避而不談輕輕放過

For the record. Sadly, this looks more and more like a farce.

避而不談輕輕放過 – (蔣芸)2011年10月01日

本來可以選擇封口,既然這件事這樣難以服眾,又無法自圓其說,在立法會的失態表現,談吐之間叫人聽不下去。後來在電台的言辭更叫人嘆氣;還要奢談什麼傳媒反思,新聞工作者肩負責任等等。這樣烏龍的事件發生了,如何交待,如何補鑊,本來可以把真實的來龍去脈說清楚講明白,只不過錯報了死訊又不會死人,到底怕什麼。
然則一個已因此事件辭去高職位的人,到了今天,仍然東遮西掩,硬着頭皮上立法會,內容與之前所說不同,又不願承擔事件上的責任,是消息人士與上司兩方面的壓力,在新聞報導中非說人死了不可,這又是所為何來?該死而不死,丟官去職仍含糊其辭,真叫人百思不解,有人猜測上司與消息人士是同一個人,也有人說是搶獨家心切,失去了理智與專業上須十拿十穩的求證,才鬧出這樣的笑話,反常的表現是為了遮羞。
無論是因此事辭職或有委屈而劈砲唔撈,一個有良知的新聞工作者實在沒有必要到了今天還死雞撐飯蓋,壞了一世英名,也立下一個壞榜樣,傳聞也許有幾分真,真相也許荒謬絕倫,昔之領導人也許已如日落西山如風中之燭;人生自古誰無死,死訊或遲或早的會是真有那麼一天,況且至少被傳說死的至今仍未生勾勾地露面。
最奇怪的是本港與新聞工作者有關的機構,並沒有介入追查追究,或譴責或警告,突然沉默下來了,這就削弱了傳媒機構的公信力,對自己友的缺失或什麼難言之隱,輕輕放過避而不談,不肯置評,你們的標準又在那裏?

2 Responses to 避而不談輕輕放過

  1. loquitur says:

    ha. Chiang says well, and candidly.

    before one points fingers at another, one has to be mindlful that its goodself may equally commit the same mistakes.

    Leung’s colleagues 害死佢. Should not hv portrayed him as a defender of press freedom in the first place. Very strange why Leung (or Tam) hv not stopped so. Perhaps they were so deeply-touched by the comradeship (in those few days)? Come’n. They should hv retained some sense of 理智 at that critical juncture.

    But i am not surprised. People commit mistake, be it act or words, all the time, however silly they look afterwards.

  2. kempton says:

    I want to find Leung’s LegCo’s full video to watch to see for myself. But judging from what I’ve read above and from elsewhere, I am disappointed of Leung’s answers. Sad.

%d bloggers like this: