Media outlets covered President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) recent Central American trip very differently. Some offered excessive praise, while others offered only criticism. This is nothing new.
Before the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lost office in 2000, media outlets would choose sides, but their agendas were not so obvious. After the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) gained power, opposing opinions became increasingly evident. Some media described the government as always being right and the opposition as trying to put a curse on Taiwan, while others said the exact opposite.
After the KMT regained power, the media continued to behave in the same way, though now most of the media say the KMT is always right and the DPP is always wrong. Only a few outlets avoid the two extremes.
Most media outlets depict political parties as either perfect or evil beyond redemption. From a business standpoint, these outlets can attract readers or viewers who are either purely “blue” or purely “green,” allowing them to make a profit. From a professional perspective, however, they wield no influence.
While media outlets may hold political stances, they should strive to be impartial by balancing criticism and praise of the parties they support or oppose.
The presumption of innocence means no one can be convicted without proof. There may be cases where no law has been broken but unreasonable actions have been taken, such as when a citizen feels wronged by a civil servant but has no recourse to legal action. Luckily, the supervisory powers of the Control Yuan make up for the inadequacies of the judiciary.
The use of the Control Yuan’s power does not require adequate evidence of a crime, but relies on voting to pass impeachments and rectifications. Even if civil servants do not break the law, they could commit errors and can be brought before the Control Yuan.
However, the Control Yuan’s powers extend only to civil servants and elected administrative leaders, not legislators or county and city councilors. This means elected officials can do all sorts of ludicrous things as long as they do not break the law or there is no evidence they have broken the law. This has created many gray areas in society.
In most democracies, the media can shed light on such gray areas. The media are called the Fourth Estate because they make up for government inadequacies. The Fourth Estate puts pressure on elected officials who must amend their actions as a result. Unfortunately, Taiwan’s media have lost this function.
The public has no confidence in media objectivity. Because the majority of Taiwan’s media outlets have a specific political agenda and help certain politicians by attacking their opponents, they have lost their credibility. The media can no longer put pressure on elected officials who act inappropriately.
The media are also disseminators of knowledge, but once again, Taiwan’s media have failed to perform this role well. Some talk show commentators are known for playing fast and loose with the facts.
Most media outlets have failed in their role as a Fourth Estate watchdog. Their reporting is full of errors and often politically biased. Taiwan’s media still have a long way to go.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a professor of electrical engineering at National Sun Yat-sen University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his