To the China Times editors:
It's indeed unfortunate that we have to write this letter. We would not be condemning the China Times like this if we could see a sincere apology from the newspaper for its report about the death of Lin Yung-hsiang (林永祥) -- a physician at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital -- published on May 15. Nevertheless, no apology can completely remedy the loss of your credibility or the harm caused by the report to Lin's relatives and friends.
First, we have to stress that we just want to give your newspaper some sincere suggestions. We have no intention to fight your newspaper, or to lose the chance of having a rational discussion with you. Your newspaper has been one of the most influential newspapers in the nation and was repeatedly selected as the most trustworthy news medium by the nation's college students. Unfortunately, in light of its recent performance, your newspaper really does not deserve this honor anymore.
Lin died of SARS on the morning of May 16 -- a day after your paper proclaimed the 28-year-old doctor's death in your front page story. But the daily only published a tiny notice on May 16 to correct the mistake. It must be unbearable for the loved ones of the young doctor, who was surprisingly proclaimed dead, in advance, by your paper.
By publishing this unconfirmed, mistaken story on your front page, your newspaper indeed hurt many people's feelings. Although we are not related to Lin, we can't help but notice: the China Times that we trusted in the past has constantly destroyed its readers' trust and expectations in recent years.
On May 14, we were stunned when your newspaper made "Why does A-bian [President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁)] not wear a mask?" your front-page headline. Whether the president should wear a mask is certainly debatable. However, by making the news with a condemning headline a front-page story, did the newspaper violate its goal of being neutral and objective, and the spirit of being a high-quality newspaper? You can surely answer that each newspaper has its stance and depth. We believe this is true, because we also agree with this creed.
In fact, we clearly know that your newspaper has no favorable impression of Chen. But this is not important. Your newspaper's likes and dislikes about people are not the main reason for our criticism.
But dear editors, do you remember that your newspaper suddenly switched its stance right before the 2000 presidential election by moving Chen's news to the front pages when you noticed that he might be elected? Are you aware that, during the US-Iraq war, your editorials were sometimes pro-war and sometimes anti-war?
Many more self-proclaimed "neutral" U-turns in your newspaper also made us feel that its sensitivity to public opinion is as strong as its rival newspaper, the Apple Daily. However, the frequent adjustments of position can hardly be called "stance and depth." Although your newspaper has given the public the impression it is a relatively neutral newspaper, it has often changed its stance.
The nature of your newspaper is especially highlighted in reports on cross-strait affairs. We analyzed the quality and quantity of your reports on Chen's controversial remarks that there is "one country on each side" of the Taiwan Strait, and compared them with those published by the United Daily News and the Liberty Times. We then found that the situation described by your reports was somewhat divorced from fact.
Your reports constantly suggested that Washington was displeased with Taipei and that Bei-jing was very angry. They also hinted that the government's announcement indicated chaotic policymaking and a pro-Taiwan independence tendency which was not supported by the public. But Washington then invited first lady Wu Shu-chen (吳淑珍) and then Kang Ning-hsiang (康寧祥), at the time vice minister of national defense, to the US last September -- a month after Chen made the statements.
Beijing also pointed out that the negotiations on the opening of direct links would not be affected by politics, while Taipei repeatedly affirmed that its China policy would remain unchanged. More than 50 percent of the public supported Chen's statements.
Moreover, your newspaper used many inappropriate news headlines at that time. For example, "Has the US already taken sides? [Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman] Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文): it's to early too say." This was perhaps your newspaper's favorite trick: using a question to begin the headline, then an answer to deny the proposed question while the readers are still focusing on the question.
Other examples are: "High-level government officials commented that Chen's statements were just an accident, not a policy," and "The DPP headquarters was not involved in writing Chen's speech; the reaction both at home and abroad is stronger then Chen expected; Premier Yu Shyi-kun was not aware of the speech's content beforehand." All these headlines indicated chaotic policy-making and gave readers a negative impression.
We believe there is a wide gap between these reports and the facts, which are clearly stated above. We are willing to fully respect your newspaper's own stance. But if the contents and headlines of your reports are different from the facts, according to general knowledge, you should state your stance in the newspaper's editorials.
Your paper's poor handling of news was also shown in the "ear-licking" scandal of the former Department of Health director-general Twu Shiing-jer (涂醒哲) -- who was wrongly accused of homosexual harassment. When the news broke last year, your paper made every effort to attack Twu by citing various unspecified sources, calling him an immoral and lustful person. After the truth was revealed, although your newspaper clarified the misidentification with full-page coverage, it failed to apologize for its anonymous accusations against Twu, whose damaged image can hardly be repaired.
Your recent exercise of "media violence" lies in your reports on the Government Information Office's (GIO) plan to monitor the media. Your newspaper did not mention that the GIO's proposed monitoring is divided into two parts: the print and electronic media, and that a "point system" would not be imposed on the former. Your newspaper also defamed the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence's efforts and experience in news monitoring with negative reporting.
The United Daily News a few days ago ran a mistaken report on Taiwan's outbreak of SARS. The criticism from your newspaper and its ally, Power TV, was sharp and gratifying to the people. Unexpectedly, your newspaper later ridiculously discussed -- in a front-page story -- whether Chen should wear a mask, after running an unconfirmed story about the doctor's death.
Although your newspaper has apologized twice for the mistaken report, it seems it has no intention to examine the responsibility reporters and editors have for these stories.
On the other hand, your newspaper on May 16 ran massive reports on the death of another doctor, also surnamed Lin. By doing this, would you confuse the readers (just like you did before) by portraying media monitoring as media control, or exaggerating the "point system" solely for the electronic media as a threat to all the media? We have to say in great sorrow: it's unfortunate that such misleading reporting was exactly what you criticized the United Daily News about.
Do you have any explanations regarding your criticism of the Apple Daily for lacking news ethics while your newspaper is switching back and forth on various issues? Do you have any explanations regarding your ambiguous reporting methods that have repeatedly misled the public? How will you remedy the damage caused by your unconfirmed, mistaken reports? Why do these kind of mistakes occur one after another? What responsibility should the editors and reporters who produced these reports take?
We hope that your newspaper, as one of the nation's most influential newspapers, can truly live up to your unshirkable social responsibilities, as you claim. To prove that you are not all talk and no action, your newspaper should take responsibility for the social damage caused by its seriously mistaken reports.
Lee Tuo-tzu, Jeromy Chuang, Luc Lee and Hsia Wen-chen are students in the Graduate Institute of National Development at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS