The first report on restrictions to information access appears in *All About Macau*, indicating new forms of control over the official message. Shortly after, Deputy Ron Lam questions the government about the “violation” of the “Press Law” and the “Basic Law”; last week, the Macau Journalists Association (AJM), in a statement, expressed its “concern” about restrictions on access to public events – and sources – denouncing “political pressures” to prevent certain texts from being published; the president of the Macau Portuguese and English Press Association (AIPIM), in statements to our newspaper, suggested a meeting with Sam Hou Fai to “reflect on the relationship with journalists.” Media and power enter an unmistakable phase of tension; and the executive director of *PLATAFORMA* takes a stand (editorial on page 3).
The AJM, “deeply concerned” about cases signaling the “serious deterioration of press freedom,” lists a series of government activities to which some media outlets have been denied access, with access restricted to “a selected group.” This practice “clearly goes against the freedom of access to sources of information, enshrined in the Press Law.” Furthermore, the AJM continues, “we have observed increasing restrictions when reporters attempt to interview officials at events”; there is also “a new emerging norm: responses without answers, and those that are very delayed.” These practices, the association says, “have reduced journalists to tools of propaganda and have not contributed to adequate communication between the government and the public in Macau.”
“Common International Practice”
In response to the questions we sent, using the same terms sent to other newsrooms – another common practice – the Government Information Bureau (GCS) assures that it “has always safeguarded press freedom, in accordance with the law, protecting the right to information.” However, it admits that, “with the growing demand for news coverage, the organizing entities, depending on the actual situation, will give priority to television, radio, publications with higher frequency, and news agencies.” This strategy is defended as a “common international practice.” The GCS further argues that “a large number of official press conferences are broadcast live, so media outlets can obtain information through this means.” However, as pointed out by Guilherme Rego in his editorial, without access to sources or the ability to ask questions, this approach is limited.
We attempted to question the future Chief Executive by contacting his campaign spokesperson, Lei Wun Kong, and the office of Ip Sio Kai, a prominent member of his candidacy. However, by the time of this publication, there was no response.
“The Press Law is very explicit: journalists have the right to access sources,” says José Miguel Encarnação, president of AIPIM, in an interview with *PLATAFORMA*. “In press conferences, the journalist has access to the interlocutors and, eye to eye, can ask about matters they consider pertinent.” If this does not happen, “the journalist’s activity loses that essential interaction.” And if there are more media outlets, “it is up to the organizations to arrange logistical conditions, human resources, and infrastructure to accommodate a larger number of journalists,” he concludes. More sharply, the AJM rejects the argument of limited seating, especially as “it has been applied to events held at the Macau Cultural Centre – with more than a thousand seats – or at a recent press conference held by the Executive Council, in a room with 50 seats, only a dozen of which were occupied by journalists.”
In this context, the AJM urges the newly elected Chief Executive to “strengthen communication with the press and respect the press freedom legally established. This would be an important showcase for Macau to prove to the world its success in implementing ‘One Country, Two Systems.’” The statement, rare in tone for Chinese media culture, was given wide coverage in Ou Mun – also rare. The AJM even denounces censoring pressures: “We have observed growing instances where local media were asked to remove articles due to political pressure, including an opinion piece published during the electoral campaign of the new Chief Executive.”
Miguel Encarnação, reluctant to comment directly on the statement from a peer association – “it wouldn’t be appropriate” – addresses the issue in abstract terms: “If the leadership makes a decision to publish – or not – an article, that is merely functional. What matters more is when the journalist is forced to narrow the news spectrum because they don’t feel comfortable publishing whatever they want.”
Suggesting it may be a good time for “an expanded debate on what journalism is; who is qualified to practice journalism; and how journalists, public bodies, and semi-public entities can create mechanisms for a fruitful relationship,” Encarnação reminds us that, “more than facilitating the journalist’s job, it’s about the interlocutor: if there is a situation and the person involved doesn’t even respond, they are not being defended.” Regarding the relationship between public entities and journalists, “it would be good if Macau’s public entities, and those representing Mainland China, sat at the same table and defined their themes and tasks. We end up not being able to define who can listen to us, since the different departments of communication, information, publicity, and marketing of state, local, and Mainland China entities all speak with journalists, and we end up not knowing whether they have separate or coordinated intentions. Often, we have to go to the GCS for accreditations; other times, they are handled directly with institutes or foundations; in some cases, journalists have to send them to the Palace, and the GCS steps in at a later stage. We never really know what the accreditation and credentialing process is; the recognition of the activity. It’s a bit complicated to work like this.”
