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
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS