EastSouthWestNorth: In Defense of the Realm

In Defense of the Realm

One of the interesting aspects of the EasyFinder/Gillian Chung case (see Comment200608#083) is just what is Next Media's defense. At first, it was mostly silence. The lone response from EasyFinder itself was a defiant refusal to apologize or admit fault. Then there was an editorial in Apple Daily (see Comment200608#112).

More recently, three opinion essays appeared in Apple Daily in defense of EasyFinder. These three essays are highly controversial. The first one is written by an independent writer, who has been accused of selling her soul. The second one is by a regular Apple Daily columnist, who has been accused of bundling the Hong Kong democratic movement with the EasyFinder case. The third one is written by the regular AP commentator Li Yi. Since Li has been prominent on issues of democracy on Hong Kong, he has been accused of lacking principles.

Here are the translations (and the originals are re-produced below for readers in mainland China who cannot access Apple Daily). You can read for yourself and decide. I have also offered a translation of one popular Hong Kong blog post on the matter.

EasyFinder Cannot Apologize. By Jiang Yun (蔣芸).

At a time when there are only one-sided condemnations from various sectors of society and large-scale protest marches, my worst fear is that EasyFinder may not be able to withstand the huge pressure of public opinion and thereby cave in to apologize. If they apologize, the consequences are unimaginable.

Based upon the current trend, some artistes are taking up the role of victims to carry out their ulterior motives while others who were involved in previous scandals are coming to claim that they had been smeared and victimized as well. The watchdog capability of the media cannot be lightly dismissed. Sometimes, you have to admire how the media organizations use their enormous manpower and financial resources to chase down a story. They roam the ends of the earth to find these celebrities conducting secret love affair overseas, or patronize prostitutes on the mainland. An affair that was believed to be totally secret suddenly appears in front of you with photographs and text. Do you think that it is so simple?

For example, consider the latest photographs of Superman (=Li Ka-shing) holding hands with his female friend in the streets of Rome. Can you say that you have no interest in the warmth of love at an old age? Can you say that all the distinguished celebrities and gentlemen are not worried about the secrets that they prefer to remain unknown? Can you say that the real-life wives are not secretly glad that their other halves are being watched without their having to pay a cent for private investigators' fees? There is a very good example about Big Brother Bo when a pair of shoes with initials appeared at a certain Parisian hotel. Today, he and his wife appear in public as the perfect couple. What shall we say about that?

Things cannot be completely one-sided. Even as the entertainment people condemn the media, they ought to reflect on how many unspeakable secrets they are keeping. If they did not want people to know, they should not have done it in the first place. And it also depends on their market value.

Peephole literature became popular in response to market demands. The public have an unlimited interest in the celebrities, and the tabloid magazines satisfy people's curiosity. Who doesn't read them? If people are not reading them, then how could they have existed for so long? And be so popular?

There is no denying that the tabloids serve a watchdog function. They bring pressure upon public figures, who are forced to examine their own conduct. Public figures, especially those in the audio-visual entertainment field, ought to ask themselves: "How many more criminal and immoral activities still remain unexposed under the sun!" This is not about condemnation alone. There will come a day when nobody pays any attention to you even if you take off your clothes in the middle of the street. If nobody pursues you and reports on you, your market value is gone.

After being photographed during a backstage clothes change, Gillian Chung cried that she won't be able to face anyone or explain what happened. Actually, it is not necessary to worry about this. An artiste especially should not be ashamed of her body. I do not believe that photographs like these will affect her career. From the recent chain of events, it seems only to have helped with no harm.

An artiste has an interactive relationship with the media. I do not believe that a popular media can be so lazy as to show only what the artistes present about themselves. It would bore the audience to death!

This affair should not be magnified without bounds. It should not be taken too seriously. Andy Lau asked, "What would you do if someone snooped on your younger sister like this?" I would reply: "If it were my younger sister or daughter being snooped upon, I would say, 'Daughter (or younger sister), you are now popular.' Then I would say: 'No matter where or when, you must also maintain a perfect pose, because you never know where there is a camera ...'"

The "Dirty Spot" of Gillian. By Koo Tak Ming (古德明).

Artiste Gillian Chung was recently photographed by an EasyFinder magazine photographer during a backstage clothes change. After the photographs came out, various sectors in Hong Kong society were outraged.

The entertainment industry organized a meeting to denounce the magazine, the women's organizations initiated a boycott campaign and even Chief Executive Donald Tsang came out to condemn the invasion of privacy by magazines. Everybody felt sorry for Gillian's body. Gillian looked sad and pitiful and cried to the people of Hong Kong: "Such a scandal has put a dirty spot in my life." She is exaggerating.

In New Account of Tales of the World (Shishuo xinyu 世說新語), the Jin dynasty celebrity Liu Ling sometimes went naked inside his home and so people made fun of him. He said frankly: "The heavens form my roof and the buildings are my clothes. Why are you condemning me?" When the EasyFinder reporter intruded upon Gillian, he was the one who is disgraced. Why should Gillian feel soiled?

In Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the notion of the innocent being innocent is even clearer. At the end of the Han dynasty, the autocrat Cao Cao wanted to humiliate the public figure Heng by making him the drummer and therefore forcing him to don the drummer's uniform. So Heng took off his old clothes in front of everybody and stood there completely naked. Cao Cao yelled: "How can you be so rude in a temple hall?" Heng replied: "I show what my parents gave me in order to prove that my body is pure." He was not ashamed of being naked in public, but he was ashamed of working for Cao Cao: "I am a loyal servant of the Han dynasty, and I will not be a member of Cao Cao's gang!" Today's Hong Kong artistes may not be able to appreciate the meaning of this.

When Tung Chee-hwa was in charge of Hong Kong, public discontent was boiling over. On public occasions, citizens would openly boo him. When the artiste Jackie Chan saw that, he did not beat the drum to curse Cao Cao (like Heng did), but he scolded the Hong Kong people: "The Hong Kong people are ugly!" On July 1, 2003, 500,000 people marched in Hong Kong to oppose the Article 23 legislation, but this artiste condemned them for "destroying the image of Hong Kong." Recently, he attended a concert and then engaged in a drunken, obscene shouting match with the audience. Now, he has stepped up again to solemnly "defend the dignity of the entertainment field."

For example, on July 1st this year, 60,000 people marched in Hong Kong to protest against China for stopping universal suffrage in contravention of the Basic Law. Gillian and other artistes went instead to sing for the Chinese Communists and to "celebrate the harmonious unity on the ninth anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China." She should go and read Romance of the Three Kingdoms first before she talks about the dirty spots in life.

In the second year of Ruiping of the southern Song dynasty. The rebel general Rong Quan took over the city of Huaihain and sent for the courtesan Mao Xixi to dine with him. Mao refused and said: "You were a valiant fighter once. What has the government done to you to cause you to rebel? I can go to my death, but I will not drink with a rebellious bandit." So she died by the knife of Rong Quan (see The Unofficial Stories of the Three Dynasties). Mao Xixi was a courtesan, but nobody has ever said that her body was tainted. After the Song army caught and executed Rong Quan, they honored Mao Xixi as the Lady Martyr, and she was included in The Women in Song History.

Today, Mao Xixi is long buried under the ground. But she will not forget what this current Chinese Communist government is like the government of the 1989 massacre and the government of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960's. If you want her to celebrate and drink to this government, she would surely say once more: "I would rather go to my death." She will not understand Gillian and Jackie Chan's talk about "maintaining dignity." The dignity of a courtesan in the old China is different from the dignity of the artistes in the new China.

In the west, reporters snoop on movie stars and politicians every day, and the victims can sue in civil courts. Today, Donald Tsang's government suggests using the criminal code of law against the media for invading privacy. If this legislation is ever passed, then in conjunction with the recently passed Interception of Communications and Surveillance Bill, the Chinese Communists will be able to rule Hong Kong easily. At that time, the politicians will be like the artistes, and nobody will be able to probe their activities; the people of Hong Kong will be just like the people in mainland China, because every word and deed will be secretly monitored by the government.

Today, the various sectors of Hong Kong all seem to be sympathetic towards Gillian. I do not want to say anymore about difference between the little evils and the great evils. I close my doors, I read the history books and let the ancients show the way.

Cheering for Jiang Yun. By Li Yi (李怡).

Writer Jiang Yun's essay in the opinion section last Saturday showed that she had the courage to go against the current when emotions are running high. After I read it, I had to applaud and admit that she was better than me. At the same day, there was an essay by Koo Tak Ming about the true "dirty spot" is on the soul and the conscience. Compared to that, what is the "dirty spot" when artiste showed a small part of her back without ever showing the naughty bits? If there was a "dirty spot," it was on the snooping photographer. Even if a prostitute sells her body, she is cleaner than treacherous villains.

The EasyFinder snoop affair has definitely aroused popular opinion following the call of people in the entertainment industry. Yet, how was that public opinion aroused? Was there any rational basis? Was it right or wrong? The correctness of the opinion is not going to be decided by the number of bodies.

The following story is popular: When Einstein invented the theory of relativity, the scientists were at odds in their assessments. In 1930, a critical book appeared in Germany under the title: "One hundred professors come out to prove that Einstein was wrong." When Einstein heard about it, he roared in laughter: "One hundred people? Why is it necessary to find so many people? If I can really be proven to be wrong, one person would be enough."

In Jiang Yun's essay, the most important idea was: EasyFinder magazine cannot apologize even in the face of such huge public opinion pressure. "If they apologize, the consequences are unimaginable."

Why are "the consequences unimaginable"? Because an "apology" implies an admission of fault, and therefore an abdication of communication media's responsibility to monitor public figures and an abandonment of the media's responsibility to actively expose what the public figures do not want people to know. In practice, this will invert the role relationship between media and public figures, and that is why the consequences become unimaginable.

Perhaps someone will say that the media should watch over the public figures only on matters that involve significant public interests. When Gillian Chung changed her clothes backstage in Malaysia, that did not involve the public interest and therefore this was a grave invasion of privacy. Yet, if you say Gillian Chung changing clothes backstage does not involve the public interest, then what about Superman (=Li Ka-shing) holding hands with his female friend in the streets of Rome? Does that involve the public interest?

Before Donald Tsang became the Chief Executive, did the fact that he was whistling while walking towards Government House involve the public interest? When Leon Lai was photographed with Gaile Lai by Gillian Chung's boss Albert Yeung's Oriental Sunday magazine, did that involve the public interest? Whether something involves the public interest cannot be decided by "righteous people" or commentators, and especially not by the government.

I never read EasyFinder. If I sometimes flip through it, I find much of the language unbearable. But what is it so popular? Why are there so many tabloid magazines in the streets? What is wrong by printing more copies of that issue of EasyFinder in response to readers' demand?

Let us listen to what the other victim of snooping, Leon Lai, say about the Gillian Chung affair. He said: "I don't want to say anything. Everything should have its value and meaning of existence."

He is a person in a special situation and he was being subtle, but the meaning is quite clear. Public figures have their values and meaning for existence and the media (including the tabloid magazines) also have their values and meaning for existence. The public figures obviously hope that the media can fully report the aspects that they want the people to know. But if the media only report what the public figures want them to, it will only "bore the audience to death" in Jiang Yun's words. Therefore, the media will dig out the aspects that the public figures do not want the people to know. The two sides depend on each other and they are also in conflict with each other. But if the media reported something that the public figures do not want reported and must apologize for it, then truly "the consequences are unimaginable."

The opinions of Jiang Yun and others may not be completely right with respect to the boundary for the media to cover private matters. That is subject to debate. But it was invaluable for her to show the courage of an intellectual to brave public opinion. Some commentators are not afraid of those in power; other commentators ignore advertising interests and make independent criticisms; but there are very few who are not intimidated by public opinion. Yet it is these discussions that can really open up the public space in society.

Here is the blog post 拿長矛挑風車：翻炒偷拍事件 from 葉一知,刁民公園 (Diuman Park)

[in partial translation with certain sections omitted]

...

Jiang Yun wrote:

Things cannot be completely one-sided. Even as the entertainment people condemn the media, they ought to reflect on how many unspeakable secrets they are keeping. If they did not want people to know, they should not have done it in the first place. And it also depends on their market value.

The peephole literature became popular in response to market demands. The public have an unlimited interest in the celebrities, and the tabloid magazines satisfy people's curiosity. Who does not read them? If people are not reading them, then how could they have existed for so long? And be so popular?

There is no denying that the tabloids serve a watchdog function. They bring pressure upon public figures, who are forced to examine their own conduct. Public figures, especially those in the audio-visual entertainment field, ought to ask themselves: "How many more criminal and immoral activities still remain unexposed under the sun!" This is not about condemnation alone. There will come a day when nobody pays you any attention even if you take off your clothes in the middle of the street. If nobody pursues you and reports on you, your market value vanishes.

At first, she wrote: "The public have an unlimited interest in the celebrities, and the tabloid magazines satisfy people's curiosity. Who does not read them?" Then she leaps out of nowhere into: "There is no denying that the tabloids serve a watchdog function." Tabloid journalism and watchdog journalism are two completely different things. I'll get back to this later.

"How many more criminal and immoral activities still remain unexposed under the sun!" Great, but is changing your clothes backstage a criminal and immoral activity?

But there is one thing that I concur with: only the market forces can change the unhealthy trend. As Jiang Yun said, if one day when nobody would read a magazine reporting on people stripping in the streets, the market value of the magazine would be terminated.

But Jiang Yun's best quote is at the end:

"If it were my younger sister or daughter being snooped upon, I would say, 'Daughter (or younger sister), you are now popular. Then I would say: "No matter where or when, you must also maintain a perfect pose, because you don't know where there is a camera ...'"

What a perfect answer! According to the same logic, I believe that if Jiang Yun's younger sister or daughter should come running home one day to her and cry: "The boss wants me to go to the hotel with him tonight to discuss the singing contract -- I'm scared" she would reply: "Daughter (or younger sister), you are now popular. No matter where or when, you must take the contraceptives, because you don't know when a condom might break ..."

... Li Yi began:

Why are "the unimaginable consequences"? Because an "apology" implies an admission of fault, and therefore an abdication of communication media's responsibility to monitor public figures and an abandonment of the media's responsibility to actively expose what the public figures do not want people to know.

Note the keyword: monitor.

Perhaps someone will say that the media should watch over the public figures only on matters that involve significant public interests. When Gillian Chung changed her clothes backstage in Malaysia, that did not involve the public interest and therefore this is a grave invasion of privacy. Yet, if you say Gillian Chung changing clothes backstage does not involve the public interest, then what about Superman (=Li Ka-shing) holding hands with his female friend in the streets of Rome? Does that involve the public interest? Before Donald Tsang became the Chief Executive, did the fact that he was whistling while walking towards Government House involve the public interest? When Leon Lai was photographed with Gaile Lai by Gillian Chung's boss Albert Yeung's Oriental Sunday magazine, did that involve the public interest?

This is still about 'monitor'. Then there is a quick switch.

Whether something involves the public interest cannot be decided by "righteous people" or commentators, and especially not by the government. I never read EasyFinder. If I sometimes flip through it, I find much of the language unbearable. But what is it so popular? Why are there so many tabloid magazines in the streets? What is wrong by printing more copies of that issue of EasyFinder in response to readers' demand?

Suddenly the concept of "monitor" glided into the concept of "market." A "righteous person" holding up the "great flag of watchdog monitoring" was suddenly transformed into a pure businessman who is saying "What is so wrong about printing more copies to satisfy readers' demand?" The writing is as slick as a martial arts technique.

There is no market for "watchdog" news, so there is no chance of additional print runs. Fewer people here know about the classical case of watchdog journalism in the Whitewater affair than about the Gillian Chung case. The various examples offered by Li Yi contain a small amount (and only a small amount) of public interest issues, but they are all easily seen to be related to tabloid journalism. In other words, this is unrelated to "the monitoring of public figures by the media" and it has everything to do with "the tabloid reporting of public figures by the media." Tabloid journalism arose from the market.

Surreptitious photographing, undercover surveillance and investigative tailing are all techniques that can be used to uncover secrets. There is nothing bad about the media using such techniques to monitor society. That is one reason why I am opposed to governmental legislation to supervise the media. Even if some magazines use such techniques to produce tabloid journalism, it is just a necessary evil. But when a magazine uses snooping to produce tabloid journalism while calling it monitoring, society will pay attention and speak out. The goal is not to expect the magazine to lay off, but to (naively) hope that their voices will one day turn into market restraints.

Whether it is right to take stealth photographs or not depends on the situation. When a reporter films someone rearing a black bear illegally, it is right; when a reporter takes a photograph of a seven-year-old girl urinating and puts it on the front page, it is wrong even if "there is nothing much to see" (as in the Gillian Chung photographs).

If someone uses a chopping knife to kill ten persons, people will condemn the fact that he killed ten persons and not because he used a chopping knife. His crime is murder, not the possession of a chopping knife. Under these circumstances, we do not need the government to enact legislation to control the distribution and usage of chopping knifes to licensed housewives only. By the same reasoning, if EasyFinder has to apologize, it would not be for the practice of snoop photography or for snooping on celebrities. They would do so for filming people changing clothes or urinating, or for improperly using snoop photograph in specific instances. They would be apologizing for setting up a bad example to enable certain people to act against the media in general and for indirectly enabling the introduction of legislation to control and stifle the media.

As always, I am opposed to government control but I also do not accept abuse, especially the kind of self-righteous claim of "holding up the sign of watchdog journalism while practicing tabloid journalism." I only hope that when we oppose any government legislation to control the media, we would do it for the right reasons instead of some other twisted reasons.

《壹本便利》不能道歉 (蔣芸　作家 )

在各界一片一面倒的譴責，大陣仗的遊行抗議聲中，我最害怕的是《壹本便利》受不了如此巨大的輿論壓力而屈服道歉了。一旦道歉，後果不堪設想。

照現在的走勢看來，混水摸魚的藝人乘機以被害人姿態出現，一些被爆料的走出來也說自己被屈，被害，也加入譴責行列。

傳媒的監察力量，實在不容輕忽。有時，你不得不佩服那些傳媒機構動用了龐大的人力物力，天涯海角的去追蹤，幾經辛苦，可以拍到名人外埠偷情、大陸叫雞，原來以為神不知鬼不覺的事情竟可以圖文並茂呈現在你面前，你以為這是簡單的事嗎？

名流紳士人人自危

如最新見光的超人與紅顏知己羅馬街頭拖手仔的照片，你敢說你沒興趣見到如此溫馨的黃昏之戀情景嗎？你敢說寧為人知莫為人見的名流紳士不人人自危嗎？而他們的正印夫人不芳心竊喜，居然不花一文私家偵探費而有人替她們監察另一半嗎？

有一個很好的例子，名人寶哥哥正是因為曾被爆料，一雙有名字縮寫的鞋子，在巴黎某大酒店出現，如今公眾場合與夫人有影皆雙，成了叫人艷羨的璧人，這又怎麼說？

發揮一定監察作用

凡事不能一面倒，影藝界的人譴責傳媒之時，應該省視自己有多少見不得光的事。若要人不知，除非己莫為，還要看自己有沒有市場價值。

匙孔文字的興起，實在是順應市場的需要，公眾對名人的好奇心無限的大，八卦雜誌滿足了人們的好奇心，誰不愛看？不看，怎麼能存在這麼久？這麼火？

不可否認的是它也發揮了監察的作用，帶給公眾人物壓力，令到他們的行為受到檢視。公眾人物，尤其影視界人士，應該先問問自己，太陽底下，有多少男盜女娼的真人真事還沒有曝光！而不是一味去譴責。等到有一天，你當街跳脫衣舞沒有人看，沒有人追，沒有人報道，你的市場價值也就完蛋了。

被拍到後台換衣服的照片，阿嬌哭訴說是怎麼見人，怎麼對人解釋？其實大可不必為這事憂心，一個藝人尤其不應該以自己的身體為恥。我甚至不相信這樣的照片會影響她的生涯。從最近她這一拍引起的效應可見只有幫助，沒有害處。

藝人傳媒互相倚賴

一個藝人與傳媒的關係是相互的，我亦不相信一個有叫座力的傳媒，懶惰到只報道藝人們向你呈現的，希望你報道的事情，這樣一來，豈不悶死看官！

不要無限上綱，將這樣一件事看得太嚴重。劉德華說，如果你妹妹被人如此偷拍你會怎樣？我會回答：如果我妹妹、我女兒被人偷

拍，我會說：阿女、阿妹，原來你真是走紅了。接下來，我會說，無論甚麼時候，都要保持優美儀態，因為你不知道甚麼地方有開麥拉 … …

阿嬌的「污點」

古德明

戲子阿嬌最近被《壹本便利》記者偷拍更衣照。照片刊出之後，香港各界不勝義憤。
戲子界舉行聲討大會，婦女界發起罷買行動，行政長官曾蔭權也站出來譴責雜誌侵犯隱私。大家都為阿嬌胴體扼腕。阿嬌愈發楚楚可憐，向港人哭訴：「這樣的醜事，令我人生蒙上污點。」她言重了。

《世說新語》有一個故事：晉朝名士劉伶在家有時不穿衣服，遭人譏笑，坦然回答：「我以天地為棟宇，屋室為衣，諸君何為入我中？」《壹本便利》記者入阿嬌中，那是自賤，阿嬌何污之有。

《三國演義》把那清者自清道理講得更明白。漢朝末年，獨夫曹操有心羞辱名士衡，要他做鼓吏，改穿鼓吏衣服。衡從從容容，當眾脫下舊衣，裸體而立。曹操喝道：「廟堂之上，何太無禮？」衡回答：「吾露父母之形，以顯清白之體耳。」他不以裸露為恥，卻恥於依附曹操：「吾乃漢朝之臣，不作曹瞞之黨！」這道理，香港今天的戲子未必明白。

比如說，董建華治港期間，民怨鼎沸，百姓一在公開場合看到他就噓聲四起。戲子成龍見了，不效打鼓罵曹，卻痛斥港人：「香港人真醜陋！」二 ○ ○ 三年七月一日，香港五十萬人遊行反對二十三條箝制言論法案，又被這位戲子評為「破壞香港形象」。他最近出席演唱會，乘醉惡語猥詞和觀眾對罵；現在卻站出來，一臉嚴正，「捍衞演藝界尊嚴」了。

又比如說，今年七月一日，香港六萬人遊行，抗議中共撕毀《基本法》禁止普選；阿嬌等一干戲子則去為中共演唱，「慶祝香港回歸九週年和諧團結」。她去讀讀《三國演義》才談人生污點吧。

南宋端平二年，淮海別將榮全據城作亂，召妓女毛惜惜佐酒。毛惜惜拒絕說：「汝本健兒，官家何負於汝，而反？吾有死耳，不能為反賊行酒。」結果身喪榮全刀下（《三朝野史》）。毛惜惜身為妓女，歷來卻沒有人敢說她污了清白之軀。宋室擒殺榮全之後，封毛惜惜為英烈夫人，《宋史．列女》還為她立傳。

今天，起毛惜惜於地下，她絕對不會忘記當前之中共政府，猶一九八九年之屠城政府，猶一九六 ○ 年代之文革政府。要她為這政府行酒慶祝，她一定會再說一次：「吾有死耳。」她不會明白阿嬌、成龍等說的「維護尊嚴」。這位舊中國妓女的尊嚴和新中國戲子的尊嚴不同。

在西方，記者偷拍明星、政客等等無日無之，被偷拍者大可上民事法庭興訟。現在，曾蔭權政府卻主張用刑事法對付傳媒窺探隱私。法案一旦通過，加上當局最近頒布的《截取通訊及監察法例》，中共治港更加可以運之掌上。政客會和戲子一樣，做甚麼都不許別人窺探；香港百姓則會和大陸百姓一樣，一言一行隨時可被政府秘密監察。

今天，香港各界似乎都十分同情阿嬌。然則甚麼叫做小惡，甚麼叫做大惡，我還是不要多說了。閉上門，翻開青史，古道照顏色。

李怡專欄：為蔣芸喝采

作家蔣芸女士上周六在論壇版的文章，表現出她在群情洶湧中，一股逆潮流而動的勇氣。筆者讀後不得不暗自喝采，也感到自愧不如。同一天，還刊出古德明的文章，提到一個人的真正「污點」，是靈魂與良知的污點，至於被偷拍了三點不露、只露出小小背部的戲子，那算甚麼污點呢？縱有污點也屬於偷拍者。妓女出賣肉體，比之出賣靈魂的反覆小人，反倒更為淨。

《壹本便利》的偷拍事件，確實在演藝界人士的動員號召之下，挑起了洶湧的群情。然而，群情是怎麼煽動起來的？群情有沒有理？是不是對呢？意見的是非對錯畢竟不是靠人多勢眾來界定的。

一個流傳的故事是：愛因斯坦在創建相對論之後，科學界褒貶不一。一九三 ○ 年，德國出版了一本批判相對論的書，書名叫做《一百位授出面證明愛因斯坦錯了》。愛因斯坦知道後，哈哈大笑說：「一百位，幹嘛要這麼多人？只要能證明我真的錯了，哪怕一個人出面也足夠了。」
蔣芸的文章，最重要的意見是：《壹本便利》在如此巨大的輿論壓力下，絕不能道歉。「一旦道歉，後果不堪設想。」

為甚麼「後果不堪設想」呢？因為「道歉」就承認做錯了，也就是放棄了傳播媒介監察公眾人物的責任，放棄了傳媒要努力揭發公眾人物不願讓大眾看到的私密的責任。實際上是顛覆了傳媒與公眾人物的不同的角色關係，確實是「後果不堪設想」。

也許有人說，傳媒對公眾人物的監察，應以涉及重大公眾利益為目的。阿嬌在大馬登台更衣，不涉重大公眾利益，採取偷拍的手段，實在是犯有窺人陰私的大錯。然而，如果說阿嬌登台更衣不涉公眾利益，那麼超人與紅顏知己在羅馬街頭拖手仔是否也不涉公眾利益呢？曾蔭權在接任特首之前，輕佻地吹口哨走向政府總部是否也不涉公眾利益？黎明早前被阿嬌老闆楊受成旗下雜誌《東方新地》偷拍在寓所內與樂基兒纏綿的照片，又是不是公眾利益？一件事是否涉公眾利益，不能由「正義人士」、評論家更不能由政府去界定。筆者從不看《壹本便利》，偶而翻閱也覺得其中不少詞語頗難忍受。但為甚麼它能暢銷？為甚麼街頭多的是這類八卦雜誌？應讀者的需求，那一期《壹本便利》加印又有甚麼錯？

看看另一位偷拍的受害人黎明，怎樣評論阿嬌事件，他說：「不想說，但每樣東西應該都有存在的價值與意義。」

他因身份特殊，講得含蓄，但意思也相當清楚。公眾人物有他們存在的價值與意義，傳媒（包括八卦雜誌）也有它們存在的價值與意義。公眾人物自然希望傳媒能全部報道他們要讓民眾知道的一面，但傳媒若只報道公眾人物想要報道的一面，用蔣芸的話，「豈不悶死看官」，因此傳媒就是要挖掘公眾人物不想被報道的一面。兩者之間既相互依賴，又相互矛盾。倘若傳媒一旦報道了公眾人物不想讓人看到的一面，就立刻要道歉，那確實是「後果不堪設想」。

蔣芸等的意見當然不一定對，關於傳媒介入個人私隱的追訪界線，從來是可以爭論的話題，但她表現出知識分子不畏群情的勇氣，則是十分難能可貴的。輿論界有不畏強權的，有不顧廣告利益而獨立評論的，但鮮有不畏群情的。而只有不畏群情的討論，才能真正開拓社會的公共空間。