On Dec. 4, the China Times ran a front-page story that President Chen Shui-bian (
First, was the story subjected to the established reporting procedures of truly professional journalists before publication? According to the editorial desk's explanation the next day, "the newspaper cross-checked the story with various sources. But the confirmation was incomplete, because the paper failed to verify the allegation with Chen or appropriate presidential staff in a timely manner."
The media can be more confident about the accuracy of information when it is confirmed by at least two sources. However, reporters are not always able to complete laborious confirmation work before deadlines. As a result, they have to depend on the reliability of their sources, as well as their own understanding of the story. Mistakes are inevitable under such circumstances. In this case, the paper verified the story with various sources. But it did not obtain a comment from Chen and without it the report was not balanced.
The report referred only to reliable sources and insiders. Is it appropriate not to name sources? Reporters should name sources in the interests of their own cred-ibility as well as their accountability. Still, when a story is sensitive, it's perfectly normal for reporters to protect their sources. Undoubtedly, some reporters may use the protection of sources as a pretext to hide their laziness and irresponsibility, but the occasional genuine need to protect sources cannot be ignored. Nor can it be presumed that a report in which a source is not identified is necessarily incorrect.
Did the newspaper itself play the role of gatekeeper? This role is crucial to the way in which a story is presented. The process can also reduce mistakes, although it's difficult to avoid personal biases and structural distortion. More importantly, through repeated checks and discussions, journalists can reduce the possible political, economic, social or legal impact of a report.
Third is the media's own news judgment, which determines the value that the public places in a report. The more valuable a news piece is, the more noticeable a position it occupies. Editorial desks should stick to their guns once they have decided to run as front-page leads -- after thorough confirmation and evaluation -- reports making grave charges.
In the name of truth and the media's duty to monitor the government, journalists must strive to get to the bottom of this story.
Ku Lin-lin is an associate professor of journalism at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers