2004-08-12 - 4:50 p.m.
(6 Aug. 2004, SCMP)
The recent controversy over the departure of Albert Cheng from Commercial Radio sparks off a debate between the ��emotional�� approach and the ��rational�� approach to public affairs. However, I do not think the two approaches are necessarily contradictory.
Find and read any piece of speeches of Winston Churchill during the Second World War, you can understand how emotional appeal can come along with rational analysis to problems in reality. An emotional approach to public affairs just does not mean that it is irrational. I cannot see why an emotional response to social injustice cannot be based on rational analysis of facts and evidence. Please don��t label ��emotional�� as ��irrational�� hastily.
Another dangerous mistake is to equate objectivity with neutrality. Some talk-shows hosts try their best to avoid taking position in controversial matters, claiming that they represent an objective observer. I agree that a host should maintain an open attitude towards different opinion during discussion, but that does not prevent him from making a fair judgment on facts available to him. In certain circumstances, he should establish a clear position in order to arouse public interests on that particular issue. If a host just listens but never express his own opinion, why do we need such a middle-of-the-road observer in a talk-show?
Finally, whether a host is rational is not important; what is most important is whether the audience and members of the public are rational. If we can reason independently and assess emotional appeals with a critical mind, we will not be moved by irrational and unfounded appeals. No political demagogue, even if Adolf Hitler, could manipulate us easily. Please do believe that Hong Kong people possess this ability.
Simon Kwong,
Siu Sai Wan, HK
0 comments so far?lt;/P>
?lt;/P>
