A day before the demonstration calling for a change in the nation's name to "Taiwan," the Mainland Affairs Council announced the results of an opinion poll showing that two-thirds of the people think direct links across the Taiwan Strait should be conditionally and gradually deregulated.
The respondents did not accept that the issue is "the internal affair of one country," nor did they feel at ease with having private organizations negotiating direct links on behalf of the government. Fifty-eight percent of respondents felt that the deregulation of direct links should be a slow process, while only 19 percent were of the opinion that the faster the better.
If the government believes the results of opinion polls, and if it adheres closely to the principle that it should take the will of the people to heart, it should be quite clear what the best way is to deal with the direct-links issue. In the end, a majority of the people believes that the establishment of direct links must not be rushed. This is not something that was discovered only after the council published its technical evaluation of direct links, but rather it is a reflection of longstanding public opinion.
The fact is that when the Economic Development Advisory Conference was held two years ago, 70 percent of the public felt the deregulation of direct links should be conditional.
If, however, we don't look to opinion polls, but only accept what is being reported in all but a minority of the news media, a common impression is that a majority of the public is urgently demanding direct links.
Last month, one media organization deliberately stressed that more than half the people support direct links without conditions or method being specified. This ignores public opinion on the conditions for direct links and the speed at which such links should be implemented. It also downplays the fact that a majority of the public feels that the Chinese government is the main obstacle to the introduction of direct links. It even spreads propaganda for vested interests by claiming that Taiwanese businesspeople dearly want direct links, thus ignoring the tone of the general debate.
The separation of the media from the general public isn't only reflected in the direct-links issue. A month ago, the General Information Office held a symposium entitled "Society's Expectations on Televised News" which caused heated argument between civic organizations and TV companies. Faced with the criticism that TV news and general programming are too exciting and sensational, the industry insists that given the intense competi-tion, anything that gets viewer ratings is required by society, that there is room for such news treatment and that it makes sense.
Although the use of viewer ratings as a protective charm is an old trick in the TV industry, it frustrates any outside expectations for self-regulation or external monitoring. Making viewer ratings the only standard means only absurd and weird programming will prevail. And not only that, but harsh criticism from experts and people with a sense of social responsibility will be considered unrealistic, and the media will become a tool for individuals to further their own interests.
A media environment ruled by such attitudes will of course be short-sighted, and in the end it will come back to hurt the TV business itself and produce huge negative social effects. This is the point of departure for civic organizations and their concerns.
From an economic point of view, the results of the TV industry solely relying on viewer ratings are typical examples of externalities. The TV industry does not have to bear the social costs created by inferior programming and which also are the concern of civic organizations.
Even more serious is that media customization is becoming more obvious, also among widely criticized talk shows.
Even if the highest viewer ratings don't even reach 1 percent, social responsibility will never be a concern and operators will do as they please as long as there is sufficient advertising to prop up the show, even if it has been deemed a source of social chaos.
The externalized cost of customization will therefore have to be borne by society as a whole. Valid demands by concerned civic organizations that operators improve go unheeded. As an unavoidable result of these developments, media supervision becomes pointless, the media become separated from public opinion, and customized and popularized media are walking separate ways.
If we are to change the current state of affairs, we can all read up on how economic theory handles externalities, ie, how economic theory makes the customized media that rely only on viewer ratings bear the social costs they create.
This problem can be considered from the perspective of both management measures and the market mechanism.
From the management perspective, legislation passed in recent years has led to substantive progress being made in the protection of victims of sexual abuse, particularly children, from repeated injury due to inappropriate reporting.
When it comes to negative social effects resulting from advertising and TV shows, there is broadcasting and television legislation, which includes punitive legislation. Only when it comes to printed publications are there fewer restrictions. Such publications often do not want to issue corrections of clear errors.
Taking legislative action to decriminalize slander and increase civil responsibility is another possible way to make customized media bear the social costs they produce.
Basically, the public must stress their sovereignty as consumers. We should be vocal in our complaints, instead of merely complaining behind closed doors -- or even turn off the TV and cancel our newspaper subscriptions, and protest to companies advertising on inferior shows. These are all examples of sovereign acts that could be actively adopted by consumers.
Lu Shih-xiang is chief executive officer of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence and is a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath