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 gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS