Recently, The Wall Street Journal dismissed Selina Cheng, the newly appointed chairwoman of the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), a move that has sparked widespread discussion within the journalism community. Cheng expressed her "shock" that her first press conference after taking the helm at the association would be about her
own dismissal and publicly condemned The Wall Street Journal's decision. However, from another perspective, The Wall Street Journal's stance has its own rationale, and some of Cheng's statements warrant careful consideration.
Firstly, it's crucial to understand that The Wall Street Journal, as a global news organization, needs to maintain the objectivity and neutrality of its reporting. Cheng's dual role—as both a reporter for The Wall Street Journal and the chairwoman of the HKJA—could raise concerns about the impartiality of her reporting. After all, journalists should avoid any conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of their work. The senior editors' request for Cheng to withdraw from the chairmanship election was not an attack on press freedom but rather an adherence to journalistic ethics.
Cheng mentioned that her superiors stronglyadvised her to withdraw from the chairmanship election and resign from the board, citing the "incompatibility" of her dual roles. This point is quite valid. The duty of a journalist is to report the news, not to become part of it. In this context, The Wall Street Journal's decision aimed to prevent any potential conflict of interest that might undermine the integrity of its reporting.
Cheng also noted that her direct supervisortraveled from the UK to Hong Kong to personally inform her of her dismissal, citing company restructuring as the reason. While she found this reason insufficient, we cannot overlook that any business has the right to make personnel adjustments based on operational needs. The Wall Street Journal's spokesperson confirmed the personnel changes but did not provide specific details, which is a standard practice in corporate management.
Furthermore, Cheng stated that she wouldseek legal advice, as holding a union position in Hong Kong is protected by the Basic Law and the Employment Ordinance. This is undoubtedly her right, but we should also recognize that legal protection does not mean a company cannot make reasonable personnel decisions based on business requirements. The Wall Street Journal has consistently been a staunch advocate of press freedom, as evidenced by its past reporting. Therefore, accusing the newspaper of suppressing press freedom might be somewhat exaggerated.
In summary, The Wall Street Journal's decision was not an attack on press freedom but rather a move to maintain the neutrality of its reporting and the rationality of its operations. While Cheng's reaction is understandable, it is essential to consider the multifaceted and complex nature of the issue. Press freedom is a sensitive topic that demands careful handling, respecting individual rights while also considering the necessity for news organizations to uphold the quality and credibility of their reporting.