Last Friday morning, RTHK devoted about half an hour to a discussion on the state of satire in Hong Kong, and the three guests spent most of the time attacking each other! Steve Vines was promoting Spike, George Adams was promoting his NTSCMP website, and Nury Vittachi was promoting, well mainly Nury Vittachi (though I think he does have a new book out). There is a long history of bad feeling between Nury and George Adams, so it was no surprise to find them arguing, but Adams seemed to have it in for Spike as well, and was basically arguing that the print media is always constrained by libel laws and timid proprietors, whereas he can say anything he likes on the Internet. Nury said that the three of them all hated each other, though I'm not sure whether that is completely true!
Hilariously, Nury is still pushing the line that he has been sacked three times because his satire is too edgy. It may be the case that he lost his 'Lai See' column in the SCMP because he made too many disrepectful jokes about Chinese leaders, but the alternative view is that they didn't need to employ someone on such a high salary to write that column, and were simply cutting costs. Interestingly, he also carried on working for the SCMP for a year or so after he stopped writing the 'Lai See' column. I suppose the second time was when the Hong Kong iMail changed hands and the new owners laid off a high proportion of the journalists including all the big names. Sad, but undoubtedly this was a cost-cutting exercise. Maybe someone can enlighten me about the third time Nury was sacked because I can't recall it.
These days Nury is a successful novelist, and he still has his column in the Far Eastern Economic Review, so I don't think these sackings have done him too much harm!
'Dr' George Adams has re-launched his Not the South China Morning Post website, and seems to be indiscriminately attacking virtually everyone, including several innocent bloggers. Even before you read this stuff you get a visual hint that this may not be most calm and well-reasoned view of life in Hong Kong. Certainly the impression he created on RTHK was of someone who was most upset about something (though it was never clear exactly what).
Steve Vines got very upset when George Adams said that Spike was bankrolled by Jimmy Lai, stressing that he was the publisher of the magazine. I didn't quite understand why this proved that Jimmy Lai wasn't putting money into the venture, or even why this idea upset him, but there was no discussion on either of these points, just some shouting. Apart from that he came across as fairly sane. I didn't realize he used to be the editor of the Eastern Express.
I'd have liked to know more about Spike and its plans for the future, but it didn't turn out to be that type of programme. In fact the presenters seemed to be struggling to keep control of the discussion for most of the time!
Interesting, but not as interesting as it could have been!
It's a bit of a narrowing of the history of Nury and SCMP to say he was sacked because he was overly satirical or edgy. He has a book called "North Wind" that you may have heard about that details what he went through there.
Not too sure why he would say it was because he was poking too much fun at Chinese leaders. In his book he says that it was because he was censored and that he had uncovered some disastrous connections at SCMP.
Posted by: d fresh | December 16, 2003 at 10:04 PM
I've read the book, and Nury does say that his comments about the Chinese leaders in 'Lai See' upset certain people and that some references to Jiang Zemin were censored (he didn't say that on RTHK on Friday, he just claimed to have been sacked three times).
He certainly had a low opinion of the management of the SCMP and feels that Jonathan Fenby was somewhat embarassed by what he had to do, but the main message of the book (as I understood it) was that the Hong Kong media were being over-sensitive and censoring material that was basically harmless.
My view of the book is that it is very uneven, and Nury himself admits to throwing away a lot of the research he did!
Posted by: Chris | December 16, 2003 at 11:49 PM
Chris,
I did get the same feeling as you did on reading it. Made me want him in the room with me, you know? "So, Nury, are you sure this is everything?" The ending makes it a little weird, in my opinion. It gets all mystical.
Posted by: d fresh | December 17, 2003 at 07:38 AM
The problem is that each of the main players have their own views on why Nury left the SCMP and each is self-serving. Robert Kuok boasts that he instructed Jonathan Fenby to get rid of Nury; Fenby says it was his decision on editorial grounds; Nury says he was sacked for being outspoken. The book obviously puts forward Nury's argument, but it didn't totally convince me. Or at least it didn't leave me feeling as angry and upset about what happened as Nury obviously did. Instead I was left feeling that he had (to a certain extent) brought it upon himself.
It seems that when Fenby complained to Nury about some of the things he had written, he didn't defend himself himself, he apologized and then tried to think of something more outrageous to put in his column. That makes me believe that Nury was playing up his image as an 'enfant terrible' and almost provoking Jonathan Fenby into taking action. If Kuok did suggest to Fenby that Nury should be sacked, it's easy to see why Fenby may have been reluctant to argue with him. Alternatively, Fenby could just have been annoyed that he had a well-paid columnist who was making his life more difficult. Nury argues that he had the right to carry on being rude about whoever he liked, but getting away with that on a long-term basis is not easy and requires the journalist to retain the support and trust of his editor and the management. If you antagonise them, you are likely to lose your job. Life is all about compromise, and someone who writes an inoffensive weekly humourous column in the Far Eastern Economic Review must know all about that!
Posted by: Chris | December 17, 2003 at 09:05 AM
I thought the tone was set [on the programme] when Nuri came up with what may be the unfunniest line ever - "I am a spy". Frankly I don't think any of them are that good. I look at it this way. Would any of them last one minute on Have I got news for you? And the answer is universally no.
Posted by: Phil | December 17, 2003 at 09:22 AM
Yes, I'd have to agree. Nury is a nice guy, but he's a writer, not a performer. Actually, he seemed the most relaxed of the three, but I suppose he has done more radio and TV than the other two, but I don't think he's a natural.
One problem in Hong Kong is that many of the people and events here are almost beyond parody!
Posted by: Chris | December 17, 2003 at 09:39 AM
About any of them saying anything new, Phil has got it exactly right.
Not just news but even their commentary and "satire" seem to suck as they are as predictable today as they were in the past.
Serious commentary or any informed opinion about anything is totally out of question.
But I do visit them for their funny and at times vulgar language [which I find entertaining].
Cheers!
Posted by: Ron | December 17, 2003 at 03:25 PM
Ron,
Do you mean NTSCMP? Or are you including Spike here as well?
Posted by: Chris | December 17, 2003 at 04:02 PM
Sorry, just the NTSCMP. I have not been able to dedicate enough time and opportunity to review the other two [except Nury in the past].
Cheers!
Posted by: Ron | December 18, 2003 at 12:51 AM
Have I Got News For You is scripted.
We weren't.
We are doing a new feature at NTSCMP called Blogwatch, a sort of weekly league of these awful things called HK blogs. You have been warned.
Posted by: The Doctor | December 20, 2003 at 01:08 AM
About Dr. George Adams attacking innocent bloggers... well, yesterday I used his satire to turn it into a benefit.
Of course everyone knows that the man in the picture is not Dr. George Adams.
But seeing that picture, just couldn't resist. All in fun, and yes Doctor, hopefully this Blogwatch will be a regular feature at NTSCMP. In fact, I think someome doing a "Blogwatch" might even improve the quality of blogs.
Though I also think you will have to add NTSCMP in the classification of some kind of political "blog".
I think with the new trend and terms, that is how most people will see you [now]. Blog = regularly updated site with someone or a group expressing their views about specific or general topics.
Another reason for such classification is that Hemlock can be considered a blog or cannot be, depending on how you see it. And your site is pretty similar to Hemlock's though the content is not.
Cheers!
Posted by: Ron | December 20, 2003 at 08:42 AM
It was Phil's comment, not mine, but why are some people funny on HIGNFY and others not? The scriptwriters can only do so much!
NTSCMP is not a blog, it's a website. I am sure that bloggers will welcome any publicity that this generates, but if blogs are so awful and irrelevant why bother writing about them?
Posted by: Chris | December 20, 2003 at 09:06 AM
Exactly the point I just made on another post :) The answer is probably because we will link to it and some of us have traffic that the good doctor would like to have too !
Posted by: Phil | December 21, 2003 at 05:11 AM
Agreed Phil [about the traffic]...
At times we have single day hits that are parallel to what NTSCMP has been able to manage so far [two or three weeks since relaunch].
And if we get that, then your daily hits [Flying Chair] should be peaking out crashing the roof [so to speak].
However, NTSCMP has just recently been relaunched and new sites are slow.
Cheers!
Posted by: Ron | December 21, 2003 at 10:13 AM
George Adams IS Hemlock
Posted by: Chaz | December 24, 2003 at 11:42 AM