A report in the Chinese-language Apple Daily suggests that at around the time of the anniversary of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) inauguration, local newspapers and TV stations carried a large amount of paid-for “news” about the government’s achievements.
Certain ministries are alleged to have contracted out the responsibility of keeping the public informed to marketing companies; these firms organize a number of campaigns each year to fill a quota of newspaper space and TV programming with news about their clients.
This trend represents a revival of embedded marketing by government institutions. Actually, “revival” is too mild a word considering just how rampant this kind of placement marketing has become. “Ubiquitous” might be more appropriate.
The ministries are not alone. Even Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) newspaper interviews are paid for. If those at the top set a bad example, their subordinates will follow suit.
Unless the Ma administration expressly forbids government departments from paying for embedded publicity, bureaucrats will continue to use taxpayers’ money in this way to claim false achievements and cover up their incompetence.
The question most often raised in this regard is: Can news media be relied on to monitor the government if they take cash to report news on the government’s activities?
A cornerstone of democracy is that the press should act as the Fourth Estate.
But how can the public be confident that the media will perform this duty when they take their orders from those in power? At election time, viewers may not be able to tell whether news is information gathered to monitor the government and inform the public or undeclared advertising paid for by candidates and other politicians.
If even on-the-spot news can be bought, how can the public believe anything in a news bulletin?
Sadly, those voicing concerns about this issue have little effect. Civic groups and academics have for years reminded the media of their responsibility to monitor the government.
They have pointed to the harm that embedded propaganda brings to Taiwan’s democracy. What more can be said or done when those in power turn a deaf ear to these warnings?
The harmful effects of government-funded embedded marketing go beyond those mentioned above.
For example, government officials get accustomed to not having to take responsibility for policies. If the government can buy news segments, then officials need not worry what people will think or say about them.
When bureaucrats devote part of their budget to buying media time in the guise of news, it blunts the media’s willingness and ability to criticize. If officials are allowed to employ the media to improve their image, then they will go ahead and do just that. With the media at their beck and call, officials will not be accountable for their policies.
What you end up with is a bunch of incapable bureaucrats who answer to no one. Regardless of what happens, they will hide behind the manufactured image of achievement embedded in the media.
I can’t say for certain whether the Ma administration needs civil servants like these, but the public certainly does not.
An assistant to a government official once told me that the main reason ministries buy media time and space is not the possible influence it will have on public opinion.
RSS