Taiwan's media pollsters have long been ridiculed for their "far-from-reality" surveys of this-year's presidential election. If the questions they posed were un-biased, their sampling methods thorough and their training professional, what went wrong? The problem is that these poll experts relied too much on their scientific art, while not giving political reality sufficient consideration. Their failure to take the unique political climate into account led to their wider failure.
The pollsters may have been deceived by voters for a number of reasons not seen in other societies, such as vote-buying, favoritism and fear of isolation from the mainstream.
In the end, the survey results failed to reflect public opinion and became a laughing stock. Media pollsters remain undaunted, however. In fact, poll-taking has apparently become trendy.
We know, for example, that the communication of information by the mass media is one-way and indirect, in contrast with the most natural form of human communication -- person-to-person conversation. This is why individuals often feel helpless and powerless when facing the media.
TV call-in programs therefore, are theoretically a good way to develop two-way, direct communication between the media and their audience. Public opinion however, encompasses both the expressive minority and the silent majority. Media pollsters, however, have been thoughtful enough to develop a polling system so that those who do want their voice to be heard can express their opinion, sometimes repeatedly.
Here is how it usually works. At the beginning of a show, the host reveals the day's topic, such as "Who should be blamed for the current political chaos, the president or the opposition party?" These questions are almost always oversimplified, sometimes ambiguous or even absurd. We dial the telephone number that shows up on the bottom of the TV screen, follow the phone instructions and then, boom, our opinion becomes a figure on the screen. Simple as that. Some shows ask you to leave your phone number to prevent redialing, but most of the time, we can call in as many times as we want.
For example, if at the beginning of the show you are against nuclear power and you dial in for "con." Five minutes later, however, one of the panelists makes a very good point that makes you change your mind, so you dial again but this time for "pro." Then, after a commercial break, another panelist makes a strong argument that touches your soul; you pick up the phone once again. Or you are the die-hard supporter of a certain political figure and you just call in repeatedly to show "the public's" loyalty no matter how much it may cost you.
It doesn't take an expert to know that this kind of voluntary "poll" has violated every rule of sampling theory. Yet such figures have been constantly misinterpreted by show hosts, panelists and even television viewers.
Is this an indication that polling has become more of a source of entertainment than a science? We have switched from being blindly dependent on science, to completely ignoring it. Call-in polling may serve some purposes, such as taking away the sense of isolation of viewers, testing the eloquence of panelists, and generating a small fortune for the media (they often charge NT$2 for each call). But none of these benefits has anything to do with reflecting "public opinion."
People have long questioned the effects of the mass media. Some have assumed that statements in any one medium may cause changes in opinion. This issue remains arguable. The next time the media claim they have grasped "public opinion" through survey results, they had better make sure that their numbers reflect, not create public opinion.
Lucia Yeh is a freelance writer in Taipei.
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
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with