The news
The firing of a Wall Street Journal reporter in Hong Kong has exposed a quiet, intense battle between journalists in Asia and their employers over how to handle the Chinese government’s pressure on independent media. It also raises questions about whether major media organizations are undermining groups that have long advocated for journalists in the region.
Former Wall Street Journalist Selina Cheng claimed she was fired from her job Wednesday after refusing to step down as chairwoman of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, a press advocacy group. But The Wall Street Journal is not the only major international publication trying to discourage its employees from taking leadership roles in the city’s top journalism organizations, the HKJA and the venerable Foreign Correspondents’ Club.
There are currently no international media reporters — and few local mainstream reporters — on the HKJA executive committee. A BBC reporter resigned immediately after being elected in June. He did not respond to Semafor’s request for comment.
More than half a dozen journalists from international publications including Bloomberg and CNN sit on the FCC board, but two former board members with direct knowledge of the election process told Semafor that CNN and Bloomberg had tried to dissuade their staff from running to avoid provoking Chinese government agencies. Working journalists have steered clear of the club’s presidency: current president Lee Williamson heads branded content at the South China Morning Post, and his predecessor Keith Richburg was head of the journalism program at the University of Hong Kong.
The situation is similar on the mainland: A Beijing-based Bloomberg reporter who withdrew his candidacy for the board of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China for 2022-2023 told Semafor he had been told not to comment on the situation. A Wall Street Journal editor who also withdrew from the race for a board seat declined to comment on whether the decision to step down was his or his employer’s, referring Semafor to the Journal’s press desk.
The news organizations did not immediately respond to Semafor’s request for comment.
Knowing more
Cheng’s resignation is the latest to shake Hong Kong’s once-vibrant press since the city’s National Security Law was passed, which criminalized much criticism of Beijing. Cheng said she was “deeply shocked” that the Journal appeared to shy away from press briefings in Hong Kong while championing press freedom in other countries such as Russia, where reporter Evan Gershkovich remains in jail.
Sheila Coronel, Cheng’s former professor at Columbia Journalism School, described the firing as the latest in a series of steps international news organizations have taken to appease Chinese authorities. “This is how press freedom dies — in compromises and concessions to autocratic power.”
Gina’s view
Managing reporters in countries where press freedom is limited is no easy task. Editors constantly balance the safety of their staff against the ability to continue working on the publication’s broader mission. Missteps can cost the organization access to officials or the loss of reporters’ visas — and in some cases, the deportation or imprisonment of their staff.
In that light, it is not surprising that major news organizations would rather not have their employees take on other responsibilities in the area of press freedom in addition to their daily work.
But firing a reporter for doing what his bosses regularly do when they serve on the boards of organizations like the Committee to Protect Journalists or the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is a rare move for a publication.
Moreover, as Coronel notes, every adjustment an organization makes ultimately contributes to an environment in which press freedom shrinks for everyone. The value of collective action that press advocacy organizations represent does not work if only a few are willing to work together.
Whatever the reasons, the declining representation of major international publications on the boards of press freedom organizations is a victory for China in its efforts to restrict the free flow of information in Hong Kong and the mainland.
