As a result of its reporting of the Kaohsiung MRT corruption scandal, what started out as a simple issue of TVBS stock ownership has now developed into a question of freedom of the press. Even US officials have expressed hope that Taiwan will continue to protect the freedom of the press.
But is freedom of the press really under attack?
Before answering this, maybe we should ask what freedom of the press really is. Although countries around the world stress the importance of freedom of the press, no one -- including the International Press Organization and Reporters Without Borders -- has proposed a definition of "freedom of the press."
The 17th century writer John Milton, who is generally accepted as the originator of the concept, never mentioned freedom of the press, but rather proposed freedom of speech and print, since the press had not yet taken shape at the time. Although the nascent press had adopted the concept by the 18th century, a complete academic field pertaining to the freedom of the press has yet to be established.
There are significant shortcomings even in the established "fourth estate" concept. This is the reason why there are so many examples in US judicial affairs that seem to go against the idea of freedom of the press. One obvious example is the current controversy surrounding the New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Although freedom of the press can't be clearly defined, a majority of people know that "the government should not interfere with the press." This idea is grounded in 17th century liberalism. The dictatorial rule at the time meant that private groups were relatively weak, and that was the reason why academics advocated distancing the press from government and moving toward markets in order to avoid stifling the growth of a civil society.
Today, however, media markets are highly developed and many companies have developed into huge monsters. Domestically and internationally, big corporations lead the way. In this environment, "freedom of the press" often means freedom for the media-owning minority. With profit-making as the guiding light for the media industry, it becomes difficult to avoid reliance on sensationalism in the quest for viewers and readers. Freedom of the press becomes freedom for a minority to go to any lengths to make money.
When parents support anti-TV activities because they worry about "media pollution," we cannot help but ask who this market-led freedom is for, what its significance is to civic and social development, and whether freedom of the press in this country really is under attack.
Maybe freedom of the press doesn't exist in Taiwan. These are all questions that society at large should consider.
Freedom of the press does not mean that the state cannot oversee the media. Why else would there be a need to establish a national communications commission? The state must not interfere arbitrarily with the press, nor can political forces, including the opposition, interfere in their own interests.
As Taiwan has joined the WTO, the state should guarantee that domestic media outlets are not taken over by international forces to avoid losing a platform for expressing local public opinion and disseminating cultural values. At the same time, the state must finance research into the freedoms of speech and the press to let humanism replace raw capitalism and initiate the reconstruction of media order so that everyone can enjoy these rights.
This is what the UN's World Summit on the Information Society calls for and it should be at the core of media policy.
Weber Lai is an assistant professor in the department of mass communications at Chinese Culture University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS