His Value

Steve,

Oh, a long passage below. Don't bother to read or even reply.

Regarding Tao's view, I am of the thinking much same as yours.

Anyway, you should note that Tao is a HK local not a Caucasian, being born in China and spending his childhood and teenage years in HK. He has just received his college education and built up his career in the UK for some years. Why is he odd if he does what the locals do (even visiting vice if it is a legal norm and well accepted by the locals)? He would be strange if he doesn't. All of his words and messages in media are delivered for the purpose of earning money. The more his messages created and the more the audience, the more his income will be. Only the volumes but not the reality of his works matters.

You won't ask and expect Jackie Chan to behave like a police officer in the street. The role Jackie Chan playing in the moive like that Tao playing in media. Tao loves watching films and know well the role of a professional actor. Tao often describes naive those criticising him hypocritical. While Jackie never chases an actual gangster in the street, I think Tao, as a writer only, is never obliged to do what he writes or speaks. Indeed he often stresses that he will not. I won't believe a novelist could fly as Peter Pan. Lau Tak Wah could act well a police office in one moive while a gangster in another, or even both in the same film.

Following and learning from Tao, we should attempt to appreciate and enjoy works of art, moive, literature, entertainments from all sorts of media. Why do we bother to pursue the reality of these pieces, which wouldn't stay for an answer?

On the other hand, not completely agreeing with reporter Cheung, I find accurate and neutral reporting of the real happening appears one distinct, cruical function of journalists while editorial analysis another. Messing up them would easily lead to maniplating information or even thinking and considering readers' capabilities is a separate issue. Under political pressure, BBC replaces using "assassination" with writing "targetted killing" in describing Isreali recent putting Palestinian leaders to death . How do you contrast the two descriptions? Media in Asia would give more obvious examples.

As for allegedlly lacking criticism on Tao's last reply, have you ever supposed that Cheung treats Tao as her mentor, role idol, etc? So far, her image, neither simple nor naive in career (not necessarily in profession), looks not clashing with such guess.

Being "the first microphone" of CR, Tao is one of the public's idol in the media world like Mr Li CS in business. 倪震, hosting 絕情谷 (entertaining to me), admires Tao very much. So do I in some aspects. Few if not none can resist the accomplishment (我還可以混得不錯罷了). Describing this statement as humourous could be Cheung's implicitly approving opinion on it, though it might not be in your favour.

Cheung does add criticisms. By definition, criteria, analysis and conclusion are the main elements of criticism which delivers messages of either agreeing or disagreeing or even indiffernece.

Her comment immediately preceding her last answer appears to be some sort of criticism. (但今天生活在一個知識乾枯的香港, 陶傑才可以發熱發光.). This statement consists of the necessary elemets. What else consistent could Cheung add afterwards? Maybe the words "Tao deserves his accomplishments." She dares not have written "the audience sounds stupid to praise him as the first mic, consequently let him make money." (If he had not appeared in the magazine, you could have got some $18 to buy a CD.)

In doing business, entrepreneurs like Ms Winne Yu Tsang would reward only those delivering what the public wants, e.g. EEG treating Joey and Twins. Tomorrow's reporter Cheung in Journalism might climb up to somewhere like today's Joey in entertainment. You see how hard 李慧玲 works to grab 黃毓民's fans.

Talking about the interview again. Tao said, "Because they can't do it, because they are losers." It looks that either 董橋 and 金庸 couldn't or they wouldn't have done what Tao are currently doing but they are certainly not losers. On the other hand, it seems that neither Tao can nor he will do what they have done.

In addition to "the principle" you mentioned, capability and intellect appears also mattering. Nonetheless Tao is knowledgeable, diligent and intelligent, that makes him thriving in HK and creates another so-called HK success story. He somehow deserves his accomplishments.

I end this email with a sentence recently learned, "the observer could see thoughts slowly floating into people's mind, like carp in a pond." (Carp is a kind of small fish.)

Cheers,
Eric