Johnny Neihu's NewsWatch: Watch out for pan-green watchdogs

Dumbed-down and commercialized speech is OK, but orgasmic speech isn't?

Elsewhere, he argues thus: "Media outlets reflecting public opinion and conveying facts to help the public get a clear picture of what is going on are indispensable for the public's ability to make a rational judgment about the political situation" ("The great Taiwanese media failure," Taipei Times, Nov. 21, 2006, page 8).

I beg to differ. Public opinion is frequently divided. And a fact is a fact, no matter how many refuse to accept it. The two are not necessary partners, and good reporters do not pander to popular views, because the majority of people can be blisteringly ignorant.

But all this is small cookies compared with the media's low threshold for conflict of interest. And that includes the watchdogs.

Here's an example. The Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence produces reports that take newspapers to task for sloppy or fabricated reporting. Based on its data, pro-blue-camp rags are easily the worst offenders.

Now, if you did a survey and applied professional standards across the board, who knows? Maybe you would find that pan-blue media outlets do commit more sins than pan-green ones. But that's not the point. If a watchdog is thrown bones by one of the groups being watched, how can a conflict of interest not exist?

The foundation got roasted in a Jan. 4 piece by a China Times editor, Chang Ching-wei (張景為), who said its surveys were skewed toward political reporting, and particularly that which involved criticism of the DPP government.

It was the kind of stuff that you would expect a senior China Times editor to say. But it was Chang's conflict of interest questions that hit home. He finished his article with this: Does the foundation get money from the government? What are its methods? Do its members serve as government appointees in other capacities? And do they act as advisers for media outlets?

These were rhetorical questions, because Chang knew very well what the answers are.

If I were a China Times journalist and on the receiving end of a bad review -- regardless of its accuracy -- I'd be pissed that it came from someone aspiring to institutional neutrality but who was on the competition's payroll.

See what I mean? Even if neutrality exists in the detail, the general perception of neutrality remains a distant dream.

Taiwanese politics, as with the media, needs a space for common interest. A certain degree of unity and "neutrality" is essential to promoting good will and resolving disputes.

But if the neutrality of a watchdog is compromised, it doesn't matter how impressively it barks. Because it won't bite hard enough when leashed.

Heard or read something particularly objectionable about Taiwan? Johnny wants to know: dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com is the place to reach me, with "Dear Johnny" in the subject line.