Frequent visitors of Inmedia must have noticed some interesting changes of late respecting its page layout. "Today's Focus" has grown enormously, at the expense of the columns. New essays, saving those which can make their way into "Hot Spot," are no longer classified by genre or theme, but grouped indistinctively under the head of "All New Essays."
As of this writing, the thread, entitled "第一屆香港社會論壇特刊（獨立媒體網中大學生報生報聯合出版）" appears in three--or, if my follow-up be counted, four--places on the page; even the picture accompanying the thread are thrice reproduced. I am sure few other pieces, if any at all, can enjoy the same privilege and attention.
It may be said that the thread reports an event central to Inmedia, thus deserving of the treatment. Granted. But then, pieces like "城市規劃何時解殖？再論中環價值(全文版)" by 陳景輝, or "懷念鐘" by 梁文道, do not report at all, but comment on current affairs, which have well been reported elsewhere in Inmedia; yet still they are given much space at the center of the page, showing pictures and a large chunk of the writing.
If there be no guideline, as to how a piece may get selected for "Today's Focus," we are nevertheless told, in the short description for "Hot Spot," the following:
"焦點評論/報導
"編輯部從專欄區和電子報中精選出來的評論和報導, 重點地推介給讀者 "
But what does this mean, "精選出來的評論和報導"? Suppose a writer presents a piece arguing for the reasonableness of demolishing the Bell Tower, or praising the virtue of "Central Values," would the editors, finding the piece well-written, albeit contrary to the outlook of Inmedia, still select it and give it a good deal of publicity?
Beside the title "聯署要求政府立刻停止清拆天星碼頭及鐘樓" in "Today's Focus" is a very large picture of the Bell Tower. That it is an effective way to convey a message, I do not doubt; but that it requires so much space (n.b. in its place the editors could have, as they did in the old days, put seven or eight new titles, alerting readers to new contributions), I see no reason. Moreover, the very same title has, again, been shown under the head of "Action Diary": another instance of duplication on the page.
Editors, reasonably enough, must have the power to select pieces for some central section of a newspaper. Insofar that the mission of a newspaper is to report, it is imperative to give space to topics of the day. To this I raise no objection at all. But editors also know that in selecting pieces for this purpose they are often tempted also to select those which do not so much report as comment on that which has already been reported. In giving more space to some such writing than to others, editors become promoters. An article lamenting the CUHK gets attention, but not an article endorsing the broader use of English; an article glorifying small communities gets attention, but not an article questioning the thought or passion behind the glorification. And all these done in the name of an Independent Media.
It may be objected that readers can make their own selections, and by tipping them with a few stars reward the authors thereof. Though yet, no one would doubt that the kind of articles selected over the years are almost always those in line with the outlook of Inmedia. An article decrying the government has a good chance to be selected, but not one praising it in any way. An article introducing a book in cultural studies will certainly enjoy four or five stars, but not one about a book against that discipline.
So by and by Inmedia becomes homogenized. From a Forum, while guided by interesting reports about less noticed events of the day, yet still offering a plurality of voices to debate the issues; it becomes now principally a Promoter of a certain outlook or view: If you write in accordance with that outlook (as in "城市規劃何時解殖？再論中環價值(全文版)" or "懷念鐘" ), even though it be simply a personal comment, you shall be publicized; but if, unfortunately, you happen to write against that outlook, you shall suffer a different fate.
The quiet metamorphosis of Inmedia gives the editors a much stronger control over what gets publicized and what not. A multiplicity of columns giving way to seven or eight titles, some being already put up elsewhere on the page, the central outlook or vision becomes better consolidated. Or we shall say, the recent changes are nothing but the further implementation of the principle of "精選出來的評論和報導", a principle to which four-fifths of the page is now subject.
I record these changes in the old spirit of Inmedia: to report independently, to comment independently. If the editors think that my little report and comment, by pointing out an interesting question for any independent media, and for editorial power in general (both of which being routine concerns of this virtual community), have contributed not trivially to raising a certain consciousness, and decide that my piece deserves a bit more publicity, to be achieved, again, by duplication or even triplication on the page, I shall be most grateful.