Journalists must police themselves

Will the challenge by the Hong Kong Journalists Association of the police force's new media accreditation policy to exclude freelancers, student reporters and some social media outlets from a controversial list ever reach the court for a ruling?

Both parties appear ready for that to happen, but it's uncertain how the court will decide.

Nevertheless, the saga helps highlight a dilemma faced by the HKJA: as a body representing journalists, it is regularly torn between public interest and the need to uphold professional standards.

That's fine when both are consistent with each other, but the big question is what the HKJA should do when those issues could conflict with each other.

In speaking against the police's new media accreditation policy, the HKJA has been trying to take the public interest side, doing its utmost to protect freedom of the press as the association understands it.

And it is prepared to take its fight all the way to court.

But this can only be done at the expense of the journalistic standards the association is meant to uphold.

Although the professional standards of journalism are not as rigidly defined as those for lawyers, doctors or architects, there are certain standards that must be met through professional training.

When the angry streets are teeming with teenagers working for student newspapers and goodness knows who from unheard-of social media portals, should they be viewed as journalists meeting the standards the association is expected to uphold? It's a dilemma the HKJA and the profession have faced for some time.

If the court rejects the HKJA's arguments and rules in favor of the police, there may still be a silver lining in that properly trained and qualified journalists from mainstream media outlets, including a number of social media websites, would be able to cover protests from better vantage points.

Strictly speaking, press freedom does not rely on the good will of the police or the courts, but on the demanding standards of those practicing journalism.

In Myanmar, two Reuters journalists were jailed for reporting on what the state disallowed. Although this may be an extreme example, it helps demonstrate that it is up to the profession to practice press freedom rather than depending on the goodwill of others.

After all, Apples rot from inside before they fall, do they not?

In a very loose sense, everybody in the digital age can be a "journalist" due to the prevalence of smartphones and other technology. There is always someone around whenever and wherever an incident occurs.

But they are not trained journalists. Raw information like still photos, video footage or witness accounts provide important information but it's the job of trained journalists - either employed by a media organization or working independently as freelancers - to put that information into perspective.

And I do not think it proper to let teenage student reporters cover violent events from dangerous front lines.

Of course, the police would want to dictate the narrative - if they could - in the face of criticisms. But they simply can't when every street corner is full of people with smartphones with in-built high-resolution cameras.

The truth of the matter is that press freedom is dependent not on government officials, but those in the industry.