無線新聞、Now 新聞、有線新聞網站截圖
TVB 播出街嘅新聞係點，我諗我都唔需要多講㗎喇，不過晏晝睇午間新聞聽到佢哋一則新聞提要講到：「英國譴責所有暴力行為，包括衝擊中聯辦同元朗暴力事件」，覺得好奇怪點解我大英帝國會噉樣表態，就忍唔住想做少少功課、寫少少嘢，順便為自己會任教嘅 “English for the Mass Media” 備一備課，探一探視當中嘅media ethics（傳媒道德）。
（筆者準備投稿之際，香港獨立媒體網另一作者「黃啟晹 - 腸」都已經就住同一單新聞寫咗另一篇文《CCTVB 已經唔係是是旦旦，而係公然報假新聞》，詳見）
關於英國表態 ——
TVB
首先以以下voice-over (VO) 做lead-in：
「而英國中東同發展國務大臣莫里森，就喺下議院譴責所有暴力行為，包括衝擊中聯辦同元朗暴力事件...」
提要 predispose（預設立場）咗 audience（受眾）英國對以上兩樣嘢譴責（當然最重要嘅大家都知係前者），跟手附上相關官員（經精彩剪接）嘅講話片段1，刻意刪走中間嘅轉折，將關於元朗襲擊嘅內容「A group armed with canes and poles attacked pro-democracy protestors and other passengers」配搭落相關講話頭兩句以示威者、尤其是係第二句「some protestors (who) diverted from the approve[d] route and (who had) clashes with the police」作為subject（主語）嘅語句度，令相關官員講話入面嘅兩班人，喺 semantic meaning（語義）上變成同一班人，從而將原裝片段所表達嘅震驚同譴責混雜落喺中聯辦外衝突嘅示威者頭上混為一談，“invent information” 3, 同 “truth”（真相）相距甚遠。（事實上，相關官員喺原裝片段入面從未將兩者混和譴責。）
Source
註2：由於做呢份功課需時，筆者喺搜集番相關嘅片段嘅時候發現 TVB 甚至已經另外剪輯一則新提要，轉用埋以下 VO，正正式式將兩者夾埋一齊譴責：
「英國官員譴責星期日香港發生衝擊中聯辦及元朗暴力衝突，形容事件震驚同唔能夠接受。」
Now
全程只用 VO，並未提供相關官員講話嘅片段：
「另一方面，英國中東事務大臣穆里森，譴責星期日喺元朗發生嘅暴力事件，指英國感到震驚，而且唔能夠接受。」
雖然提要重點帶出元朗襲擊同予以譴責，未有提及中聯辦外衝突，但譴責對象、意思同相關官員講話相同。
有線
先以以下VO 做lead-in：
「英國政府就對本港星期日遊行之後，中聯辦外有示威衝突，同元朗有人襲擊市民表示震驚，譴責暴力行為」
提要意思完整、準確，跟手附上未經刪剪嘅有關片段補充。
註1：筆者自己做英文 listening 為片段做咗份 transcript（下面係 TVB 刪走咗嘅部分）：
“Hundreds of thousands of people took part in a largely peaceful march on Hong Kong Island. However, some protestors diverted from the approve[d] route and there were clashes with the police, including outside the Chinese Central Government Liaison Office. (Last night, there were disturbing scenes in the New Territories town of Yuen Long.) A group armed with canes and poles attacked pro-democracy protestors and other passengers at the metro station. (45 protestors were reportedly injured, one critically.) We were all shocked to see such unacceptable scenes of violence.”
小結
TVB 英文好（?）可以玩弄（尤其是英文差，仲有）唔會 “fact check” 嘅受眾？Anyway，都唔好污衊咗我大英帝國先得㗎！
註3: Batty, C. & Cain S. (2010). Media Writing: A Practical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
“[E]thics form a crucial part of a journalist’s working life.
For Clayton: ‘remember, you are a camera. Go and observe. Report the facts as you see – no more. Never overestimate the readers’ knowledge, never underestimate their intellect. Give the general public the truth and let their integrity do the rest’ (2000: 24). What remains an integral facet to the working journalist, then, is a full consideration of truth and integrity to readers. Of course, journalists will always have a point of view towards a news story, but if they allow this to take over the facts in hand and become too personally involved, they will produce nothing but propaganda. As McCombs reminds us:
After all, it is not the goal of professional journalists to persuade anybody about anything. The canons of objectivity, which have dominated professional journalistic practice and thought for generations, explicitly disavow any effort at persuasion. This is not to say that the news stories of the day are not exactly that, new stories. They are indeed! And like all stories, they structure experience for us, filtering out many of the complexities of the environment and offering a polished, perhaps even literary, version in which a few objects and selected attributes are highlighted. (1998: 26)
The ethically ideal model of truth, balance and integrity is evident from the much-used metaphor of mining: ‘journalists dug for the facts (often described as nuggets of information) which lay hidden until they brought them into light. Regardless of the consequences, the journalist’s prime duty was discovery and revelation. This placed a premium on accuracy, as inaccurate information was effectively of no public use’ (Bromley, 1994: 101). So, rather than purposely aiming to promote their agendas in everything they write, journalists should work independently of themselves, of their own views, beliefs, experiences and any ‘unprofessional’ links with third-party organizations. This relates closely to the idea that the media should act as the Fourth Estate: it should ‘reflect public interest and not be aligned to government or powerful social groups. According to this view the media operate relatively independently and are not, in any major sense, mouthpieces of the state’ (Anderson, 1997: 46). Although, as will be discussed later, it is sometimes difficult to escape the notion of subjectivity and personal agenda, this idea of newspapers being part of the Fourth Estate should be duly considered by anyone wishing to enter the print journalism industry.
With this in mind, the following ethical guidelines are offered by Randall (2000: 134-8) to all practising and would-be journalists:
...Every story should be an honest search for the truth.
...Do not use your position to threaten or gain advantage.
...Do not invent or improve information.”