Ethical Attitudes and Perceived Practice: A Comparative Study of Journalists in China Hong Kong and Taiwan

全文

(1)Asian Journal of Communication Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2005, pp. 154 /172. Ethical Attitudes and Perceived Practice: A Comparative Study of Journalists in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan Ven-hwei Lo, Joseph Man Chan & Zhongdang Pan. This is a comparative survey study of journalists’ attitudes and perceptions concerning various types of conflicts of interest in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Journalists in all three regions are found to be receptive to freebies in the form of small gifts, meals and trips. However, they almost unanimously agree that monetary benefits from news sources are unacceptable. Compared with freebies, moonlighting seems to be a less serious problem in the three regions. Most journalists think that their colleagues do not commonly practice moonlighting. The journalists strongly agree that they should not solicit advertising on behalf of their employer or work for public relations firms or the government as a second job. With regard to self-censorship, journalists in the three regions unanimously agreed that softening negative coverage of key advertisers was unethical. However, there was considerable disagreement about softening negative coverage of government. The results also show that there is in general a discrepancy between the journalists’ value orientations and perceived reality, especially in Mainland China and Taiwan. Keywords: Journalistic Ethics; Journalists; Conflicts of Interest; Freebies; Moonlighting; Self-censorship. Journalistic ethics is a key issue of concern among not only journalists and journalism educators but also the general public, and particularly so in a transitional society. The reason is that in the midst of a social transformation, the existing fabric of ethics and values may be under challenge or even erosion and journalists may find themselves pressed to renegotiate the meaning or even stipulation of their professional codes of Correspondence to: Ven-hwei Lo, Department of Journalism, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan, 11623. Email: loven@nccu.edu.tw ISSN 0129-2986 (print)/ISSN 1742-0911 (online) # 2005 AMIC/SCI-NTU DOI: 10.1080/01292980500118656.

(2) Asian Journal of Communication 155. conduct. Taking this broad perspective, this study engages in a comparative analysis of journalistic ethics in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan in the late 1990s, the time when all three were engulfed in major social changes. There are additional reasons to examine journalistic ethics in the three Chinese societies. Although the first journalistic code of ethics in Chinese, ‘Chinese Journalist Canon’, was developed in 1942 by a famous journalist and journalism educator, Ma Hsin-yeh, profession-based adoption of similar codes was more recent in the history of Chinese journalism. The Taipei Newspaper Association adopted Taiwan’s first code of ethics in journalism in 1950. Hong Kong Journalists Association promulgated Hong Kong’s first journalistic code of ethics in 1983. In Mainland China, the first formal code of journalistic ethics was not adopted until 1991 when the official All China Journalists Association publicized its ethical guidelines. A common element in all these Chinese codes of ethics is their lack of teeth. No journalistic organization is able to develop any mechanism to enforce them. ‘The codes have existed for many years’, comments Lu Shih-Hsing, former vice president of the Economic Daily News in Taiwan.‘Their practices are always easier said than done.’ He believes that journalism has a long way to go before it can claim to be an ethical profession. The crucial issue in journalistic ethics concerns conflict of interest. According to a recent examination of journalistic codes of ethics, more than half of all the sections in all news media codes are devoted to issues related to conflict of interest (Black, Steele, & Barney, 1995). Therefore, in this study, we focus on journalists’ perceptions and attitudes about ethics concerning conflict of interest. Most systematic studies on journalistic ethics have been conducted in the western nations, particularly the United States. Evidence from other societies only began to accumulate very recently (Latif, 1998; Masterton, 1996; Weaver, 1998). Large-scale comparative studies are scanty. Such studies are needed for us to assess the vision of ‘the global journalist’, a professional defined by a set of universally adopted principles and codes of professional conduct in journalism (e.g. Reese, 2001; Weaver, 1998). The present study represents a first systematic attempt to empirically examine journalists’ attitudes and perceptions concerning various types of conflicts of interest in the three Chinese societies distinguished by political and media systems. Such a comparative study will not only inform us about journalists’ ethical attitudes and practices across different social contexts but also yield results that can be compared, explicitly or implicitly, with those obtained from the West.. Media Systems in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan The three Chinese societies share the same historical origin, language, and the cultural resources broadly construed. However, they have taken very different paths of development. Mainland China has been under Communist authoritarian rule since 1949. But since 1979, it has been going through unprecedented economic reforms and social changes under continued political control by the Communist Party..

(3) 156 V. Lo et al.. Taiwan has gone through the structural transformation from the authoritarian rule of the Nationalist Party (Kuomingtang, KMT) to a multi-party democracy. Hong Kong, at the time of our study, was approaching the final stage of reversion from a British colony to a Special Administrative Region of China. Journalists in these societies were doing their work in the midst of all these changes, incorporating the changing features of the media systems and negotiating their professional ethics and beliefs in their work. The media system of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan are as different as their political configuration. Mainland China is trying to modernize itself via economic reforms under the continued control by the Communist Party. This approach, reflected in the media sector, is revealed in media commercialization without press freedom (Chan, 1993; Lee, 1994). State-owned and party-controlled, the Chinese media have undergone important changes, resulting in the co-existence of party organs and media outlets that thrive by their appeal to the mass consumers (Chan, 2004; Pan & Chan 2003; Zhao, 1998). Journalists, pressed to tend both the party line and ‘bottom line’ (Zhao, 1998), improvised ways of doing ‘journalism’ to stay afloat in the tide of commercialization and political uncertainty. The transitional nature of China has rendered journalism paradigms in a state of flux, with the party ideals of journalism intertwined with professionalism imported primarily from outside China and blatant commercialism (Pan & Chan, 2003; Pan & Lu, 2003). Hong Kong, at the time of our survey, was in the transition from a British colony to a Special Administrative Region of China under the scheme of ‘one country, two systems’. In spite of increasing pressure to self-censor, media retained their autonomy and the degree of press freedom was being closely watched by the outside world as a barometer of Hong Kong’s continued autonomy. Direct interference in media content from the government has been minimal in practice (Chan & Lee, 1991; So, Chan, & Lee, 2000). Under the last colonial government, Hong Kong was virtually a free port for information. With the exception of Radio Television Hong Kong, a government department that has turned into a public broadcaster, all the media in Hong Kong is privately owned. Operating in an affluent environment where the rule of law is honored, corruption in journalism is rare whereas market-driven journalism has become increasingly influential (So, 1997). Taiwan has a long history of authoritarian rule, which started to be dismantled in 1987 when the ruling Kuomintang embarked on a liberalization and democratization program. Lifting the ban on press freedom and political parties opened up the political environment for the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to develop its political muscle, culminated in its victory in the 2000 presidential election. During the political transition, while the market mechanism gained new importance, the major TV stations remain susceptible to the influence of the KMT, the military, the government and the DPP (Lee, 1993; Wang & Lo, 2000). The board of directors and managers of each station have been dominated by people who are closely affiliated with powerful political interests. The major dailies are also linked to the political parties ideologically, if not organizationally. The initial success.

(4) Asian Journal of Communication 157. of the Apple Daily, a commercial newspaper transplanted from Hong Kong, is beginning to rock the established political economic order of Taiwan’s media industry.. Conflict of Interest Given that all three societies were in the midst of social transition involving major reconfigurations of various political and economic interests, a key question is how journalists view ethics and general practices in handling conflicting interests in their own profession. Through a comparative analysis, we hope to reveal how journalists in these three societies differ or are similar, and to assess the relative degrees of coherence of journalistic professionalism along the ethical dimension in the three societies. Conflict of interest in any profession arises from conflicting pressures on and/or competing loyalties of professionals that hamper their performance of their professional role (Black et al., 1995; Davis, 1982; Hiebert, Ungurait, & Bohn, 1985). In his book Ethics in media communications: Cases and controversies , Louis A. Day (1998: 184) defines conflict of interest as ‘a clash between professional loyalties and outside interests that undermines the credibility of the moral agent’. He identifies three areas of conflict of interest: conflicting relationships, conflicting public participation, and vested interests and hidden agendas (1998: 186 195). Conflicting relationship refers to clashes between media practitioners’ personal relationships and their professional obligations. Conflicting public participation arises when media practitioners’ civic participation compromises their professional integrity. Vested interests and hidden agendas refer to conflicts between media practitioners’ professional duties and their personal interests and agendas (also see Wilkins, 1995). Among the journalist scholars who have conducted empirical research on this area, K. Tim Wulfemeyer (1989, 1990) offers a set of categories that will serve as our guide in our empirical inquiry. According to his analysis, potential conflicts of interest in journalism tend to fall into the following areas (1989: 101): (1) freebies and junkets; (2) moonlighting; (3) involvements with communities organizations; (4) personal attitudes, beliefs, values and socioeconomic status; and (5) external pressures from owners, bosses, advertisers, government. In this study, we concentrate on three major areas of journalistic conflicts of interest that are considered to be more prevalent in the three Chinese societies: (1) freebies, (2) moonlighting, and (3) self-censorship arising from external pressures. /. Freebies Freebies refer to something given without charge or cost (Goodwin, 1983). In journalism, freebies come in a variety of forms from bottles of wine to special discounts on new cars, from free tickets to free trips to foreign countries..

(5) 158 V. Lo et al.. Bruce M. Swain, author of Reporters’ ethics (1978), believes that freebies are an ‘inescapable part of journalism history’ (p. 73). At one time, freebies were commonly accepted in many American newsrooms (Goodwin, 1983; Swain, 1978). However, contemporary American journalists have become more sensitized to ethical concerns about freebies. Many news organizations have adopted codes of ethics for their news staffs dealing with potential conflicts of interest. Consequently, fewer American journalists are willing to take freebies today than in the past (Day, 1998; Goodwin, 1983). Past research indicated that American journalists were very concerned about the potentials of freebies in compromising journalists’ news value judgments. In a survey of 123 newspaper editors, Sanders and Chang (1977) found that most editors surveyed believed that freebies might influence many of their colleagues. About 77% of the respondents thought acceptance of free trips to foreign countries would affect most journalists’ objectivity in reporting related stories. About 71% felt acceptance of free memberships to country clubs would affect most journalists’ objectivity. More than half of the respondents believed that acceptance of freebies such as free gifts, free domestic trips, free passes, discount at golf courses, and free season tickets for college or professional sports would compromise the objectivity and integrity of most journalists. These researchers also found that respondents who had been personally influenced by freebies were more likely to think acceptance of freebies would affect journalists’ objectivity and integrity than those who had not been personally influenced. Although concerned about freebies, many American journalists also thought that at least some freebies were acceptable. In a survey of 286 television and radio news directors, Wulfemeyer (1989) found 51% of the news directors surveyed said free tickets to cover news events were acceptable. About 47% thought non-alcoholic beverages and food at news events were acceptable. About one-third felt nonalcoholic beverages and food at non-news events were acceptable. Free trips for personal pleasure and special discounts offered were among the least acceptable. Similar findings were obtained in a more recent survey of 103 newspaper editors and television news directors (Anderson & Leigh, 1992). No systematic study of how journalists view freebies has been attempted in China. One systematic study was conducted in Taiwan and Hong Kong respectively. In a 1994 survey of 1,015 newspaper, television and radio journalists in Taiwan, Lo and Chang (1997) found that a substantial majority of Taiwan journalists surveyed thought most freebies were unacceptable. Cash from news sources was judged to be least acceptable, followed by free trips for personal pleasure, free gifts from sources, and free tickets to non-news events. Free tickets to news events were judged to be most acceptable followed by free trips to cover news events and free meals from sources. The same study also found that most journalists surveyed believed freebies were prevalent in their own profession, revealing a curious gap between personal beliefs and perceptions of reality. Similarly, in a survey of 522 journalists in Hong Kong, Chan, Lee and Lee (1996) observed that an overwhelming majority of the.

(6) Asian Journal of Communication 159. journalists found receiving money from news source absolutely unacceptable. However, free trips, meals and souvenirs were found to be acceptable to varying degrees. Moonlighting Moonlighting refers to a second full-or part-time job (Godwin, 1983). Journalists have plenty of opportunities for moonlighting. Some of the moonlighting opportunities will not constitute a conflict of interest. For example, teaching at a university may not influence the way a journalist performs his or her professional duties, as long as his/her news coverage activities do not include the university or its closely related entities (see Turow, 1994, on hidden conflicts). However, taking up promotional work related to any organization, especially to a profit-making company, can constitute a serious ethical problem. The ethical ambiguity concerning moonlighting is found in journalists’ attitudes. A 1983 survey by the Society of Professional Journalists in the US found that 99% of the journalists surveyed said some moonlighting was acceptable. Wulfemeyer’s study (1989) of US television and radio news directors in the mid-1980s also found that a substantial majority of the respondents thought some moonlighting opportunities were acceptable. Those regarded as acceptable include working at jobs in fields other than journalism (76%) and announcing sports for a co-owned station (60%). There is also a high degree consensus in rejecting some other forms of moonlighting, especially narrating local commercials and doing public relation work for a profitmaking company. The 1994 survey of Taiwan journalists found similar ambiguity (Lo & Chang, 1997). While a majority of the journalists surveyed said working on jobs not related to journalism was acceptable and nearly half thought it was acceptable to work on jobs related to journalism, the number dropped quickly to 31% on acceptance of journalists narrating or acting in commercials and 14% on doing public relations work for business. Similar to freebies, the survey also found that percentages of journalists believing that moonlighting was common among their peers were much higher than the aggregate percentages of the respondents’ own ethical beliefs. Self-censorship Self censorship is a form of information control (Chan, Lee, & Lee, 1996) and is difficult to document (Lee, 1998). It refers to ‘a set of editorial actions ranging from omission, dilution, distortion, and change of emphasis to choice of rhetorical devices by journalists, their organizations, and even the entire media community in anticipation of currying reward and avoiding punishments from the power structure’ (Lee, 1998: 57). In the modern world, journalists are subject to pressure of all kinds from groups in society seeking to influence media content (McQuail, 1992). With little or no.

(7) 160 V. Lo et al.. guidance, journalists who feel the pressure may exercise self-censorship as a preventive defense in news reporting. They may dilute, distort, omit or ignore certain information to avert adverse consequences that may befall themselves or their organizations. Self-censorship takes many forms and is not easily identified (Hachten & Giffard, 1984). Kevin Williams (1992) found that self-censorship was common among journalists in war reporting. He wrote: ‘Journalists at war have censored themselves for a number of reasons: because they or their editors decide that it is not in the ‘‘national interest’’ to publish, because of their commitment to a cause or simply because of personal loyalty to the soldiers they accompany’ (p. 161). Sometime censorship is self-imposed by the journalists for concerns over national security or the public good (Swain, 1978). Journalists may also decide to censor themselves for real or feared reactions from advertisers or the public (Harris, 1989). In rare occasions, journalists may suppress information for friendship or favors (Randall, 1996). Self-censorship thus represents a pervasive and insidious influence on media content (Bogart, 1995). Roger Bolton (1986) a leading British television journalist, argues that self-censorship is ‘the most significant form of censorship that exists’ (p. 98). Although journalists may exercise self-censorship for a variety of reasons, concern about government pressure seems to be the primary source of self-censorship (Bishop, 1989; Chan, Lee, & Lee, 1996; Harris, 1989). Government’s control or influence over media content has been well demonstrated in the literature. For example, Chan et al. (1996) found that Hong Kong journalists working for proBeijing media tended to exercise self-censorship in news reporting toward China. Bishop (1989) also found that Chinese journalists exercised self-censorship far more often than they felt external censorship. He believed that self-censorship was probably the most important means of media control in China. Concern over the advertisers’ pressure is another primary source of self-censorship (Baker, 1994; Bogart, 1989). It is not uncommon for advertisers to use their economic pressure to influence the journalists and media content (Bagdikian, 1983; Bogart, 1989). For example, a mail survey of 190 US farm journalists by Hays and Reisner (1990) revealed that 62% of the responding journalists reported receiving threats to withdraw advertising from advertisers displeased by news stories. They also found that 48% of the respondents said they had had advertising withdrawn. About 37% said advertisers’ attempts to influence editorial content were harming the profession. A different survey of 147 editors at US daily newspapers (Soley & Craig, 1992) found about 90% of the respondents saying that advertisers had attempted to influence content of news and features stories. The same survey also found 93% of the responding editors reporting that advertisers had threatened to withdraw their advertising because of the content of news stories and 38% claiming that advertisers had successfully influenced news or features at their papers. A recent case study by Black et al. (1995) showed that reporters became more cautious on certain topics involving big advertisers after some irate car dealers had pulled their ads from the.

(8) Asian Journal of Communication 161. newspaper in protest of a front page story that cautioned readers about high-powered car sale tactics. Self-censorship as a response to pressure from advertisers is well recognized as not only an ethical issue in journalism but also a First Amendment issue in the US. In his influential book Advertising and democratic press, the legal scholar C. Edward Baker (1994) demonstrated that, through pressure for self-censorship, ‘Advertisers effectively restrict the circulation of media content that they do not like and are often even able to get their preferred content to appear as non-advertising content’ (p. 99). Research Questions Based on the above discussions, this study attempts to answer the following research questions: RQ1: What are the attitudes of Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan journalists regarding various practices in the above three areas and how do the three groups differ? RQ2: How much do the journalists from each population view the practices in the above areas as being prevalent among their peers and how do the three Chinese journalist populations differ in their perceptions? RQ3: What are the differences in the attitude-norm gap among the practices in the above three areas and how do the three Chinese journalist populations differ in such gaps?. By addressing these questions with empirical data, we attempt to achieve three interrelated goals. First, we hope to offer a profile of the ethical beliefs, albeit an incomplete one, of the three journalist populations. Such a profile will provide a basis for us to assess the degree of professionalism among the three journalist communities. Second, we hope to identify the areas of major differences in ethical beliefs among the three journalist populations. Third, by linking these empirically observed differences to the differences in media systems and to the particular political economic milieu in each society, we hope to offer our interpretive account of such between-society differences and unique challenges facing journalism in the three societies. Methods The comparative method used in this study owes its strength to its ability in revealing the extent to which an observed social relationship can be generalized or contextspecific. Lying at the heart of the method is the issue of equivalence, i.e. whether concepts, indicators, sampling frames, and measurements are equivalent (Przeworski & Teune, 1970; Ragin, 1987; Smelzer, 1976). The lack of equivalence will result in incomparability. In this study, we took measures such as pretests and cross-checking with journalists in each place at every step of the research process to ensure that the equivalence requirements were met. The very choice of the three places, by virtue of.

(9) 162 V. Lo et al.. their differences in regime structure and media configurations, enables us to compare journalists’ ethical orientations across media systems within the same broad cultural origin. This is a strategy in comparative research to identify the most likely explanatory variables at the macro level (see Przeworski & Teune, 1970; also see Zhu, Weaver, Lo, & Wu, 1997, for an example). The data come from three parallel surveys of journalists in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Following Weaver and Wilhoit (1986: 168), we defined journalists as those ‘who have editorial responsibility for the preparation or transmission of news stories or other information’. A standardized questionnaire with slight local adaptations was used in each of the three Chinese societies. In each society, a sample was drawn from the journalist population via a multi-stage probability sampling procedure. In Hong Kong, we first compiled a list of all editorial staff from 22 major news organizations. We then followed the systematic sampling procedure to select the respondents from the list. The number of journalists selected from each organization is proportionate to its editorial size. Trained student interviewers were instructed to deliver questionnaires to the selected respondents, who completed the questionnaires on their own and returned the completed questionnaires to the interviewers or to the researchers. A total of 860 journalists were drawn randomly and data gathering was conducted between August and September 1996. Of these, 553 journalists completed the questionnaires, with a response rate of 62%. In Taiwan, a different multi-stage sampling procedure was used. In the first stage we compiled a list of daily newspapers, radio and television stations in Taiwan. At the second stage, we drew a random sample of individual newspapers, radio and television stations. In the third stage, we obtained lists of all journalists working for the selected newspapers, radio and television stations. The final stage was to draw a random sample of individual journalists, resulting in a sample of 1,217 people. Again, the number of journalists selected from each news organization was proportionate to the size of its editorial staff. Self-administered interviews were conducted during a four-week period in July 1996. Of the selected respondents, 834 completed the questionnaires, resulting in a response rate 68.5%. In China, we used a more complex multi-stage sampling procedure. To establish the most reliable and up-to-date sampling frame, we consulted all the official sources to determine (1) the number of news media outlets and journalists, (2) the number of outlets in each media category (newspaper, radio, television, and wire service) and the number of journalists in each category, and (3) the per capita GDP in each province (or municipality or autonomous region). Integrating this information with the knowledge of the geographic location and cultural traditions of each province, we divided the country into eight different clusters of provinces and municipalities. From each cluster, we selected one province or municipality by using the random number table while taking into account of the size of the journalist population in each province or municipality. We included three special units automatically, Guangdong, Fujian, and the national media, due to their unique nature in media control. From each of the resulting 11 units, we then selected cities. We automatically.

(10) Asian Journal of Communication 163. selected the capital city of each province because almost all the provincial media are located in such a city. From the remaining cities in each province, we selected two cities by using the random number table while taking into account of the size of journalist population in each city. Then, from each of the selected cities and the national media cluster, we obtained the complete list of all the media outlets and the size of each outlet’s news editorial staff. Then, using the random number table, we randomly selected a certain number of media outlets. The number of media outlets selected from each stratum differs due to their different sizes of the media outlets. Finally, from each of the 200 selected media outlets, we obtained the complete list of the editorial staff and used the systematic sampling procedure to choose the journalist interviewees. A total of 2,150 journalists were selected randomly and surveyed between January and April 1997. The completed sample contains 1,647 journalists, with a response rate at 76.6%.1 This paper reports aggregate-level descriptive statistics. For these results, all the variables were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 strongly disagree, 5 strongly agree). For each category of the ethic questions, we asked (1) how acceptable each practice was and (2) how much they agreed that each was prevalent among their peers. /. /. Results Attitudes toward the Practices Involving Potential Conflict of Interests In general, there are significant differences among the three samples in their levels of acceptance of the practices that potentially involve conflict of interests. Ten of the 11 items showed significant differences among the three samples. Only on rejecting the practice of accepting cash from sources was there a consensus both within each sample and across the three samples, as indicated by the extremely low percentages of acceptance in all three samples. Clearly, variations in acceptance of various practices both in each sample and across the three samples are the main story shown in these data. Two approaches were taken to assess the overall pattern of the data in Table 1. First, within each sample, the 11 percentages were ranked from the highest to the lowest. Then, rank-order correlation coefficients (Spearman’s Rho) among the three samples were obtained. The results show a high degree of agreement between Hong Kong and Taiwan journalists in the ranking of the percentages of acceptance across the 11 items (r 0.82, p B0.01, one-tailed test). The agreement between PRC and Taiwan journalists also appears statistically significant but is much lower (r 0.55, p B0.05, one-tailed test). The patterns of acceptance of these items between Mainland and Hong Kong journalists show no statistically significant correlation (r0.32, ns). Second, aggregating across the 11 ethical behavior items, we can also compare the average percentages of acceptance across the three samples. The average was 25.56% for the Mainland journalists, 17.04% for Hong Kong journalists, and 13.4% for Taiwan /. /. /. /. /.

(11) 164 V. Lo et al.. Table 1 Journalists’ Attitudes toward Freebies, Moonlighting and Self-censorship in Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan Items Freebies Accepting Accepting Accepting Accepting. gifts from sources free trips from sources free meals from sources cash from sources. Moonlighting Soliciting ads for own organization Soliciting sponsors for own organization Holding part-time jobs in government agencies Doing public relations for business Doing commercials for business Self-censorship Softening negative coverage of government agencies Softening negative coverage of key advertisers. Mainland. Hong Kong. Taiwan. 10.2 30.3 40.5 2.5. 18.9 38.6 49.1 1.9. 16.0 31.1 29.3 1.6. (1,558) (1,578) (1,597) (1,583). (534) (529) (540) (539). x2 (df/2). (820) (822) (828) (821). 32.69*** 156.90*** 56.95*** 2.55. 34.1 (1,588) 42.5 (1,587). 12.6 (523) 15.8 (506). 14.5 (827) 19.9 (804). 162.79*** 196.44***. 22.2 (1,551). 19.8 (515). 7.8 (822). 78.53***. 7.9 (1,587) 15.1 (1,566). 13.7 (519) 11.6 (502). 6.2 (820) 11.6 (818). 24.38*** 7.69*. 62.4 (1,549). 2.8 (530). 6.8 (827). 13.5 (1,547). 2.6 (534). 2.6 (821). 1030.9*** 111.99***. Note : The cell entries are percentages of each sampling choosing ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ on a 5-point Likert scale. Figures in parentheses are sample sizes. *p B/0.05; **p B/0.01; ***p B/0.001.. journalists. Clearly, overall, greater percentages of Taiwan and Hong Kong journalists rejected the 11 practices with potential conflict of interests than that of Mainland journalists. In addition, the views among Taiwan and Hong Kong journalists were also much more homogeneous, as indicated by the variances over the 11 percentages among the three samples: for the Mainland journalists, the variance is 330.85; for Hong Kong journalists, it is 220.63, and for Taiwan journalists, it is 100.22. The data thus suggest that, on these 11 items, there was twice as much variation* therefore, much less cohesiveness on ethical beliefs* among Mainland journalists than Hong Kong journalists and three times more variance than Taiwan journalists. The mean and variance comparisons suggest a generally greater degree of ethical confusion among Mainland journalists over conflict of interest in journalism than what were found among Hong Kong and Taiwan journalists. The specific items on which Mainland journalists’ attitudes contributed to such global results is quite indicative of the unique transitional condition in the PRC. As we pointed out earlier, the transition there is characterized by simultaneous pressures of the Party’s ideological control and market seductions on media organizations and journalists. As a result, compared with their peers in Hong Kong and Taiwan, significantly more Mainland journalists would accept both soliciting ads (34.1%) and sponsors (42.5%) for their organizations and exercising self-censor to appease the government (62.4%). /. /.

(12) Asian Journal of Communication 165. In other words, operating under two sources of pressure, Mainland journalists see less problem in, or possibly, feel compelled to, submitting themselves to two masters.. Perceiving Prevalence of the Practices Involving Potential Conflict of Interests The same set of 11 items was used to ask the respondents assessing how prevalent each practice was in their own profession. Table 2 shows the results. Obviously, we do not expect journalists in any of the three societies to provide accurate estimates, given the rather robust and prevalent tendency of pluralistic ignorance, i.e. shared misbelieves about others in the social world (e.g. O’Gorman, 1988). However, such estimates may very well be indications of the joint operation of two forces: (1) the belief or perception of what ought to be, or the injunctive norm, and (2) the prominence of a particular type of practices in the professional and/or public discourses at the moment of our study, or the descriptive norms (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993). Both could lead to prevalence estimates different from the actual aggregate-level acceptance reported earlier. While the former might suppress the percentages of acceptance of problematic practices, the latter would contribute to over-estimation of prevalence of such practices. Table 2 Journalists’ Perceived Prevalence of Freebies, Moonlighting and Self-censorship in Mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan Items. Mainland. Hong Kong. Taiwan. x2 (df/2). Freebies Accepting gifts from sources Accepting free trips from sources Accepting free meals from sources Accepting cash from sources. 58.7 35.0 79.9 38.4. (1,510) (1,414) (1597) (1,428). 47.6 (483) 45.1 (459) 70.4 (513) 7.9 (419). 71.1 66.1 83.5 32.6. (786) (733) (810) (734). 72.42*** 194.82*** 33.71*** 139.83***. 68.9 (1,531). 21.3 (423). 49.5 (760). 323.74***. 70.9 (1,529). 15.4 (309). 45.5 (719). 431.36***. 16.2 (1,265). 10.6 (360). 17.6 (671). 9.24**. 20.6 (1,320). 18.4 (403). 28.7 (705). 21.92***. 24.7 (1,327). 9.0 (376). 22.1 (682). 42.86***. 61.7 (1,416). 7.7 (440). 26.2 (755). 512.64***. 36.9 (1,347). 20.4 (421). 32.9 (721). 39.38***. Moonlighting Soliciting ads for own organization Soliciting sponsors for own organization Holding part-time jobs in government agencies Doing public relations for business Doing commercials for business Self-censorship Softening negative coverage of government agencies Softening negative coverage of key advertisers. Note : The cell entries are percentages of each sampling choosing ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ on a 5-point Likert scale. Figures in parentheses are sample sizes. *p B/0.05; **p B/0.01; ***p B/0.001..

(13) 166 V. Lo et al.. As shown in Table 2, journalists in each of the three societies perceived the 11 practices as being more prevalent than their actual levels of acceptance. The mean across the items for the Mainland sample was 46.54%, more than 20 percentage points higher than the aggregate level based on the self-admission measures shown in Table 1; for the Hong Kong sample, the mean was at 24.89%, more than five percentage points higher than that of journalists’ self-admission; for Taiwan sample, the mean was 43.25%, nearly 30 percentage points higher than that admitted by the journalists themselves. In addition, all three samples revealed large variance in their prevalence estimates, with variance above 420 and standard deviation above 20 in each. Despite the seeming ‘inconsistencies’ in all three samples, a clear demarcation is found between the Mainland journalists and the journalists in the other two societies. A similar approach was taken to obtain the rank-order correlation coefficients of the 11 percentages. It was found that the Mainland journalists’ prevalence estimates had no significant correlation with that of Hong Kong journalists (r0.26, ns), but significant correlation with that of Taiwan journalists (r0.66, p B0.05, one-tailed test). There was a significant correlation between the prevalence estimates by Hong Kong and Taiwan journalists (r0.84, p B0.01, one-tailed test). Looking at the specific items, we can see the major points of differences among the three samples. On freebies, more Taiwan journalists believed accepting free trips, gifts or meals from sources to be more prevalent among their peers than Mainland and Hong Kong journalists saw among their respective peers. Much fewer Hong Kong journalists saw accepting cash from sources as being prevalent among their peers, compared with Mainland and Taiwan journalists. On moonlighting, Hong Kong journalists showed significantly lower percentages of believing prevalence of any of the five measures than did Mainland and Taiwan journalists. The same was the case with regard to the two self-censor measures, especially softening negative coverage of the government. In other words, Hong Kong journalists consistently showed more confidence in the general ethical practices in their own profession than their colleagues in the Mainland and Taiwan. Between the Mainland and Taiwan journalists, there are also some interesting differences. While more Taiwan journalists believed that accepting freebies was more common among their peers than the Mainland journalists thought to be the case among their peers, more Mainland journalists believed that soliciting ads or sponsors for one’s own organizations and exercising self-censor as being more prevalent among their peers than Taiwan journalists thought to be the case among their peers. /. /. /. /. /. Gaps between Attitudes and Perceived Prevalence The data presented so far clearly suggest that the three journalist populations differ in how much people saw the 11 practices as being prevalent and how much they would accept each in their own journalistic work. A further investigation of the gaps between journalists’ own attitudes toward and their perceptions of prevalence of the 11 practices.

(14) Asian Journal of Communication 167. could provide more insights concerning the three journalist populations. Table 3 shows the differences between journalists’ perceived prevalence and own attitudes. Across the three samples, there was a higher overall percentage of perceiving prevalence than that of journalists’ own acceptance of the 11 practices. This overall cross-sample similarity comes with some important differences. Hong Kong journalists by far showed the smallest discrepancies (average7.85%) in their estimates of how prevalent the 11 practices were in their profession and how much they themselves would accept these practices. Taiwan journalists showed the larges discrepancies (average 29.85%), followed by the Mainland journalists. It is also interesting to note that Hong Kong journalists were also more homogeneous in terms of the discrepancies between their prevalence estimates and self-attitudes, shown by the variance (120.72) of the disparities between the two that was only half of that of Taiwan journalist sample and one-third of that of the Mainland journalists. Looking at the specifics, we can see that the three samples actually are quite similar in another way. That is, in all three samples, higher percentages of journalists believed freebies as being more prevalent than their own aggregate levels of acceptance. Taiwan and the Mainland samples were similar in that higher percentages of journalists saw journalists soliciting ads or sponsors for their own organizations and moonlighting for business as being more prevalent than their own aggregate levels of acceptance. It is particularly useful to point out that on softening negative coverage of government, /. /. Table 3 Gaps between Journalists’ Ethical Attitudes and Perceived Prevalence of Freebies, Moonlighting and Self-censorship in Mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan Prevalence /attitude gaps Items Freebies Accepting Accepting Accepting Accepting. Mainland. Hong Kong. Taiwan. gifts from sources free trips from sources free meals from sources cash from sources. 48.5 4.7 39.4 35.9. 28.7 6.5 21.4 6.0. 55.1 35.0 54.2 31.0. Moonlighting Soliciting ads for own organization Soliciting sponsors for own organization Holding part-time jobs in government agencies Doing public relations for business Doing commercials for business. 34.8 28.4 /6.0 12.7 9.6. 8.7 /0.4 /9.2 4.7 /2.6. 35.0 25.6 9.8 22.5 10.5. Self-censorship Softening negative coverage of government agencies Softening negative coverage of key advertisers. /0.7 23.4. 4.9 17.8. 19.4 30.3. 20.97 323.22. 7.85 120.72. 29.85 224.28. Mean Variance. Note : The cell entries are differences between the percentage of acceptance and percentage of prevalence related to each item..

(15) 168 V. Lo et al.. the Mainland journalists rendered similar percentages in reporting their own attitudes and estimating prevalence of this practice. What we can gain from these data can be summed as follows. There must be a shared understanding of the ethic principles with regard to conflict of interests among Hong Kong journalists, especially those concerning moonlighting. In both Taiwan and the Mainland, such a consensus is far from being crystallized. Even though individuals might report their preferred ethical positions on the practices measured in this study, they would not believe that such beliefs had been congealed into shared principles. The only clearly shared principle among the Mainland journalists was to avoid confronting the government with negative coverage.. Conclusion The results of our study showed that journalists in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan were facing certain common ethical issues. At the same time, the results also showed some major differences among the three journalist populations in their ethical attitudes concerning conflict of interests. As the results showed, a sizable number of journalists in the three societies thought that freebies such as free gifts, free meals and free trips were acceptable and even more thought accepting such freebies was prevalent among their peers. The same can be said about moonlighting practices such as soliciting advertisements or sponsors for one’s own news organizations, doing public relations or commercials for businesses, as well as self-censoring to avoid offending key advertisers. There are encouraging signs in the data as well. There is a clear coherence both within and across the three populations in considering acceptance of cash from sources as unethical. At least among Hong Kong and Taiwan journalists, selfcensorship was soundly rejected and was not seen nearly as prevalent among their respective peers as some of the other questionable practices. Even on these practices, the problem remains. That is, a sizable number of journalists in each of the three societies saw accepting cash or exercising self-censorship to be prevalent. This is particularly the case in the Mainland and Taiwan. Together with the data showing large variance in each of the three samples from journalists’ attitudes toward and perceived prevalence of the 11 ethically questionable practices, these results clearly suggest challenges to establishing journalistic ethics in all three societies. That is, clarifying ethical codes in these areas and crystallizing them into journalists’ conscience and everyday practices remain a key problem for journalism in each of the three societies. Differences across the three journalist samples are quite telling. Clearly, assessed in terms of lower percentages and smaller variance in the attitude measures (Table 1), Taiwan journalists appeared to be on the side of a greater degree of ethical clarity. However, they also appeared to be least cohesive in perceiving the ethical practices of their peers, as indicated by the overall statistics from the attitude-norm gaps (Table 3). One may interpret the results as follows. Operating in the environment of.

(16) Asian Journal of Communication 169. commercial media and zeal for democratization over the past 10 years (up to the time of the survey), the ethical principles on separating different interests and maintaining autonomy were made quite salient and appealing to Taiwan journalists. However, because the process of democratization had taken place for only 10 years and the intricate web of interests still formed the basis of Taiwan’s media system despite democratization, accepting and practicing such ethical principles remained somewhat novel and high-minded. These ideas had not been recognized as part of the professional ethos of journalism in Taiwan. However, one can extrapolate from the data that the prospect of developing such ethos is good as Taiwan stabilizes its democratic process. The exact opposite can be said about Hong Kong journalists. Although they appeared to be less ‘puritanical’ in terms of their own attitudes toward the 11 ethical practices, they showed the highest degree of consistence in their expressed attitudes and perceptions of prevalence. Obviously, we cannot say that Hong Kong journalists were so much less prone to the cognitive fallacy of ‘pluralistic ignorance’ than their Taiwan and Mainland colleagues. Our results might be interpreted as indicating some degree of ‘comfort’ felt among Hong Kong journalists. That is, ethical codes have been immersed in the professional conscience and the ‘rule-of-law’ culture to such an extent that they were strong enough to correct the bias of over-estimating others’ ‘bad’ behavior. To us, such data also provide a certain sense of ‘comfort’ in that such an internalized professional culture would be the most effective ‘cushion’ against the tendency of interference of the Beijing government during the turbulent years of Hong Kong establishing itself as a truly autonomous and more democratic special region of China. Mainland journalists clearly distinguish themselves from their colleagues in the other two societies. Judging by every statistical measure, they are least coherent in their professional ethics. Measured by their own attitudes, Mainland journalists would be on the side of ethical choices defined by the lowest level of rejection of those practices that involve potential conflict of interests. They are in particular least aware of the problems in serving commercial as well as government interests. They showed the lowest level of rejection of self-censorship. In addition, there was the largest amount of variations in their attitudes compared with that of Taiwan and Hong Kong journalists; they were least trusting of their colleagues in rejecting the ethically questionable practices, especially in the areas of freebies and moonlighting. When placed in this comparative context, our survey data provide a solid empirical support for the interpretive analysis that Mainland journalists were suffering from moral and ethical confusion (Zhao, 1998). Clearly, the ‘paradoxes and contradictions’ in China’s media reforms (Lee, 1994) have not made it any easier for the Mainland journalists to be developed into a professional community. Developing professionalism in journalism is a pressing task in China’s media reforms (Pan & Lu, 2003). Social science has well established that attitudes do not always lead to behavior, especially when some attitudes are considered to be socially desirable. This study has not measured journalists’ actual practice. What we have measured are their attitudes and perceived practices. Our data then must be viewed in connection with evidence from other studies that examine journalistic practices more directly..

(17) 170 V. Lo et al.. While acknowledging this limitation of our study, we also point out that such attitudinal and perceptual data provide a picture of professional ethics in the three Chinese journalist populations that is consistent with inferences drawn from other studies. They also provide valuable insights on the areas of concern in developing professional ethics in each of the three societies. Clearly, what this involves is much more than codifying professional ethics in texts. Developing professional ethics requires a democratic context, commitment in newsroom leadership, and discussion of ethics at all levels of journalistic profession. Without a commitment from newsroom leadership, ethical discussion within the newsroom and a culture of ethical sensitivity in journalism, ethical guidelines or codes are unlikely to be a factor in newsroom decisions (Boeyink, 1995). In addition, journalism education must bear more responsibilities in upgrading the standards of journalists in Mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Courses in journalism ethics should be offered at every journalism school or department. Special seminars on ethics designed for working journalists should be organized by journalism schools or departments to bring students and journalists together to discuss generalized guidelines and concrete cases. Journalism education is important in developing a sense of calling and ethical commitment of the profession. Throughout the history of journalism, the conscience and integrity of the individual journalist has always been the chief guarantee of journalistic standards. As John L. Hulteng (1985: 217) has argued in his book The messenger’s motives, ‘Whether ethical considerations will be respected in the practice of journalism depends on the presence of personal integrity both in the front office and at every desk in the newsroom, or behind every microphone and camera in the studios’.. Note [1] Of the 3,035 journalists we studied, 2,356 (77.6%) said their main job duties were reporting and editing. Among them, 909 (38.6%) were reporters, 908 (38.5%) were editors, and 539 (22.9%) described themselves as both reporters and editors. Of those responding to the questions, 466 (15.4%) were radio journalists, 494 (16.3%) were television journalists, 1,986 (65.5%) were newspaper journalists, and 84 (2.8%) were wire service journalists. The average monthly income of journalists in our study is US$1,736. Among them, Hong Kong journalists earned the most (US$3,421 per month), followed by Taiwan journalists (US$2,754). Mainland journalists earned the least (US$150). The average age for Mainland journalists is 37.4 compared to 35 for Taiwan journalists and 32 for Hong Kong journalists. About 67% of Mainland journalists are men compared to 59% for Taiwan journalists and 55% for Hong Kong journalists.. References Anderson, D. A., & Leigh, F. A. (1992). How newspaper editors and broadcast news directors view media ethics. Newspaper Research Journal , 13 (1), 112 /121. Bagdikian, B. H. (1983). The media monopoly. Boston: Beacon Press. Baker, C. E. (1994). Advertising and democratic press . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press..

(18) Asian Journal of Communication 171 Bishop, R. L. (1989). Qi Lai mobilizing one billion Chinese: The Chinese communication system . Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Black, J., Steele, B., & Barney, R. (1995). Doing ethics in journalism . Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Boeyink, D. E. (1995). How effective are codes of ethics? A look at three newsrooms. Journalism Quarterly, 71 (4), 893 /904. Bogart, L. (1995). Commercial culture: The media system and the public interest . New York: Oxford University Press. Bolton, R. (1986). The problems of making political television: A practitioner’s perspective. In P. Golding, G. Murdock, & P. Schlesinger (Eds.), Communication politics: Mass communications and the political process (pp. 93 /112). New York: Leicester University Press. Chan, J., & Lee, C. C. (1991). Mass media and political transition: The Hong Kong press in China’s orbit . New York: Guilford Press. Chan, J. (1993). Commercialization without independence: Media development in China. In J. Cheng, & M. Brosseau (Eds.), China Review 1993 (pp. 25:1 /9). Hong Hong: Chinese University Press. Chan, J., Lee, P., & Lee, C. C. (1996). Hong Kong journalists in transition . Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies. Chan, J. (2004). Media commercialization in China: A political-economic and evolutionary perspective. Paper presented to the Conference on China’s New Media Milieu: Commercialization, Continuity and Reform, Center for Strategic Studies, Washington, DC, June. Davis, M. (1982). Conflict of interest. Business and Professional Ethics Journal , 1 (4), 17 /27. Day, L. A. (1998). Ethics in media communication: Cases and controversies . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Goodwin, H. E. (1983). Grouping for ethics in journalism . Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Hachten, W. A., & Giffard, C. A. (1984). The press and apartheid . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Harris, R. J. (1989). A cognitive psychology of mass communication . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hays, R., & Reisner, A. (1990). Farm journalists and advertiser influence: Pressures on ethical standards. Journalism Quarterly, 68 (1/2), 172 /178. Hiebert, R. E., Ungurait, D. F., & Bohn, T. W. (1985). Mass media: An introduction to modern communication . New York: Longman. Hulteng, J. (1985). The messenger’s motives: Ethical problems of the news media . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice /Hall. Latif, A. (Ed.) (1998). Walking in tightrope: Press freedom and professional standards in Asia . Singapore: Asian Media Information and Communication Centre. Lee, C. C. (1993, April). Sparking a fire: The press and the ferment of democratic change in Taiwan. Journalism Monographs , No. 128. Lee, C. C. (1994). Ambiguities and contradiction: Issues in China’s changing political communication. Gazette , 53 , 7 /21. Lee, C. C. (1998). Press self-censorship and political transition in Hong Kong. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics , 3 (2), 55 /73. Lo, V. H., & Chang, L. W. (1997). Journalists’ perception of and attitudes toward ethics: A 1994 survey. Mass Communication Research , 55 , 244 /271. Masterton, M. (Ed.). (1996). Asian values in journalism . Singapore: Asian Mass Communication Research and Information Centre. McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest . London: Sage. O’Gorman, H. J. (1988). Pluralistic ignorance and reference groups: The case of ingroup ignorance. In H. J. O’Gorman (Ed.), Surveying social life: Papers in honor of Herbert H. Hyman (pp. 145 /173). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Pan, Z., & Chan, J. (2003). Shifting journalistic paradigms: How China’s journalists assess ‘media exemplars’. Communication Research , 30 , 649 /682..

(19) 172 V. Lo et al.. Pan, Z., & Lu, Y. (2003). Localizing professionalism: Discursive practices in China’s media reforms. In C. C. Lee (Ed.), Chinese media, global contexts (pp. 215 /236). London: Routledge. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York: Wiley. Ragin, C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies . Berkeley: University of California Press. Randall, D. (1996). The universal journalist . Chicago: Pluto Press. Reese, S. (2001). Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences approach. Journalism Studies , 2 , 173 /187. Reno, R. R., Cialdini, R. B., & Kallgren, C. A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 , 104 /112. Sanders, K. P., & Chang, H. W. (1977). Codes */The ethical free-for-all: A survey of journalists’ opinions about freebies . Columbia, MO: Freedom of Information Foundation. Smelser, N. (1976). Comparative methods in the social sciences . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. So, C. (1997). Completely market-driven journalism: The case of Apple Daily. In J. Chan, L. Chu, & Z. Pan (Eds.), Mass communication and market economy (pp. 215 /233). Hong Kong: LuFong Society. So, C., Chan, J., & Lee, C. C. (2000). Hong Kong SAR (China). In S. A. Guarantee (Ed.), Handbook of the media in Asia (pp. 527 /551). New Delhi: Sage. Soley, L. C., & Craig, R. L. (1992). Advertising pressure on newspapers: A survey. Journal of Advertising , 21 (4), 1 /9. Swain, B. M. (1978). Reporter’s ethics . Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Turow, J. (1994). Hidden conflicts and journalistic norms: The case of self-coverage. Journal of Communication , 44 (2), 29 /46. Wang, G., & Lo, V. H. (2000). Media in Taiwan. In S. A. Gunaratne (Ed.), Handbook of the media in Asia (pp. 660 /681). New Delhi: Sage. Weaver, D. (1998). Journalists around the world: Commonalities and differences. In D. Weaver (Ed.), The global journalist: News people around the world . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Weaver, D. H., & Wilhoit, G. C. (1986). The American journalists: A portrait of U.S. news people and their work . Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Weaver, D., & Wilhoit, C. G. (1996). The American journalist in the 1990s: US news people at the end of an era . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wilkins, L. (1995). Covering Antigone: Reporting on conflict of interest. Journal of Mass Media Ethics , 10 (1), 23 /36. Williams, K. (1992). Something more important than truth: Ethical issues in war reporting. In R. Belsey, & Chadwick (Eds.), Ethical issues in journalism and the media (pp. 154 /170). New York: Routledge. Wulfemeyer, K. T. (1989). Freebies and moonlighting in local TV news: Perceptions of news directors. Journal of Mass Media Ethics , 4 (2), 232 /248. Wulfemeyer, K. T. (1990). The news blue: Problems in journalism . Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Zhao, Y. (1998). Media market, and democracy in China: Between the party line and the bottom line . Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Zhu, J. H., Weaver, D., Lo, V. H., Chen, C., & Wu, W. (1997). Individual, organizational, and societal influences on media role perceptions: A comparative study of journalists in China, Taiwan, and the United States. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74 , 84 /96..

(20)

(21)