A study by Freedom House ranked Hong Kong 83rd in press freedom, down from last year's 74th place and 71st position in 2013.

The survey covered 199 countries and territories, ranking each as either "free", "partly free" or "not free". The position of 83rd puts Hong Kong on a par with countries such as Egypt, Turkey and Central Africa. This does not make sense at all.

The Freedom House claims it is an independent watchdog organization dedicated to the expansion of freedom around the world. It produces reports on freedom of the press year after year. How are these reports produced? It turns out the Freedom House relies, in part, from input from local practitioners.

For example, Freedom House's report quotes a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) between December 2013 and February 2014, in which the respondents gave an average rating of 6.9 on a 0-10 scale, with 0 representing no self-censorship and 10 indicating that it is very common. Based on this score, HKJA and Freedom House found local journalists believe self-censorship is common.

Self-censorship and the perception of self-censorship are two different things. There is actually a better way to phrase this question. For example, the Pew Research Center would ask whether the respondents have "purposely avoided newsworthy stories". This approach is obviously more objective and conscientious.

Interestingly, by asking nearly 300 US journalists and news executives this question, the Pew Research Center found that self-censorship is "commonplace" in the US's news media. About a quarter of the local and national journalists say they have purposely avoided newsworthy stories. Nearly as many acknowledged they have softened the tone of stories to benefit the interests of their news organizations. Four-in-10 (41 percent) admit they have engaged in either one or both of these practices.

Which place has more self-censorship: the United States, where four-in-10 journalists or media executives have either purposely avoided newsworthy stories, or softened the tone of stories to benefit the interests of their news organizations, or both; or Hong Kong, a place with an average rating of 6.9 on a 0-10 "self-censorship scale", whatever that means? We are not sure. All we know is that Freedom House ranked the US 31st in its world press freedom survey, and Hong Kong 83rd.

Jake van der Kamp from the South China Morning Post wrote a wonderful critique against Freedom House's findings. His piece ended with a "Memo to the Journalism Association", in which he asked: Will you people please stop encouraging this denigration of press freedom in Hong Kong? You may have to cry "wolf" in earnest some day and you do yourselves no favors by crying it when there is no wolf. This is spot on.

The fact is, the HKJA and its members have a vested interest in seeing Hong Kong's freedom of the press rating going down. Now they can proudly say: I told you so!

During 2014, according to Freedom House, "the environment for media freedom declined further as physical attacks against journalists increased, massive cyberattacks crippled widely read news sites at politically significant moments, and businesses withdrew advertising from outlets critical of Beijing and supportive of pro-democracy protesters. The year featured an especially brutal assault on a former chief editor of the daily newspaper Ming Pao, as well as a wave of attacks on journalists covering pro-democracy protests and counterdemonstrations."

The attack on Ming Pao's chief editor was unfortunate, but there is no evidence it was politically motivated. If we look at other incidents, such as the attacks on journalists like Eric Mak Ka-wai during the 79-day "Occupy" protests, it is even clearer that they are not related to press freedom as the term is usually understood. Journalists often deliberately go to dangerous places. Those who are not in their right mind would even make improper and provocative remarks. They end up getting injured, but this has nothing to do with press freedom.

Freedom House's comment about "businesses withdrew advertising from outlets that were critical of Beijing and supportive of prodemocracy protesters" is even more ridiculous. What it tells us is that no one is stopping the press in Hong Kong from doing "the right thing", except the media outlets' economic motivation.

(HK Edition 05/06/2015 page10)