Some academics once suggested that news media be operated by those with the most knowledge, wisdom and virtue. The reason was quite simple: Since news media are influential, they may have a negative impact if they are operated by those without social responsibility.
Perhaps these academics' standards were too high. However, the whole society will pay a price if our media are not in the hands of professionals.
Getting "scoops" is certainly the goal for all reporters. But since a scoop is "exclusive," reporters and editors should have much higher standards for the credibility of such reports. At the very least, the "scoop" should meet basic professional requirements of accuracy, objectivity and fairness. Otherwise, how can such "news" meet the test of both society and the media themselves?
Exclusive news should be obtained through legal methods and reasonable processes. Exclusives obtained through dirty tricks hurt the media's efforts to bolster its credibility.
In fact, some methods of getting a news story have become jokes. Take Paul Burrell for example. The former butler of Diana, Princess of Wales, wrote A Royal Duty to expose royal secrets, and his book was published last year. According to Burrell, the Daily Mirror in fact paid him ?300,000 (about US$550,000) in order to publish the content of his book in installments, including Diana's note to him, which reads: "My husband is planning `an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry."
A recent example is the case of British royal servant George Smith, who suggested falsely to a tabloid that Prince Charles of Wales was having a homosexual relationship with a servant -- in order to get a hefty reward. When such "checkbook journalism" -- in which a publication pays interviewees to answer questions -- becomes a popular new term in journalism, shouldn't we be worried about the situation?
Violating the privacy of others and selling out friends is despicable. But these newspapers' method of gathering news by offering money is also questionable. A reporter should obtain a news story through his or her knowledge, sensitivity, judgment and personal connections. Any involvement in crooked dealings or luring sources with money is unworthy of the profession, and damages the dignity and image of reporters' professionalism.
Recently, many of the media's self-proclaimed "exclusive" stories have caused the public to doubt the media. Some television stations so frequently claim that their reports are "exclusive, that we're unsure whether to laugh or cry.
An article published in The Journalist recently described such exclusive reports as "a poison to professionalism." This description was absolutely right. The author wrote, "The local electronic media's `Taiwanese-style' scoops include almost everything ... This is proof of the electronic media's decline."
Although this is a very serious accusation, it serves as a warning for our journalists to examine their methods. Traditionally, a "scoop" is proof of a media outlet's hard work and effort, and shows the media's concern for informing their viewers better than other outlets. Categorizing reports about hot springs or auctions as "scoops," is a humiliation to the entire profession.
We all understand that competition among the news media is fierce and that the pressure on journalists is intense. But which profession is without pressure?
If we simply sacrifice ethics and restrictions due to pressure, our past efforts to improve news professionalism could be in vain.
Cheng Jim-ming is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Journalism at Chinese Culture University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Monday announced that she would dissolve parliament on Friday. Although the snap election on Feb. 8 might appear to be a domestic affair, it would have real implications for Taiwan and regional security. Whether the Takaichi-led coalition can advance a stronger security policy lies in not just gaining enough seats in parliament to pass legislation, but also in a public mandate to push forward reforms to upgrade the Japanese military. As one of Taiwan’s closest neighbors, a boost in Japan’s defense capabilities would serve as a strong deterrent to China in acting unilaterally in the
RSS