Scuffles between demonstrators from opposing camps are regrettable, yet they occur all over the world. It is even more regrettable to see demonstrators attacking the media, although this too is not unknown elsewhere.
The media has the freedom to say what it wants, and therefore has the right to criticize a crowd of demonstrators. Any crowd of demonstrators has a duty to behave itself. It should not attack any opposing demonstration, nor should it assault the media. When civic conflict occurs, the media is charged with the responsibility to report it. Based on this foundation, the media should enjoy special protection.
However, in the stand-off between supporters of President Chen Shui-bian (
Prior to last Saturday, I urged both camps to calm down and stressed that the allegations of corruption against the first family fully legitimized the appeals of the anti-Chen campaign. However, the insult to the "Republic of Taiwan" perpetrated on one of the first days of the sit-in and the refusal to bring Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
It is very unfortunate that these two legitimate causes have clashed head-on. I therefore urge the DPP and Shih to stop mobilizing their supporters.
At noon last Friday, I was surprised to see a TV news broadcast which reported I had said the anti-Chen demonstrators have a legitimate cause, while a newspaper article reported that I had said the DPP should refrain from mobilizing supporters.
Both reports were highly selective and taken completely out of context. The TV report seemed to imply that I had given my unreserved support to the anti-Chen campaign, while the newspaper report implied that I had rejected the legitimacy of those opposing Shih. This was completely contrary to my original intentions.
Not only do some media outlets lie by omission, they blatantly fabricate facts. They are no longer media outlets, but have become cheerleaders and protest participants of the worst kind.
The physical attack on the media that occurred last Saturday was in essence a fight between two opposing crowds. One side fabricating fact, the other side resorting to violence. It was a clash between the anti and pro-Chen forces, and not a matter of one side or the other beating up on the media.
However, I do not mean to say that the reporters who were beaten were fabricating facts; most reporters do attempt to do their job diligently. The fabrications are generally made by editorial departments and media managers. Their abominable behavior has turned their staff into scapegoats.
Following the media reports on my call for both sides to calm down, the staff in my office received both supportive and abusive phone calls, but whether supportive or abusive, each call was based on a misunderstanding. Being verbally abused by the people in one's own political camp is very distressing, but this has happened constantly since I became a politician.
In 1991, I promoted Taiwanese independence when less than 5 percent of the public supported the cause. In 2000, I was critical of Chen's "four noes and one without" policy for dealing with cross-strait affairs, and Chen's and Vice President Annette Lu's (
My office was inundated with phone calls from angry supporters. I have gotten used to being lonely and misunderstood, but I have always been understood in the end. What I am facing this time, however, is misconception rather than misunderstanding.
Divided societies need reconciliation, which can be achieved through a three-step process -- awareness, understanding and reconciliation. The media play an indispensable role as a middle man in this process. Today, the media are deliberately misleading their audiences, and in the process they undermine their basic civic function.
If the media cannot exercise self-restraint, then there is no way we can resolve the confrontation in Taiwanese society, and it may fall apart as a result.
I urge the media to look back and cherish their sacred mission. They must not turn into a vicious mob.
Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past