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
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS