Much discussion about the recent TVBS controversy has ignored the distinctions between media values, freedom of the press, politics and the law.
The TVBS storm started with the revelation of a photograph. It is the duty of the media to reveal misconduct and this attempt at doing so should be applauded. The photograph alone, however, is not enough to prove conclusively any misconduct by the people shown.
Guests on TV shows have gone too far in drawing conclusions concerning who is implicated. On such occasions, the media should act as gatekeepers and work to offer a balanced picture, in order to maintain their neutrality. They should also strive to maintain their role as observers instead of goading participants or jumping in to stir things up.
An opinion voiced by a guest on a TV show falls within the scope of freedom of speech. But when that information is disseminated by a media outlet it becomes protected by the freedom of the press. We all enjoy freedom of speech, but only those privileged groups who have the power to use the media are protected by freedom of the press. They often operate media outlets and hold high social positions. As a result, placing press freedom before all else simply becomes protection of media hegemony.
Furthermore, the Broadcasting and Television Law (
It is inappropriate for TVBS to say that such an investigation cannot be carried out since the broadcasting license has already been issued. Intervention is possible whenever illegal actions are discovered. After all, a drug addict cannot say that, "I've been taking drugs for years. You didn't investigate me before, so you cannot investigate me now."
TVBS also says that its license can only be withdrawn following the establishment of the national communications commission. Until the commission is established, however, the GIO remains the agency in charge. Not taking action would be tantamount to dereliction of duty.
The question of whether or not TVBS has broken the law should be determined by the authorities. In future, there will also be other ways to obtain judicial remedy. Opposition leaders and legislators join the calls against the GIO because they smell blood. Calls for street protests and recalling the president if TVBS' license is cancelled is simply a matter of letting political interests take precedence over the law.
In the same way, President Chen Shui-bian's (
The government must not suppress the media. That would mark a return to authoritarian politics. For their part, politicians and the media must not set a bad example by letting their disregard for the law take precedence over the law itself.
The revelation of misconduct must not turn into sentencing via the media, and freedom of the press must not be allowed to override all else. To enjoy freedom of the press, we must first take a square look at social responsibility.
Cheng Tzu-leong is a professor in the department of advertising at National Chengchi University.
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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