TV AUDIENCES WERE recently treated to the spectacle of reporters from various news media competing to report on the movements of Chen Hsing-yu (陳幸妤), daughter of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), as they followed her around New York, where she went to take a dentistry exam. The incident gave rise to an unusual situation in which two satellite TV stations took each other to task.
Meanwhile, the National Communications Commission (NCC) made public a set of proposed amendments to the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法), exposing disagreements among NCC members in the process. While internal strife in the former first family and the NCC may have a certain entertainment value, let us not overlook the significance of the two incidents as pointers for achieving more orderly standards in the media.
The rights of every individual to privacy and to uphold his or her good reputation are protected by the Constitution. When these rights are violated, people can take legal action to set things right. As the daughter of a political figure, Chen Hsing-yu finds it hard to live in peace. Her privacy has been invaded again and again, and her words and actions are discussed in public. Considering the storm raging over corruption charges against her father, the media were only doing their job of informing the public by reporting on her activities overseas.
Chen Hsing-yu will have to put up with such intrusions, annoying as they may be. At the same time, however, the media should try to strike a balance between freedom of reporting and the rights of individuals. When gathering news, they should know where to draw the line between what is reasonable and what is not. For example, they can hardly be faulted for filming public figures on the street, but it would be both unacceptable and illegal for them to sneak into their homes under false pretenses or disturb their privacy in the middle of the night.
Of course, the law cannot be expected to cover each and every possible infringement the media may make on people’s rights, or to set punishments for every such action. Common standards for what is and is not acceptable in newsgathering must therefore be decided through ongoing introspection on the part of the media. In TVBS and CTITV’s recent bout of criticisms of each other’s reporters, it is hard to say precisely who is right and who is wrong. Such exercises in mutual criticism are, however, to be encouraged, and we hope to see more of them. If news media can apply high standards in assessing their rivals, and then apply the same high standards to themselves, it can only be good for a democratic society.
If, on the other hand, our media fail to examine their own conduct, what can the rest of us do about it? With so many channels competing for business, Taiwan’s news media seem to be going from bad to worse. Widespread discontent with this trend is the main reason why the NCC is now proposing revisions to the Satellite Broadcasting Act. The draft proposals include imposing fines when news media make false reports after failing to check facts, and banning product placement in news and children’s programs. The NCC declared that “in reviewing policy, the second NCC committee’s purpose will, as before, be to overcome bias in the market. In doing so, it will give considerable weight to the criteria of social and cultural values.”
In plain language, the NCC’s policy will reflect trends in public opinion.
If one were to ask members of the public or news media workers whether reporting should be truthful and free of hidden commercial messages, probably everyone would say yes. Let us then ask this basic question: Why would anyone object to supervisory bodies imposing penalties on news media that fail to meet these standards? For most people, the answer would be concern about government control versus freedom of reporting. Another question: The Enforcement Rules of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法施行細則) stipulate that “the contents of news and other programs shall be objective, fair, factual, comprehensive and not of an advertising nature.”
Surely there is not to be such a high standard for reporting by terrestrial broadcasting stations but a lower one for those that broadcast via satellite?
A third question: Are supervisory bodies actually capable of ensuring truth in reporting, as they are supposed to? Should they just control the content, or should they delve into the structure? Would it be more effective to combine media self-regulation with oversight by civic groups? When these questions are taken into consideration, the idea that government control is tantamount to restriction of news reporting may be seen to be an oversimplification. Various interests and social realities need to be taken into account. Exactly what kinds of control are needed is a matter that will require further discussion and debate.
From the controversy between TVBS and CTITV over Chen Hsing-yu’s treatment in New York to the clash of opinions within the NCC over how far it should go in controlling the media, we have been presented with an opportunity to take a fresh look at the questions of freedom of reporting and the responsibilities of the media. How is freedom to gather and report on the news to be protected along with the rights of individuals featured in news reports? Should it be through strict self-regulation by the media, or through an appropriate level of supervision by government bodies and civic groups? These questions remain open to continued debate, and are not an exclusive choice of either the one thing or the other.
Hung Chen-ling is an assistant professor at the National Taiwan University Graduate Institute of Journalism.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.