Each time the media hypes up another piece of gossip, I try to picture the reporter behind the story. The more intense the competition, the shakier I think the position of reporters is. Reporters can cheat other people, but they can't cheat themselves.
We are all well aware of the line between watchdog for the public and a voyeuristic paparazzi-style journalism.
Although "watchdog" and "paparazzi-style" reporting both are metaphors for the reporter's role in society, they represent two extremely different functions.
For a long time, the watchdogs, playing a supervisory and critical role, have been the ones trusted by the public, while the paparazzi-style reporters are condemned for invading people's privacy and destroying moral decency. But in Taiwan today, these two concepts are becoming mixed up.
The paparazzi-style reporters and the sensationalist media they represent are appreciated for their constant readiness to reveal any information they find.
The watchdogs, on the other hand, offer balanced news stories, but are increasingly considered to be too cautious and are therefore coming under the threat of extinction.
The rise of the paparazzi-style journalist is closely connected to the evolving attitudes in Taiwanese society. Both the watchdog and the paparazzi cover muckraking politics, but the paparazzi never worry about getting their hands dirty. They focus on the public's dislike of the system, and even though they understand the social importance of our institutions, they do not want to waste space on boring stuff like balanced reporting. Exposing the personal lives of famous people satisfies the voyeurism of their audiences disappointed with their own lives. Given these extraordinary effects, media ethics standards, not to mention social decency, are under threat.
While the watchdogs have to follow certain rules and conventions associated with ethics and balanced journalism, the paparazzi aren't afraid of harassing people and causing a ruckus. They are constantly involved in lawsuits and are not afraid of being sued. Few sensationalist media outlets are intimidated by the threat of lawsuits, however, because the reserve funds set aside for settling such lawsuits are dwarfed by their rising profits.
It has become difficult for the untrained eye to differentiate between balanced and sensational journalism. The latter will occasionally act in the same manner as the former (such as attempting to expose corruption), and often they do a better job than watchdog reporters.
But if the watchdogs were to learn from the paparazzi-style reporters, no one would be happier than our politicians, because they care only about the media spotlight, and what the media ignores, politicians will ignore too.
But thorough and truthful journalism has had its victories. The watchdogs in Japan's media have been successful in bringing down prominent political figures.
The early Japanese political magazine Bungei Shunju revealed the details of Tanaka Kakuei's money politics, forcing him to step down. The Asahi Shinbun revealed that Noboru Takeshita had accepted illegal political donations, leading to his resignation after six months of reporting by that paper. Yet another Japanese magazine, the Truth of the Rumor, reported that Yoshiro Mori had been arrested for frequenting prostitutes during his college years. These examples of reporting scandals among top leaders highlight the valuable role the watchdogs play.
Past US presidents, from Richard Nixon to Bill Clinton, have also been the targets of muckraking media. In the Watergate scandal, the reporters changed history -- Nixon had to resign, and two Washington Post reporters won far-reaching fame. But later, with Clinton, the reporters only found Monica Lewinsky, and although it was a juicy scandal, Clinton survived the scandal and no one remembers the names of the reporters who broke the story.
The choice between a watchdog or a paparazzo is a choice between two different kinds of journalism. But as far as reporters go, being a watchdog is a lonely occupation. The goal of the paparazzi is seduction, and that of the watchdogs to be on guard. A seductress or a guard -- which sounds more attractive to you?
Lin Chao-chen is a senior journalist.
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