The media have been a major motivating force behind the development of the contemporary literary and arts scene in the nation.
Take print media as an example. In the early days when newspapers were only 12 pages long, every daily and evening newspaper had its regular arts section, which was able to exert a far-reaching influence on the literary and arts environment. Meanwhile, television programs such as 60 Minutes, Beautiful Island (
Following the end of martial law in 1987 and the lifting of restrictions on newspapers, several of the big papers responded to the page expansion by expanding their arts sections. In addition to reporting on literary and arts events, they also covered theater, movie, music and arts reviews, and even took part in arranging film festivals, exhibitions and performing arts activities.
Suddenly, newspaper features seemed to offer an overwhelming variety of interesting stories. The coverage not only cultivated readers' appreciation for literature and the arts, but also became indispensable in fostering the development of performing arts groups.
The image of newspaper corporate culture was also improved. Those who were arts reporters back then reminisce about those days, which are often described as "the belle epoque of the arts sections."
Other than realizing the ideals of media workers, the greatest significance of this belle epoque was its ability to highlight news media's role in social education.
Unfortunately, in the wider media environment, the arts sections have never been able to break through their weaker status compared to others. The vigorous competition among print media outlets that followed the end of martial law meant that the arts sections were eventually seen as expendable window dressing, and they quickly shrank to almost nothing.
Today, arts sections in major local newspapers are continuing to shrink, and when there are major news events, these sections are naturally the first ones to be cut.
Commercial electronic media generally outsources its arts and literary news, following the "placement marketing" model, rather than taking the initiative to run disinterested news stories about arts and literature.
Compared to the chaotic situation in news and business, the arts section of a newspaper should be free of ideological conflict between the pan-green and pan-blue camps, providing readers with cultural food for thought and highlighting the innovative aspects of media.
News stories take place at the same time as we engage in our daily activities, and culture and our daily lives are closely inter-related.
Life happens every day, and so do news incidents. Why shouldn't art and literary events be given the same weight as other news events and also be reported on a daily basis?
The current situation, in which features sections are likely to be scrapped at any moment, confuses readers. Moreover, certain arts section editors use their power to turn the section into a place to vent their personal anger by attacking certain people even for the slightest and most trivial matters.
This way of handling arts and literary reports is filled with bias, and it only lowers the fairness and significance of a newspaper's arts section.
Promoting cultural affairs is of course the responsibility of the Council for Cultural Affairs, but it is also the responsibility of other government agencies, the general public, the business sector, the mass media and other sections of our society.
Currently, several media corporations have established non-profit departments that promote cultural and public welfare activities. In fact, art and literary sections and reports are themselves the best public welfare undertaking that a media outlet can be involved in and creates the most added value.
I hope that media professionals will pay close attention to the quality and quantity of art and literary reports in their publications, and continue to make a valuable contribution to the general public.
Chiu Kun-liang is the minister of the Council for Cultural Affairs.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS