Following the interpellation by Deputy Ron Lam and the statement from the Macau Journalists Association, which raised concerns about restrictions on access to information and the potential threat to press freedom (see pages 4-5 of this edition), as a directly involved party, it is our responsibility to take a stance on this matter.
I cannot speak on behalf of the entire profession, as I do not have that right. Each newspaper or communication professional has the right to share their own experience, should they choose to do so. In recent years, individually and as a member of the Macau Portuguese and English Press Association (AIPIM), I have participated in meetings with the Government Information Bureau (GCS) and other public departments, consistently requesting a review of some of the criteria used in their relations with the media. These issues are not new: we face difficulties accessing information that should be public, responses to current issues are provided two weeks later, and often without actually addressing the specific questions asked. There is a lack of transparency in many public departments, both in their press releases and in their interactions with our journalists.
In response to the statement from the AJM and the questions sent by PLATAFORMA, the GCS told us that, in news coverage, they prioritize “television and radio, publications with greater frequency, and news agencies, which is an international common practice.” However, the “frequency” they refer to only applies to print publications, completely ignoring the online routines that PLATAFORMA – in three languages – and other outlets follow daily to bridge the gap between publications, but above all, to keep up with the increasing digitalization required by our readers. Regardless, all media outlets should be treated equally, with conditions created to handle both local and international demand. They also stated that “official press conferences are broadcast live, so the media can obtain information through this means.” However, when participation on-site is not allowed, it denies the opportunity to ask questions and access sources directly.
As for the electoral campaign of the now-elected Chief Executive, we must be honest and admit that it did not proceed as we expected, nor as we were accustomed to in previous elections. At no point were we allowed to speak, while repeatedly, a couple of local and state-run newspapers were given that right, which was not extended to us. In an attempt to overcome this obstacle, we sent a series of questions to the campaign office, along with a request for an interview with the candidate, which was rejected. I can also confirm that on numerous occasions, access to foreign press was denied or obstructed during campaign events. Macau must do better if it wishes to be a gateway to the world.
As for press freedom, it is important to note that pressure on newspapers is not exclusive to the MSAR. Newspapers worldwide face pressure regarding the stories they publish – whether from the public or private sectors. It is legitimate for authorities or other entities to disagree with the angle we take on certain topics and to express their dissatisfaction. It is equally legitimate for us not to yield to requests for editing or removal of content. In this regard, we must emphasize that PLATAFORMA has never faced consequences for refusing such requests.
We are available to collaborate with the authorities and other associations in the sector so that, together, we can reflect on the state of journalism in Macau.
Executive Director of PLATAFORMA
