The decision by Taichung prosecutors last week to indict TVBS reporters Chang Yu-kun (
The higher-ups at TVBS have claimed that they were in the dark throughout the incident. But while managers may not have been aware that their own reporters had helped film the video, they certainly could not have been unaware of its content.
At the heart of the matter is ambiguity over whether the real crime committed was faking news or broadcasting threatening material. The media, and prosecutors as well now, have blurred the lines between the two issues. Yet this is an important distinction, as police and courts should only have jurisdiction over "intimidation" -- although an extremely vague and dubious charge in itself -- but not over journalistic ethics.
In their indictment, prosecutors acknowledged that Chang had indeed passed the video on to TVBS headquarters, which decided to broadcast the video. As the official charge against Shih and Chang was for being willing accomplices in Chou's "intimidation," but not for faking news, whether or not the higher ups at TVBS were aware that their reporters had been involved is irrelevant.
It should have been obvious that the content of the video was a thug threatening violence against a rival gang leader, and yet they decided that this was fit for broadcast. Therefore, claiming ignorance about the video's source may serve as a weak defense against charges that they deliberately fabricated news, but not against the official charge of intimidation.
Ultimately, it is the supervisors who determine what material is appropriate and what is not. As such, although Shih and Chang should certainly bear responsibility for their own ethical infractions, they should not be made scapegoats for the mistakes made by TVBS management.
But even prosecutors seemed confused about what they were supposed to be investigating. In indicting Shih, they cited him for "intervening in the news incident" by temporarily stopping filming to pause for Chou when he bungled parts of his speech. Therefore, they say he was not just a reporter, but an accomplice in making the video.
Such a claim is certainly venturing into an extremely blurry area. Journalists around the world interview terrorists and other criminals. As long as they don't actively influence what their interviewees say, or purposely fabricate the material, it makes little difference if the journalist filmed the video himself or if the tape was sent to the bureau in an unmarked package. The question is whether what is on the tape contributes constructively to public debate. In this case, the answer is a resounding no.
In the end, all the details about who said what, who filmed what, and who oversaw the editing of the video are all beside the point. The problem is a sensationalist news environment in which stations like TVBS think that violent threats from thugs constitute real news. The video must have passed through many hands and undergone several reviews before it was broadcast on national television. Apparently, there weren't any decision makers at TVBS who thought that airing the video, regardless of its connection to their reporters, was irresponsible and lacking in real news value.
One would hope the public would voice their displeasure by switching channels. But with Lee Tao's (
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
Taiwan is confronting escalating threats from its behemoth neighbor. Last month, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire drills in the East China Sea, practicing blockades and precision strikes on simulated targets, while its escalating cyberattacks targeting government, financial and telecommunication systems threaten to disrupt Taiwan’s digital infrastructure. The mounting geopolitical pressure underscores Taiwan’s need to strengthen its defense capabilities to deter possible aggression and improve civilian preparedness. The consequences of inadequate preparation have been made all too clear by the tragic situation in Ukraine. Taiwan can build on its successful COVID-19 response, marked by effective planning and execution, to enhance
RSS