Connect with us

Media

How to Manage Social Media in a Global Crisis – Search Engine Journal

Published

on


We could keep using the word “unprecedented” when referring to the global public health crisis in which we find ourselves.

But ultimately, whether or not a crisis of this magnitude could have been seen coming ‘round the bend or whether it’s been seen before has little to no bearing on this fact:

You will manage social media through a crisis of some kind.

Obviously, we’re smack in the middle of “a crisis of some kind,” but the point is that, even if this is the first crisis in which you’ve had to manage social media, it certainly will not be the last.

Being in “crisis mode” means that you and your marketing team may have to rethink your entire game plan in order to avoid being seen as mum, tone-deaf, or worse, like you are exploiting a crisis for your brand.

While we don’t necessarily know how long this particular crisis will be ongoing, there are a few general rules to adhere to when your city, state, nation, or the whole world, is confronted with the next one.

It’s best to have a plan of action in place right away so that you and your team can keep your brand moving forward, even in the midst of tragedy or uncertainty.

1. Take a Deep Breath… Then Start Your Damage Control

Words like “tragedy” and “crisis” don’t exactly inspire feelings of happiness or even comfort.

So the most important thing you can do for yourself and for your brand is to first take a deep breath.

When devastating news strikes, or when the immediate future feels a bit more uncertain, remember that you and your team are all humans before brand employees.

Take a moment to breathe and acknowledge your feelings; allowing yourself a brief moment to react will be better for your long-term actions.

The other advantage of starting with a deep breath is this: Mistakes are made in panic. (Ask me how I know!)

If you aren’t acknowledging your human side, it is all that much more difficult to anticipate the responses from the humans in your audience.

When we move straight from “breaking news” to “panicked damage control,” we also risk breaking everything else around us in the panic.

Don’t be the person that posts a rapid-fire social media response to news that isn’t accurate, or one that amplifies panic or seizes “opportunity.”

Breathe first, then act.

Once you’ve taken your deep breath, look at the situation from 10,000 feet.

Resist an immediate response that hasn’t been vetted by your leadership team.

If you are the leadership team, make sure someone else reviews and provides feedback on your response before you post anything at all.

Staying briefly silent so that you can become clear on an appropriate response will always be better than a hasty post for the sake of posting, particularly if it could be seen as misinformation or exploiting a tragedy.

While you’re getting clarity on an official response, do a thorough review of every organic or paid post you have currently running or scheduled to run in the next 48 hours.

Did a post or an ad just launch?

Delete or pause it until you have a better handle of the situation.

Ads should likely be put on hold for at least 24 hours to avoid becoming the tone-deaf hashtag getting dragged on Twitter for advertising during a crisis.

Move your scheduled posts to drafts for the next 48 hours while you collect more information and determine the best course of action.

Why only 48 hours?

Because each crisis is completely different.

We currently find ourselves in a global pandemic with several states (and countries) in complete lockdown, but stopping everything for the next quarter doesn’t do anyone any good while you’re in an information-gathering stage.

Not every crisis will be months-long; many situations may only last a day, two days, a week.

Do immediate damage control by shutting things down for 48 hours so that you can spend that time evaluating the situation: how long your brand may need to respond, and take your strategy from there.

You may not be good to run as normal after 48 hours, but this will at least buy you time to figure it out.

2. Ask Yourself (& Your Brand) a Few Questions

Now that your ads and posts are paused for the next two full days, it’s time to carve out an appropriate response.

It’s best to have a framework before the crisis about:

  • Who your brand is.
  • What your audience needs.
  • How to go about crafting a fitting answer to the situation at hand.

Always ask yourself these questions:

Does Our Voice Even Matter Right Now?

Because we are planning for unforeseen events, this is a question you will need to answer for your brand as a potential crisis arises.

Ask yourself:

  • Do people really need to hear from us?
  • Is anyone truly asking themselves how, say, an eco-friendly kitchen utensil manufacturer, is responding to this situation?

If you find yourself unable to make a compelling case that your audience absolutely must hear from you or is eagerly awaiting your official response to current events, it may be best to say nothing at all, especially in the first 12 to 24 hours after the news has broken.

There will be a lot of voices in the conversation:

  • Is your brand’s voice going to be truly helpful or just a distraction?
  • Could your voice, at this moment, be seen as an attempt to put yourself at the center of a tragedy that doesn’t involve you?

If you don’t believe your brand’s voice truly fits, but you must say something or are receiving pressure from your leadership to do so, wait a full day before offering up sympathies, condolences, or thoughts in the wake of the crisis.

Keep it brief and, whatever you do, make sure you don’t make it about you.

How Can Our Brand Help?

It’s possible that your brand really is one from which audiences are awaiting a response.

In this case, you’ll first want to wait on an official response from your leadership team.

Do not attempt, as enticing as it may be, to respond to people individually until you have that official response in hand.

Social media gaffes are often blamed on “bad interns” and one way to avoid being pictured that way is to make sure that, in the wake of tragedy, your next moves are approved by the people in charge.

Your brand may also fall somewhere in the middle: It’s not at the center of the crisis, but also, it’s not totally on the outskirts, either.

  • Is it possible to donate time, volunteers, products, or money?
  • Could you fundraise from your audience to help victims, families, or frontline workers?

Be wary of “fundraisers” or “donations” that require purchases from your company, unless all proceeds or profits are being donated from those purchases.

People are wise to strategies that look like a company wants to profit in order to do the right thing.

3. Check Your Tone

It’s not just what you say and when you say it when it comes to using social media in the middle of a crisis event: it’s how you say it as well.

Crises are not great times for jokes, memes, or GIFs, especially within that initial window immediately following the crisis.

Even if using humor is your personal coping mechanism, or if undying positivity is how you approach the world, be careful of projecting it onto your brand strategy.

Perhaps the crisis event looks a lot more like a mid- to long-term pandemic, or perhaps your geographic location or demographic is disproportionately impacted by the crisis for longer than the rest of the world.

In this case, you may want to use your social media platform for educational messaging through comprehensively vetted publications, or provide information on support or resources.

You can also use this platform in the longer-term to lift your audience’s mood.

Global and even domestic crises can have a serious traumatic effect on people, whether that looks like anxiety, grief, or just the general uneasiness that accompanies greater uncertainty.

It’s OK to use your platform to share positive messaging, too.

4. Whatever You Do, Don’t Make It Worse & Don’t Get in the Way

A crisis of any kind is in motion in the news cycle, it’s critical to remember that, as things are unfolding, information is changing.

Constantly.

Do not be the brand that stokes fear by sharing information that has not been properly fact-checked.

Do not feed into panic by posting articles that could contain false or outdated information, or fear-mongering.

Bad information is much worse than no information at all.

Additionally, do not use a crisis hashtag if you are not providing critical resources, support, or information for people impacted.

Just because people are going to be, for instance, staying at home in quarantine, it does not mean that your spa facial brand should use a #COVID19 hashtag.

Save the crisis hashtags for brands, publications, and government agencies or front-line workers to communicate critical information in a time of need.

Do not use a tragedy hashtag to express condolences or support.

Not only does it drown out information and resources that are actually important, it also looks like your brand is making a messaging play in a time of tragedy.

A crisis event is not a marketing opportunity, period.

5. Know When It’s Time to Go Back to Business as Usual

Even in a global crisis that is ongoing, similar to this pandemic, at some point, you will need to return to business as usual.

That doesn’t mean capitalizing on a tragedy or turning a crisis into a profit opportunity, but it does mean that audiences will grow weary of the news. They just want some semblance of normalcy back in their lives.

Your brand can go back to its normal routine, but delicately.

You may need to reevaluate your approach, your creative, your copy, to make sure that there isn’t anything tone-deaf or inappropriate in light of the crisis.

Be vigilant about the news and be ready to pivot quickly if there are new developments in an ongoing crisis, but know that you’re not stuck in an eternal limbo with your strategy.

Not every crisis will look like this one:

  • There will be events with more immediate needs.
  • Events that apply to your brand in a greater or less significant way.
  • Events that require your silence or your official responses or your help.

No matter what the crisis looks like, you can have the basics of a plan put together to help avoid becoming an ironic hashtag in the middle of an emergency.

Approach your audience with human-centric responses and content.

They may not necessarily remember how their favorite dog bed company handled the crisis if you handle it well, but remember: it wasn’t about you, anyway.

More Resources:


Image Credits

Featured Image: Canva

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Media

Hong Kong's free media fears being silenced by China's national security law – Financial Post

Published

on


HONG KONG — When a team of producers at Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) heard on May 19 that the publicly funded broadcaster planned to axe one of its most popular weekly shows, they rushed to the building next door to confront the station’s head.

A group of about 20 producers and other employees from RTHK’s TV and radio operations barged into a conference room where Leung Ka-wing, director of broadcasting, was meeting with top executives.

Some staff demanded to know why the satirical and current affairs television show “Headliner” – which had drawn official complaints after poking fun at the Hong Kong police in an episode in February – was being canceled, and whether the move was prompted by pressure from authorities.

The impromptu meeting lasted about 90 minutes, during which several staffers cried and raised their voices, according to three people present. Leung said he took the decision to cancel the show in order to “protect RTHK” and its staff, according to the three people.

As conversations continued inside the conference room, RTHK announced it was suspending production of the Chinese-language show, which had been running since 1989, at the end of the current season. RTHK apologized to anyone offended by the station’s output but did not give a reason for the suspension.

Leung, 67, who made his name in broadcasting during the Tiananmen Square crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing in 1989, declined to answer Reuters’ questions about the meeting. He denied making the comment about protecting RTHK, according to RTHK spokeswoman Amen Ng. Other executives in the meeting that Reuters could identify did not reply to requests for comment.

Hong Kong’s government did not comment on whether it had pressured Leung to cancel the show.

RTHK, founded in 1928 and sometimes compared to the British Broadcasting Corporation, is the only independent, publicly funded media outlet on Chinese soil. It is guaranteed editorial independence by its charter.

The cancellation of “Headliner” has prompted fear among some journalists that mounting pressure from the Hong Kong government and Beijing will destroy that independence.

Hong Kong reached boiling point last summer as millions of pro-democracy protesters took to the streets and some of them clashed violently with police, posing one of the biggest challenges to China’s leader Xi Jinping since he came to power in 2012.

In response to the protests, China said last month it would introduce national security legislation in Hong Kong to prohibit secession, subversion and external interference. More than a dozen people working at RTHK and other media organizations told Reuters they fear that legislation could be used to silence or shut down independent media in the territory.

The situation is like being under the blade of a guillotine, said Jimmy Lai, the publisher of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper, which like RTHK, has for years drawn the ire of Hong Kong’s government and Beijing: “There’s no half-way. It’s falling.”

Lai, 72, has been repeatedly denounced by state-run Beijing media and pro-China media in Hong Kong, painting him as the local face of what they describe as a U.S. interference campaign. He has been arrested twice this year on charges of illegal assembly related to protests last year.

Lai and some other members of the media fear the new legislation – which has not yet been set out in detail – will make Hong Kong more like mainland China, where the ruling Communist Party runs or controls the vast majority of media and routinely censors dissenting views. The country imprisoned at least 48 journalists last year, more than any other country, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Hong Kong’s leader Carrie Lam has denied the new legislation would curtail media freedom, saying last month that “freedom of expression, freedom of protest, freedom of journalism, will stay.” Hong Kong is guaranteed freedom of speech and the press under Article 27 of the Basic Law, the mini-constitution agreed by China when it took back control of former British colony in 1997.

A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told Reuters the proposed legislation “only targets activities related to subversion, separatism, terrorism and foreign interference into Hong Kong affairs,” and that it will “not affect freedom of speech, media freedoms, or any other rights and freedoms.”

China’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong, Beijing’s official base in the city, did not reply to requests for comment on whether China sought to control or suppress RTHK or if the new national security legislation would curtail media freedom in Hong Kong.

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

Scrutiny of RTHK has increased dramatically since late February, when a two-minute segment on “Headliner” entitled ‘Police Farce Report’ showed an actor dressed as a Hong Kong police officer standing inside a large rubbish container with his hands covered in plastic.

The skit shows police in various situations wearing biohazard suits and masks, satirizing how well equipped police officers are compared to medical workers. The actor, Kwong Ngai-yee, told Reuters the idea was based on the “Sesame Street” puppet Oscar the Grouch and that he hoped to “ease public anger through humor.”

Hong Kong police were not amused. The force’s commissioner Chris Tang complained to Leung in writing in early March, saying the show “smeared the police and their work during the coronavirus period.” RTHK had “reversed right and wrong, and we simply can’t accept it,” Tang wrote in the letter, which was made public by RTHK.

On the morning of May 19, Hong Kong’s Communications Authority, which regulates the city’s broadcast and telecoms sectors, published a report criticizing the broadcaster, saying the segment “smeared the police by suggesting that the police were trash, worthless and revulsive.”

As the RTHK employees met with Leung that evening, Hong Kong’s Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, which oversees RTHK, released a statement on its website demanding that the broadcaster examine its production and editorial processes and “follow up or take disciplinary actions” on any staff found to have committed “negligence or errors.”

Nine days later, the Commerce Bureau announced an unprecedented, government-led review of RTHK’s governance and management – spanning its administration, financial control and manpower – to ensure it complies with its charter. The review is expected to be concluded by the end of the year.

A spokesman for the Commerce Bureau told Reuters in an email that RTHK has editorial independence, but as a government department, RTHK and its staff “are subject to all applicable government rules and regulations.”

“Ultimately RTHK is part of the government, and in theory it could do anything to us,” said Gladys Chiu, the chairperson of RTHK’s program staff union, which represents about 400 of the station’s 700 staff. The new legislation and increased scrutiny of RTHK could be used “to coerce the staff into broadcasting or reporting in a way that is approved by the government,” she said.

RTHK also faces pressures at street level. Small groups of pro-Beijing protesters regularly gather outside its headquarters in Kowloon, waving Chinese flags and signs accusing the broadcaster of anti-government bias.

“Shut it down,” the crowds chanted continuously during one protest in January, according to video news coverage, while calling RTHK a “cockroach” station, a description some police have used to describe pro-democracy protesters.

Some RTHK staff have been threatened in social media posts and targeted in the pro-Beijing media in Hong Kong for perceived anti-government bias. Some pro-Beijing lawmakers also routinely attack RTHK. One outspoken critic, Junius Ho, last month demanded the broadcaster become a “government mouthpiece.”

“It’s very worrying because we see RTHK being reined in by every means,” said Shirley Yam, vice chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association.

RISING TENSION

China and the United States have been engaged in a tit-for-tat spat over the presence of the other’s journalists for several months.

The United States slashed the number of journalists permitted to work at Chinese state-owned media outlets in the country to 100 from 160, citing a deepening crackdown on independent reporting inside China. In March, Beijing revoked the media credentials of about a dozen American reporters working in mainland China for the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and New York Times, saying the reporters would not be allowed to relocate and work in Hong Kong.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement on the State Department’s website last month that the Chinese government “has threatened to interfere with the work of American journalists in Hong Kong,” without giving details.

A source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters that if the row with the United States escalates further, Beijing could intervene in the issuance of work visas for foreign journalists in Hong Kong.

The spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: “Visa issues are a matter of national sovereignty. The Chinese government manages affairs related to foreign media and foreign journalists according to laws and regulations.”

Intervening in the issuance of journalists’ visas would be a highly contentious move for Hong Kong, which although part of China, operates with a high degree of autonomy. In 2018, the visa of the Financial Times’ Asia editor, Victor Mallet, was not renewed by Hong Kong after he moderated a speech by a pro-independence activist at an event hosted by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club (FCC) in the city. The move alarmed some diplomats and business groups in Hong Kong.

The event angered China, and a senior official said at the time that the FCC had broken the law by hosting a “separatist.” Hong Kong authorities never publicly explained why Mallet’s visa had not been renewed, saying they could not comment on individual cases.

Hong Kong’s global media freedom ranking is in free-fall. Reporters without Borders (RSF) said Hong Kong fell to 80th place in 2020 in its global press freedom index, down from 18th in 2002. Over the past year, reporters covering protests in the city have been detained, pepper-sprayed and shot with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters by police.

“A security law dictated by China would give a massive blow to press freedom in Hong Kong,” said Cédric Alviani, the head of RSF’s East Asia bureau. “(It would) allow the regime to engage in the type of intimidation that we see on their side of the border.” (Reporting by James Pomfret and Greg Torode in Hong Kong Additional reporting by Beijing newsroom Editing by Bill Rigby)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Hong Kong's free media fears being silenced by China's national security law – The Globe and Mail

Published

on


Media mogul Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, founder of Apple Daily, speaks during an interview responding to national security legislation in Hong Kong on May 29, 2020.

TYRONE SIU/Reuters

When a team of producers at Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) heard on May 19 that the publicly funded broadcaster planned to axe one of its most popular weekly shows, they rushed to the building next door to confront the station’s head.

A group of about 20 producers and other employees from RTHK’s TV and radio operations barged into a conference room where Leung Ka-wing, director of broadcasting, was meeting with top executives.

Some staff demanded to know why the satirical and current affairs television show “Headliner” – which had drawn official complaints after poking fun at the Hong Kong police in an episode in February – was being cancelled, and whether the move was prompted by pressure from authorities.

Story continues below advertisement

The impromptu meeting lasted about 90 minutes, during which several staffers cried and raised their voices, according to three people present. Leung said he took the decision to cancel the show in order to “protect RTHK” and its staff, according to the three people.

As conversations continued inside the conference room, RTHK announced it was suspending production of the Chinese-language show, which had been running since 1989, at the end of the current season. RTHK apologized to anyone offended by the station’s output but did not give a reason for the suspension.

Leung, 67, who made his name in broadcasting during the Tiananmen Square crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing in 1989, declined to answer Reuters’ questions about the meeting. He denied making the comment about protecting RTHK, according to RTHK spokeswoman Amen Ng. Other executives in the meeting that Reuters could identify did not reply to requests for comment.

Hong Kong’s government did not comment on whether it had pressured Leung to cancel the show.

RTHK, founded in 1928 and sometimes compared to the British Broadcasting Corporation, is the only independent, publicly funded media outlet on Chinese soil. It is guaranteed editorial independence by its charter.

The cancellation of “Headliner” has prompted fear among some journalists that mounting pressure from the Hong Kong government and Beijing will destroy that independence.

Hong Kong reached boiling point last summer as millions of pro-democracy protesters took to the streets and some of them clashed violently with police, posing one of the biggest challenges to China’s leader Xi Jinping since he came to power in 2012.

Story continues below advertisement

In response to the protests, China said last month it would introduce national security legislation in Hong Kong to prohibit secession, subversion and external interference. More than a dozen people working at RTHK and other media organizations told Reuters they fear that legislation could be used to silence or shut down independent media in the territory.

The situation is like being under the blade of a guillotine, said Jimmy Lai, the publisher of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper, which like RTHK, has for years drawn the ire of Hong Kong’s government and Beijing: “There’s no halfway. It’s falling.”

Lai, 72, has been repeatedly denounced by state-run Beijing media and pro-China media in Hong Kong, painting him as the local face of what they describe as a U.S. interference campaign. He has been arrested twice this year on charges of illegal assembly related to protests last year.

Lai and some other members of the media fear the new legislation – which has not yet been set out in detail – will make Hong Kong more like mainland China, where the ruling Communist Party runs or controls the vast majority of media and routinely censors dissenting views. The country imprisoned at least 48 journalists last year, more than any other country, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Hong Kong’s leader Carrie Lam has denied the new legislation would curtail media freedom, saying last month that “freedom of expression, freedom of protest, freedom of journalism, will stay.” Hong Kong is guaranteed freedom of speech and the press under Article 27 of the Basic Law, the miniconstitution agreed by China when it took back control of former British colony in 1997.

A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs told Reuters the proposed legislation “only targets activities related to subversion, separatism, terrorism and foreign interference into Hong Kong affairs,” and that it will “not affect freedom of speech, media freedoms, or any other rights and freedoms.”

Story continues below advertisement

China’s Liaison Office in Hong Kong, Beijing’s official base in the city, did not reply to requests for comment on whether China sought to control or suppress RTHK or if the new national security legislation would curtail media freedom in Hong Kong.

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

Scrutiny of RTHK has increased dramatically since late February, when a two-minute segment on “Headliner” entitled ‘Police Farce Report’ showed an actor dressed as a Hong Kong police officer standing inside a large rubbish container with his hands covered in plastic.

The skit shows police in various situations wearing biohazard suits and masks, satirizing how well equipped police officers are compared to medical workers. The actor, Kwong Ngai-yee, told Reuters the idea was based on the “Sesame Street” puppet Oscar the Grouch and that he hoped to “ease public anger through humour.”

Hong Kong police were not amused. The force’s commissioner Chris Tang complained to Leung in writing in early March, saying the show “smeared the police and their work during the coronavirus period.” RTHK had “reversed right and wrong, and we simply can’t accept it,” Tang wrote in the letter, which was made public by RTHK.

On the morning of May 19, Hong Kong’s Communications Authority, which regulates the city’s broadcast and telecoms sectors, published a report criticizing the broadcaster, saying the segment “smeared the police by suggesting that the police were trash, worthless and revulsive.”

As the RTHK employees met with Leung that evening, Hong Kong’s Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, which oversees RTHK, released a statement on its website demanding that the broadcaster examine its production and editorial processes and “follow up or take disciplinary actions” on any staff found to have committed “negligence or errors.”

Story continues below advertisement

Nine days later, the Commerce Bureau announced an unprecedented, government-led review of RTHK’s governance and management – spanning its administration, financial control and manpower – to ensure it complies with its charter. The review is expected to be concluded by the end of the year.

A spokesman for the Commerce Bureau told Reuters in an e-mail that RTHK has editorial independence, but as a government department, RTHK and its staff “are subject to all applicable government rules and regulations.”

“Ultimately RTHK is part of the government, and in theory it could do anything to us,” said Gladys Chiu, the chairperson of RTHK’s program staff union, which represents about 400 of the station’s 700 staff. The new legislation and increased scrutiny of RTHK could be used “to coerce the staff into broadcasting or reporting in a way that is approved by the government,” she said.

RTHK also faces pressures at street level. Small groups of pro-Beijing protesters regularly gather outside its headquarters in Kowloon, waving Chinese flags and signs accusing the broadcaster of anti-government bias.

“Shut it down,” the crowds chanted continuously during one protest in January, according to video news coverage, while calling RTHK a “cockroach” station, a description some police have used to describe pro-democracy protesters.

Some RTHK staff have been threatened in social media posts and targeted in the pro-Beijing media in Hong Kong for perceived anti-government bias. Some pro-Beijing lawmakers also routinely attack RTHK. One outspoken critic, Junius Ho, last month demanded the broadcaster become a “government mouthpiece.”

Story continues below advertisement

“It’s very worrying because we see RTHK being reined in by every means,” said Shirley Yam, vice chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association.

RISING TENSION

China and the United States have been engaged in a tit-for-tat spat over the presence of the other’s journalists for several months.

The United States slashed the number of journalists permitted to work at Chinese state-owned media outlets in the country to 100 from 160, citing a deepening crackdown on independent reporting inside China. In March, Beijing revoked the media credentials of about a dozen American reporters working in mainland China for the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and New York Times, saying the reporters would not be allowed to relocate and work in Hong Kong.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement on the State Department’s website last month that the Chinese government “has threatened to interfere with the work of American journalists in Hong Kong,” without giving details.

A source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters that if the row with the United States escalates further, Beijing could intervene in the issuance of work visas for foreign journalists in Hong Kong.

The spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said: “Visa issues are a matter of national sovereignty. The Chinese government manages affairs related to foreign media and foreign journalists according to laws and regulations.”

Story continues below advertisement

Intervening in the issuance of journalists’ visas would be a highly contentious move for Hong Kong, which although part of China, operates with a high degree of autonomy. In 2018, the visa of the Financial Times’ Asia editor, Victor Mallet, was not renewed by Hong Kong after he moderated a speech by a pro-independence activist at an event hosted by the Foreign Correspondents Club (FCC) in the city. The move alarmed some diplomats and business groups in Hong Kong.

The event angered China, and a senior official said at the time that the FCC had broken the law by hosting a “separatist.” Hong Kong authorities never publicly explained why Mallet’s visa had not been renewed, saying they could not comment on individual cases.

Hong Kong’s global media freedom ranking is in free-fall. Reporters without Borders (RSF) said Hong Kong fell to 80th place in 2020 in its global press freedom index, down from 18th in 2002. Over the past year, reporters covering protests in the city have been detained, pepper-sprayed and shot with rubber bullets and tear gas canisters by police.

“A security law dictated by China would give a massive blow to press freedom in Hong Kong,” said Cédric Alviani, the head of RSF’s East Asia bureau. “(It would) allow the regime to engage in the type of intimidation that we see on their side of the border.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Changes being made to Saskatchewan print media as focus shifts online – Global News

Published

on


Both the Leader-Post and The Star Phoenix will not be printing a Monday copy of the paper starting on June 22nd.

The media outlets will move to a digital-only edition and will produce the printed edition Tuesday through Sunday.


READ MORE:
‘We’re back’: new Saskatoon community paper hits newsstands next week

Mark Taylor, the head of the school of journalism department at the University of Regina says, this change is not a surprising one.

“I think it’s part of a gradual shift that we are seeing lots of other newspapers doing and if this works and goes over without too many problems, it might be Tuesday, Wednesday, until eventually the paper is completely online,” Taylor said.

Readers will have access to the online version, which is the exact same version as the printed one.

Story continues below advertisement

Taylor added that the papers might see some push back from the older demographic of readers who are not online.


READ MORE:
LISTEN: The future of print media and journalism in the digital age

“I feel for the people like my parents and I think a lot of older readers who get the hard copy,” Taylor said.

“They always have and they might not be real web-savvy and they don’t want to get their news online.”

There will be no change in the subscription price.






1:56
Lacombe Globe set to print newspaper’s final edition


Lacombe Globe set to print newspaper’s final edition

© 2020 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending