Extra, extra, new year baby!

At the turn of every single year, there are two things you will certainly see on TV here in Hong Kong, and possibly elsewhere: the countdown, and the first baby of the year.

I may have become too cynical, but what is so news-worthy about a bunch of revellers shouting themselves hoarse “…5, 4, 3, 2, 1, HAPPY NEW YEAR!”, or the wishes of the parents whose baby happens to come to this world at a time?

Three weeks ago, I talked about how businessmen pounce on our unwillingness or even inability to think and feed us with what fits their agenda. For this unthinking generation, such unthinking journalism is most convenient and marketable.

We get what we deserve.

They feed us what we like, don't they?

I find it utterly appalling and disgusting that one of Hong Kong’s best-selling Chinese newspaper should publish the photos of the naked body of a woman when reporting the news of this corpse being discovered in a country park yesterday. Even though the sexual organs have been blurred, the publication of these photos represents a blatant violation of professional ethics and ruthless trampling of the privacy and honour of the deceased and her family.

While a newspaper like this will do anything to boost its circulation, it goes back to the fundamental question about why it is that it not only survives but also thrives.

At the end of the day, this is probably what the readers in Hong Kong deserve.

From the Yellow Kid to Kidd Millennium

The Yellow Kid may have long been forgotten, but he has had his successor. At the turn of the millennium, journalist Ron Callari and illustrator Jon Donohoe created a 21st Century version equivalent to Yellow Kid, an online cartoon character called Kidd Millennium.

Like his predessor, Kidd Millennium is the spokesperson for social ills. But unlike his predessor, his existence is in e-format rather than print form. His cartoons and merchandises are available in a website dedicated to him. His first graphic novel, entitled Crude Behavior, are sold in as e-readers in Kindle, Apple and Google versions.

The Yellow Kid (no, not a child from a China!)

The rather unimposing cartoon character in the blog on 30 August may not be recognised by many today, but he is one of the most influential icons in the history of American comics.
Created by Richard F. Outcault in the late nineteenth century, the Yellow Kid (so called because he was donned in a yellow nightdress) was the lead character in "one of the first Sunday supplement comic strips in an American newspaper", according to Wikipedia.

The Yellow Kid was the one to whom the term "yellow journalism" was attributed to. The two major newspapers that ran the Yellow Kid comic strips, the New York World and the New York Journal, were often referred to as the "Yellow Kid" papers or simply "the yellow papers". When later the two newspapers resorted to sensational and unreliable reportage, that style became known as "yellow journalism".


The importance of the Yellow Kid was shown in the cartoon character featuring in the first of the twenty "Comic Strip Classics" stamps issued by the US Postal Service in 1995.

The influence of the Yellow Kid to US newspaper comics was illustrated by the fact that in 1998, an exhibition on comic strip art held by the Frye Art Museum in Seattle, Washington, one of the largest museum-displayed exhibitions of original comic strip art in the world, was called "Children of the Yellow Kid: The Evolution of the American Newspaper Comic Strip, 1895-1997". At the entrance to the exhibit was a huge Charles M. Schulz drawing of Snoopy, dressed in a yellow nightdress with the words "Hully Gee! A Century!" printed on it.

All the comic strips on display at the exhibition have been included in a book called - you guessed it - Children of the Yellow Kid.

The problem does not lie with the journalist

In his book The Black Swan, Nassim Nicholas Taleb talks about how media journalists like to propose a cause for news items to make matters more concrete. After describing the phenomenon he says:

"The problem of overcausation does not lie with the journalist, but with the public. Nobody would pay one dollar to buy a series of abstract stastics reminiscent of a boring college lecture. We want to be told stories..."

I would like to argue that we can take the structure of these sentences and apply them to aspects of the media that we are so critical about, such as sensationalism, editorial bias, and they will make perfect sense. Just try:

"The problem of [put down what you don't like about the media here] does not lie with the journalist, but with the public. Nobody would pay a dollar to.... We want to be ...."

The truth cannot be more obvious. We, the media consumers, are the problem. The media are just feeding us with what we are wailing for.

Much as we believe we are helpless against yellow journalism, the day we all refuse to pay that one dollar, everything will be cleaned up.

No newspaper is good newspaper

My media consumption has become more and more sparing and selective in recent years. Take newspapers for an example. Until a few years ago, every Sunday I used to return home from the church with a Chinese newspaper. Not that any of the local papers was ever worthy of anyone's time, but I found leafing through the only non-compliant paper in Hong Kong a leisurely way to spend a Sunday morning. But as I became increasingly disgusted with and disillusioned by the hypocrisy and consumerism, I felt that having to pay a few dollars and sacrifice a few trees for information of such ludicrously poor quality an insult. I turned to reading the same paper online for a while, but even that has now ceased to be a habit.

But I do browse sometimes, to look for something just to sneer about. There is no disappointment or anger because the expectation has long gone.

In the last few days, what I paid attention to was the frontpage headlines following the shooting incident in Manila. One can find, in mega-text, something like "MOST PAINFUL", "COME HOME - FEEL THE LOVE OF HONG KONG", "PULL YOURSELF TOGETHER JASON", "HONG KONG HAS AN IRON MOTHER" and "EVIL POLICEMAN". I don't know how many people see these as words of compassion and encouragement, but I certain think they are perfect examples of cheap sensationalism, reflecting an attempt to profiteer from a most unfortunate incident.

These may not be as bad as the frantic scramble in 2008 to publish the obscene photos of some Hong Kong female stars that had been uploaded to the Internet, but the ultimate purpose remains the same - to sell more copies.