In the aftermath of Sanlih Entertainment Television employee Chu Wen-cheng (朱文正) being wrongly arrested and injured by Taipei District Court police while covering a court appearance by Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘), all major TV channels have joined together in vehemently condemning the police actions as a violation of the freedom of the press.
The excessive force used by police during the incident and the threat that such behavior poses to journalists and photographers doing their job is certainly grounds for harsh criticism. Taiwanese society should support Chu's decision to sue the police for misconduct, injury and repression of his freedom.
However, this should also be considered from another angle. What role have the media, and especially television news channels, played in the explosive scandals surrounding Chao?
First, because of the major political and social repercussions of the scandal, the media should be praised for their determined pursuit of the story. This is especially true considering that Chao, as well as other high-level government officials, have not provided helpful answers or complete information. Journalists have been put at a disadvantage by officials' often patronizing, coy or arrogant attitudes, as well as the deliberate protection given by governmental and even non-governmental organizations, such as National Taiwan University Hospital. The frustrations of reporters are understandable.
However, this atmosphere didn't develop overnight. Criticism that news channels' reports are inflammatory, confrontational, petty, misleading and exaggerated are not unfounded. The most extreme manifestations of this have been in the coverage of Chao's housekeeper Lin Hsiu-jen (
The dogged pursuit of Lin and the bewildered children is problematic from the standpoint of professional ethics, and represents a lack of professional competence. The media have clearly not found an effective way to break through the government's deliberate deceptions and withholding of information. They have been unable to get to the heart of the matter and provide credible information to viewers who crave to know the truth.
Under these conditions, Lin, who is not protected by the system, has become a sacrificial lamb. She has also become a major, although not terribly meaningful, source of news, and even an object of ridicule. How can President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) family be so heartless as to subject one of its innocent employees to a media frenzy because it doesn't want to face the media itself? But the media is also to blame for its inhumane hounding of Lin.
Front-line journalists and photographers experience pressure and are at times themselves victims, and news bosses must share some of the blame. Aren't they the ones who order their reporters into harm's way to cover stories? Can forcing hardship and danger on reporters be ethically justified? It's a question that news bosses should rationally assess.
Media bosses should search their consciences. There have been many instances of police using excessive force in recent years. If the victim this time didn't work for a TV station, would all of the channels have spent so much time and energy reporting on it, and would they have put the same pressure on the courts and police?
Freedom of the press is of the utmost importance, but so is a responsible media. If the media really wish to monitor the government, dig up the truth and defend the spirit of freedom of the press, they shouldn't fill the airwaves with sensational and hollow reporting just to boost their ratings. And media bosses shouldn't sit back and wait for something bad to happen before joining together and demanding freedom of the press.
In light of the government's unwillingness to be forthcoming with information, media bosses should use all means at their disposal to demand a more transparent flow of information. This would protect their employees' safety and fulfill their responsibility to society. If they succeed in doing this, then the viewing public should support them.
Wei Ti is an associate professor in the Department of Mass Communications at Tamkang University.
Translated by Marc Langer
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
China has long given assurances that it would not interfere in free access to the global commons. As one Ministry of Defense spokesperson put it in 2024, “the Chinese side always respects the freedom of navigation and overflight entitled to countries under international law.” Although these reassurances have always been disingenuous, China’s recent actions display a blatant disregard for these principles. Countries that care about civilian air safety should take note. In April, President Lai Ching-te (賴清德) canceled a planned trip to Eswatini for the 40th anniversary of King Mswati III’s coronation and the 58th anniversary of bilateral diplomatic
RSS