Vexed at the clamor of election and post-election news reports, the Media Monitor Alliance (MMA) launched a boycott against CTI TV and Era News, and urged advertisers to pull their ads from these two stations. This action was criticized by certain media and some Taipei City councilors who accused the alliance and Taiwan Advertisers Association of murdering the freedom of press. But does a critique of the media amount to killing press freedom? Could a critique of the media be viewed as the pan-green camp's post-election reprisal?
Obviously, these media and councilors have let politicking override professional discussions. When the media demand press freedom, they must simultaneously shoulder social responsibility.
The media played an active role during the election. Apart from heavy coverage of the campaign and election, many news channels have pundits host talk shows. The media fulfilled its functions to impart information and assist viewers in monitoring the climate. Due to commercial competition or ideological position, however, some of members of the media violated the law and ignored journalistic ethics. This has drawn reproach from groups such as the alliance, Brain Magazine and the Broadcasting Development Fund.
Some members of the media not only exaggerated the number of votes cast, they broadcast live campaign activities. By selling programs to targeted candidates and camps, some media appeared to be commercializing news. If news stations broadcast an entire campaign activity and treats it as a commercial, it breaks Article 23 of the Satellite Broadcasting Law (衛星廣播電視法). The article states that "the duration of advertisement shall not exceed one-sixth of the total transmission time of each program." If the news station sells a slot in form of a program, then it infringes journalism ethics banning the sale of news.
What difference is there between selling a news slot to a particular political party and to a private commercial organization? Even if the station freely donates a slot, this action still encroaches media neutrality that requires all parties be given equal time.
The media coverage of the campaign also overran the legal campaign duration. According to the Presidential Election and Recall Law (總統副總統選舉罷免法), the 2004 presidential election activities should have ended at 10pm on March 19. Some news media, however, still ran the campaign commercials until the early morning of March 20. For instance, CTV re-aired the "When Sisy Meets Hacker" on the night of March 19 and continued to broadcast Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-People first Party (PFP) ads after midnight.
The media reported on gambling on the election results. As the betting was basically an "alternative poll," reporting on such figures violates the electoral laws and laws governing broadcasts. In the 10-day period before election day, when reporting on polls is prohibited by law, many stations kept mentioning the betting. Some even carried daily reports on the bets -- apparently to help a certain party -- while noting that "if some party ceded a certain number of votes to some party" to represent the proportions of bets in vague terms.
Such reports violated a number of laws. Article 17 of the Satellite Broadcasting Law states that: "The contents of the program transmitted by domestic and foreign satellite broadcasting business shall not ... disrupt public order or adversely affect good social customs."
Article 7 in Chapter 2 of the laws concerning regulations on television program production and broadcast (電視節目製播規範) states that programs shall not praise the commitment of crimes nor describe the details of criminal acts.
Reporting on gambling could also instigate others to commit a crime -- something which is banned by Rule 3 of Article 3 of the laws governing the criterion on the content of television and broadcast programs (廣播電視內容審查標準). The third appendix of the laws on criterion specifies that gambling constitutes an act of instigation.
If the investigation into the March 19 assassination attempt proves the involvement of gamblers, how should these news stations that reported on the gambling bets discipline themselves?
The improper control of news rooms continues to cause problems. Heedless of the concept of news autonomy, some media bosses sift news through then lens of fixed political affiliation. They exploit reporters as assembly-line workers, suppressing media professionalism. The social control in the news rooms leads to a "socialization within a smaller society." Reporters have become media industry workers, reflecting the partial standing of media and its ideology, and damaging the autonomy of news and journalistic professionalism.
Media figures are also crossing the line dividing journalistic ethics. Some TV news personalities have become directly involved in politics. They have transformed themselves into media megaphones blasting out the news, forgetting that they are supposed to be objective observers.
It's not appropriate for media personalities (especially TV news hosts) to directly get involved in campaigning. There are two types of media personality: those who try to protect neutrality and those who advocate participation. The former emphasizes that the role of the media is to "reflect social facts," to be objective in a market in which information flows unhindered, leaving the audience to make up their own minds. The latter prefer to stress their own views.
According to traditional Western media ethics, it is permissible for print media to express a point of view during elections, but the TV media should remain neutral. This is based on the idea that print media represent elitist points of view and that the printed word is comparatively rational in tone. The readers can approach the content, rationally presented, in a more discerning manner. Furthermore, they are also expressing their agreement with the paper through the process of actually purchasing the paper.
The main role of the television media is entertainment, and it is consequently one way in which the masses find relaxation. The fact that it is image-based makes it a more emotive medium, and information is presented in a more emotionally involved way. By comparison, this medium lends itself less well to rational thinking.
Inappropriate reporting on accusations made by third parties has created many problems. A portion of the media, in their reporting of the accusations made by fugitive tycoon Chen Yu-hao (陳由豪), took a decidedly one-sided approach. Not only is this unbalanced reporting, it was an abandonment of a professional commitment to neutrality.
News reports ought to be both objective and well-balanced. Objectivity entails reporting the news with the neutrality of a third party. Well-balanced coverage is that in which both sides of the argument are accorded equal opportunities to present their views. Some portions of the media have lost all semblance of objectivity or balance, irrespective of whether they have given or sought favors in return for their reportage, in a serious contravention of media ethics.
In addition, according to New Taiwan magazine, the receipt for an advertisement placed in a certain newspaper was taken to Chen Yu-hao for signature by its Washington correspondent. This was a serious blow to the idea of media idealism.
In addition, all the TV stations except the Public Television System, Formosa TV and Taiwan TV broadcast the fugitive's March 15 press conference, in a repeat of the Chen Chin-hsin (陳進興) incident. By doing so they abandoned their function as the defender of neutrality.
Problems have also been created by some members of the media exaggerating the vote-counting process. On the eve of the election, TV stations competed against one another, each reporting the number of votes, in what was a serious diversion from the truth. This behavior was misleading, provocative and caused social unrest. The exaggeration of votes mislead public and stirred up social unrest.
Such exaggeration is one of the evils of competition in the media and demonstrates the biases of the TV stations. Truth is one of the fundamental requisites of news reporting, and once it has gone, the news is reduced to mere chicanery. Exaggeration is trickery of the highest order, and should be severely condemned.
The various surveys carried out by the media were wildly divergent. The exit polls differed from the final count, stirring up unrest. The pre-election polls said little about the public's opinions on the issues. Call-in surveys were completely devoid of academic worth and only interested in preaching personal standpoints. The exit polls and pre-election surveys were harmless enough, although they had little to do with professional ethics. The call-ins, however, only led to a muddling of reality. They were designed to secure profit for the media and telecommunications operators, and as such should have been banned.
Press freedom and social responsibility are inextricably linked, and the media cannot demand press freedom at the exclusion of accountability. The press must affirm its identity as a "public servant" and should not view the media as simply a way of turning a profit. In terms of its methodology, the press should provide a "free market for the expression of opinions," and not a forum in which opinions are monopolized, where only the media bosses have the right to make themselves heard.
The media must be supervised. The autonomous media should reflect on itself in the light of professional ethics, and the government should be allowed appropriate intervention according to the law. The Government Information Office has ways of dealing with the neglect of the aforementioned points. In addition, there should be supervision by the audience and social groups.
One may have reservations about the methods employed by the MMA in its boycott of CTI TV and Era News, but its motives should not be doubted. Some media and politicians have commented on the issue with a blue or green stance. By commenting on professionalism with political thinking, they are merely revealing their political hues.
Cheng Tzu-leong is a professor in the department of advertising at National Chengchi University.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER AND WANG HSIAO-WEN
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations