It is clear that the KMT and DPP influence in domestic television broadcasting goes against the norms of a democratic society. The KMT owns CTV (
An appropriate relationship between the government and TV stations is a complex issue. This is not just about a "retreat" from TV stations owned and controlled by the government. It is about how the government, in the broadest sense, assures the professional independence of the content broadcast on its stations. It is also about how the government is addressing the problems in an increasingly crowded market for terrestrial, satellite and cable TV stations through structural reforms.
The head of the Government Information Office, Chung Chin (
Compared with the two approaches above, the "new middle way" media policy proposed by President Chen Shui-bian (
Although society has reached a certain consensus on the withdrawal of political parties and the military from the three TV stations, it is undeniable that people still have doubts about turning over terrestrial stations to the public domain, because of past manipulation by political parties. Therefore, it is important to be clear: Making the stations publicly-run would mean that they would no longer be wholly subservient to the changes in the political landscape.
With independent and unprejudiced media regulations and proper channels of resource distribution, publicly-run stations would be free to develop without an invisible hand pulling the strings.
Under these conditions, stations can provide thorough and insightful service and expand what has been up to now a very limited forum for public access broadcasting.
Most democratic societies around the world have adopted systems that allow both privately-run and publicly-run TV stations. The Public Television Service (PTS) in Taiwan, however, does not compare favorably with its counterparts around the world. Many in the industry say that PTS is about 30 years behind public stations in the US. Therefore, turning terrestrial TV stations into publicly-run ones will at best be a measure taken too late to see any improvement in the near term.
There is more than one model for the development of public television. Both Japan and European countries have more than two public television channels. Most public television channels in the UK, Japan, and Sweden rely on fees they charge viewers for watching their programs as their main source of revenue.
The programs on Britain's Channel 4 are produced by private companies and it earns revenue from running advertisements. The government has passed a law to protect it from competition from other commercial channels.
German public television shows advertisements at only certain times during the day and license fees are still the main financial source for its public TV station.
Public television stations in France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, and Ireland collect both license fees and get revenue from advertisements.
Advertisements are the main source of revenue for public TV station in Spain and Portugal and they receive government subsidies to cover their expenses. Greek public television is financed by government subsidies and ad revenue.
Governments in different countries have different relationships with their public television systems; in Britain, the management of public television is more independent, while in Italy political parties have more influence over their public TV station (but this is still different from ownership by a political party, as is the case with Taiwan's major terrestrial stations).
So, what kind of model should we adopt for the transformation of TTV and CTS? Or, what kind of creative design should we implement for the program content and broadcasting schedule of the two TV stations, so as to enable positive interaction with the existing public television channels after their transformation. When the right time comes, we can consider the possibility of integrating different public television stations to form a public television group. This sort of integration can, on the one hand, bring about efficient management given its economic scale, and on the other, assist in the development of the local film industry and promote the use of new communication technologies.
Regarding this issue, Chung Chin should invite experts and professionals to form a special committee and give it a reasonable amount of time to carry out its analysis. The advantages and disadvantages of different models of public TV, as well as their feasibility in Taiwan, should be included in a report presented to the public for open debate. The tasks ahead must be undertaken step by step.
Ho Jung-hsing is chief of the city desk at The Liberty Times. Shih Shih-hao is an associate professor, and Weng Hsiu-chi is a professor of communications at National Chengchi University.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry