly where you've seen this supposed evidence. Show me the video and the timecode. It didn't happen, as TVB light operator in the video confirms when challenged about my peaceful verbal protest by onlookers. I MYSELF was attacked, WHY would I highlight to the audience that "99% of protestors are peaceful" whilst being violent myself?!??!?!? I suggest you drop this aspect as it's absolutely absurd, and an apology wouldn't go a miss...
I agree an independant party needs to consider the merit of this inclusion.
Mr. Chicken Man, you know what you did there, so it is rather pointless for me to point out what you did. You can deny all you want, but I am not blind. Also, I don't want to waste my time in arguing with such an unbending personality over such minute matters. All I can say is that the people will form their own opinions, and they have a right to do so without the fear of someone yelling foul. Arbiteroftruth 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] =
Blind? Again, nothing contructive and no evidence, no timecode - you're in a fantasy world, I pushed no-one and doing so would make my entire demonstration hypocritical. You are simply trying to bring me into disrepute in order to disqualify me from this edit, so you can effectively censor the incident in TVB's favour. I can back up every fact - every sentence - of the WTO 'controversy' entry, plus, I ensured the wording was perfectly neutral and nothing ambiguous or controvertial was included. You have no evidence for this I 'pushed a journalist' nonsense -- Drop the unfounded, ridiculous, libelous claim, stop distorting reality and my actions, come back to reality and discuss the wording the entry, if - for whatever reason - it still upsets you.
Keep denying all you want. You still tackled the journalist in question. It is really disgraceful as to how you can lie so efficiently here.
