LETTER TO SCMP:
I am a long-time print subscriber to both The Atlantic and the SCMP.
I agree with Chow Chung-yan that The Atlantic’s article on the Post was a travesty of bias. (In polarised city, news media neutrality is important, August 8)
It happens I did my own “survey” of the Post’s coverage of current affairs back in January. Over an arbitrary period of fifteen days, I divided its Op-Ed articles and Letters into three categories: (a) “Critical” as in anti-government anti Beijing (ie yellow); (b ”Pro” as in pro-government, pro-Beijing (ie blue); and (c) “Neutral” as in no particular leaning detected (ie green). The results are here.(Chart above).
As I said then:
I’ve been reading the South China Morning Post for forty-odd years. When, in 2015, it was bought by China-based Alibaba, I was worried -- as were many folks -- that it would become a mouthpiece of Beijing. I’ve kept an eagle eye on it, and I don’t think it has. It remains, in my view, the best English language paper in Asia. So, yes, it’s reliable.
I did a follow up in June. Results here. It remains pretty much the same.
 |
| Figures are numbers of articles. Similar to earlier |
Now, I readily acknowledge I have my own biases, as does every single person on the planet. I did try to judge as fairly as I could, as I was doing it purely for my own interest. And what’s important is the trend. In the case of the Post, the trend appears neutral, which is good. The same cannot be said for The Atlantic where the trend is increasingly “woke”. And for the woke what’s important is the “narrative”, in this case the narrative being that the Post is irredeemably pro Beijing. It ain’t so.
I’ve said to friends that the one thing that would make me consider leaving Hong Kong would be if the Post became just another mouthpiece for Beijing, as that would really be the end of press freedom here. I’m counting on you, Mr Chow — and all the staff at the Post — to allow me to remain in Hong Kong!
Peter Forsythe
Discovery Bay, Hong Kong
