The National Communications Commission recently punished Sanlih Entertainment Television for misusing historical video footage in a documentary on the 228 Incident by fining it NT$1 million and ordering the station to improve its internal editing and oversight system. What was unusual was the commission's order telling Sanlih to invite experts on media ethics to teach an eight-hour course to all departmental managers within two months.
Although this kind of punishment has been used in Britain, it was new to Taiwan. This has the public wondering: Will a media ethics course work? Can you really teach ethics just because you are a media communications expert?
A US study analyzing the effectiveness of teaching news media rules and ethics concluded that short-term classes in ethics may not build a solid foundation for ethical behavior but they can help improve reasoning and decision-making.
In other words, ethics isn't simply a dogma about morality and standards.
Moral standards can be in conflict with one another. For example, an overemphasis on media ethics may limit freedom of the press, while freedom of the press may endanger national security. As such, ethics is significant as a method of dialectical reasoning, or moral reasoning. This not only has practical implications for the media, but also involves personal choices about the meaning of one's life and values.
Although ethics education has its flaws, looking at the emphasis placed on teaching philosophy in advanced democratic societies shows that it is a key foundation in elevating the public mind. Teaching ethics alone does not guarantee an improved media, but without it, improvement is impossible.
This brings us to the next question: What kind of ethics courses have the journalism and communications departments in various universities and vocational colleges established, and who is teaching them? The answer is disheartening. There seems to be no ethics course in most schools' curriculum, and practically no media ethics academic with a strong background in moral philosophy.
Four years ago, the School of Journalism at National Taiwan University tried to invite two outstanding professors to teach such a course, but no student signed up for the class. There are also some communications instructors who regard ethics education as unimportant because they do not understand philosophy. Neither are there philosophy teachers who are involved in teaching media ethics.
In short, media ethics is a wasteland in this country.
Given the lack of media ethics experts, who will teach such a class? True, the nation has some excellent journalists and documentary makers who insist on sticking to journalism's core value -- truth and public welfare. Their example can have a positive effect that others can emulate. However, they still lack a sound grounding in moral philosophy.
Plato's ideal rulers were "philosopher kings." To realize this ideal, he thought that if philosophers could not be rulers, then rulers should be taught to be philosophers.
If we were to follow Plato's reasoning, we should encourage philosophers to do media research, or encourage media workers to study philosophy. Communications education and the academic world should work together to find a way to foster media ethics scholarship.
If we don't plant the seeds today, there may be nothing to harvest tomorrow.
Flora Chang is a professor at the National Taiwan University's Graduate Institute of Journalism.
Translated by Marc Langer
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
As the highest elected official in the nation’s capital, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) is the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) candidate-in-waiting for a presidential bid. With the exception of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕), Chiang is the most likely KMT figure to take over the mantle of the party leadership. All the other usual suspects, from Legislative Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) to New Taipei City Mayor Hou You-yi (侯友宜) to KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) have already been rejected at the ballot box. Given such high expectations, Chiang should be demonstrating resolve, calm-headedness and political wisdom in how he faces tough
RSS