I’m unsure whether lawyer Jorge Meneses discovered the BBC or vice versa. I also don’t know if they consulted any Portuguese journalists before declaring the “end of the golden era of journalism” in Macau. They certainly didn’t speak with us, nor do I know of any colleagues they approached. I was astonished to read on the Chinese-language site of the British state broadcaster a scathing critique of Macau’s media, constructing a narrative that everything is under control. In the absence of figures like Jimmy Lai—political dissidents—the article portrays *All About Macau* as a lone beacon in a desert. Firstly, this isn’t true; secondly, independence isn’t about portraying a desired unreality—it’s about addressing reality as it is. That’s politics. Legitimate? Certainly! Just as aligned information is. At *PLATAFORMA*, we practice the journalism we choose; we don’t yield to any side.
The BBC piece portrays Macau journalists as dragonflies enamored with subsidies. It’s as absurd as suggesting the BBC criticizes Macau because it can’t do so in Hong Kong. Are there new constraints? Yes. Is Chinese press different? Indeed; that has always been its editorial culture. Guangdong differs from the rest of China; Macau even more so… But it’s not Hong Kong, much less the West. There’s no end to anything; just new versions of what always was. Part of my understanding of freedom is accepting things as they are. Would the Government prefer us all to be the same? Of course! Just as others would like us all to be dissidents.
I’d like to know if the BBC and its sources read our articles—including opinion pieces—and could point out the alleged demise of journalism. Yes, we receive a paper printing subsidy—marginal in our accounts—and we should have one for online expansion, which we don’t. Our main support is institutional advertising; that is crucial. In fact, this policy was initiated by the Portuguese colonial administration, which allowed the proliferation of the press; and the Macau SAR maintains it. Although it’s dangerously reducing the share of institutional campaigns, if the decision were to kill linguistic and editorial diversity, it would have been buried long ago—the market doesn’t sustain it. That’s the elephant in the room that those accusing us of subsidy dependence wish to ignore. Perhaps they’d prefer we shut down. So far, the authorities don’t want that. It’s necessary to acknowledge this reality. If it changes, we’ll be here to respond.
I specifically mention Meneses because he knows me well, as he does many other journalists; and because he is, everywhere, mourning our demise. He should clarify in which garage my Porsche is hidden; if he believes I sell out for a bowl of lentils; or if his narrative can’t accommodate the journalism many of us practice. If we had a fraction of what the British state pays the BBC, things would be easier. We don’t; but under our circumstances, we do journalism. Is that hard to believe? Only for those who don’t read—and don’t want to see. Everyone has the right to an opinion; with us, anyone can speak, give interviews, be contradicted, as the rules dictate; and, by the way, explain this mission that attacks journalism with distorted facts like the heroism of *All About Macau*, which supposedly doesn’t request subsidies; when in reality, it’s denied them due to legal criteria. Incidentally, they forget that the last Portuguese government did indeed give to some and not to others; attempting to end diversity in a plan that would close all newspapers except one, under Lusa. Those who resisted that can withstand a lot.
Are there pressures? Of course! There always have been; here, and everywhere. I’ve dealt with them all my life; in old Macau, after the transition, and today; in Portugal, and in worse places. When there’s no pressure, there’s no journalism; meaning, no one needs to apply pressure. Independence lies in managing pressure; not in its absence. Is there today a less transparent political culture, increasingly uncommunicative? Yes; and fewer people speaking (see pages 8 and 9). But those who fight against this, who denounce, who pressure the authorities in defense of freedom of expression and access to information are the journalists of Macau; not Jorge, nor the BBC. If they had subsidies and still did this, like us; I’d tip my hat to them. As it stands, forget it… the cap doesn’t fit us.
I owe readers a declaration of interest for specifically mentioning Meneses: I like Jorge, I know him from other occasions… and I respect his intelligence. What I don’t respect is this blunder; and this agenda that, instead of defending the journalism that exists, constructs the narrative that it no longer does. There are no fools here; there are journalists: 25 years after the announcement of our death, clearly premature.
*General Director of PLATAFORMA.
