https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=61024&QS=%2B&TP=JU
媒体报道中的「不偏不倚」是什么意思？
“Due impartiality also does not require absolute neutrality on every issue of public concern or detachment from such fundamental principles as freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law – principles which are essential to a just and open society. We will be failing in our duty if in the attempt to upset no-one, to disturb no institution, we limit the comprehensiveness and open examination of issues and events.”
The concept of ‘impartiality’ is a broad concept. In my judgment, a code of practice that requires all factual programmes dealing with matters of public policy or controversial public issues to be appropriately impartial may still comply with the constitutional requirement to uphold freedom of speech and expression if the term is given a broad and suitably equitable meaning.
The word ‘impartial’ encompasses, of course, the concept of being balanced, of not favouring one side more than another. In certain circumstances, that may in a television programme demand the putting of both sides of the story. But the word also means ‘unprejudiced, unbiased, fair’ : The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (6th Ed).
Impartiality, therefore, may demand no more than that the subject matter is dealt with fairly; that no prejudice is shown – either for or against – matters that are portrayed. Indeed, it may be said that such treatment is one of the hallmarks of documentary film-making.
In my judgment, in the broad language used, the prevailing code of practice recognises, or at least allows for, a presentation which is impartial simply because it is fair and not prejudiced either for or against the issues raised. That, I believe, is provided for in the prevailing code of practice :
“ Due impartiality requires the licensees to deal even-handedly when opposing points of view are presented in a programme. Balance should be sought through the presentation, as far as possible, of principal relevant viewpoints on matters of public importance. Programmes should not be slanted by the concealment of facts or by misleading emphasis. …
In achieving due impartiality, the term ‘due’ is to be interpreted as meaning adequate or appropriate to the nature of the subject and the type of programme. Due impartiality does not mean that ‘balance’ is required in the sense of equal time or an equal number of lines in the script being devoted to each view, nor does it require absolute neutrality on every controversial issue. Judgement will always be called for by the licensees.”
媒体报道中的「不偏不倚」是什么意思？
“Due impartiality also does not require absolute neutrality on every issue of public concern or detachment from such fundamental principles as freedom, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law – principles which are essential to a just and open society. We will be failing in our duty if in the attempt to upset no-one, to disturb no institution, we limit the comprehensiveness and open examination of issues and events.”
The concept of ‘impartiality’ is a broad concept. In my judgment, a code of practice that requires all factual programmes dealing with matters of public policy or controversial public issues to be appropriately impartial may still comply with the constitutional requirement to uphold freedom of speech and expression if the term is given a broad and suitably equitable meaning.
The word ‘impartial’ encompasses, of course, the concept of being balanced, of not favouring one side more than another. In certain circumstances, that may in a television programme demand the putting of both sides of the story. But the word also means ‘unprejudiced, unbiased, fair’ : The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (6th Ed).
Impartiality, therefore, may demand no more than that the subject matter is dealt with fairly; that no prejudice is shown – either for or against – matters that are portrayed. Indeed, it may be said that such treatment is one of the hallmarks of documentary film-making.
In my judgment, in the broad language used, the prevailing code of practice recognises, or at least allows for, a presentation which is impartial simply because it is fair and not prejudiced either for or against the issues raised. That, I believe, is provided for in the prevailing code of practice :
“ Due impartiality requires the licensees to deal even-handedly when opposing points of view are presented in a programme. Balance should be sought through the presentation, as far as possible, of principal relevant viewpoints on matters of public importance. Programmes should not be slanted by the concealment of facts or by misleading emphasis. …
In achieving due impartiality, the term ‘due’ is to be interpreted as meaning adequate or appropriate to the nature of the subject and the type of programme. Due impartiality does not mean that ‘balance’ is required in the sense of equal time or an equal number of lines in the script being devoted to each view, nor does it require absolute neutrality on every controversial issue. Judgement will always be called for by the licensees.”