How valuable is freedom of speech?
Countless numbers of people sacrificed their lives so that we can enjoy the freedom of speech we have today, an invaluable sacrifice. However, many so-called “political commentators” on TV talk shows sell this freedom like some cheap product, spreading vicious, distorted and biased views to increase their fame.
Not long ago, there were reports that a group of such commentators were treated to a shark’s fin soup banquet valued at more than NT$10,000 per head by a political personality they had earlier criticized on a talk show. Their role as commentators was criticized, but after the scandal died down, all was back to normal.
The scandal was only the tip of the iceberg. Commentators often criticize others for having no sense of shame. The banquet scandal showed these commentators for what they really are. The incident should have made those involved question their own shamelessness. I doubt it did.
Commentators often talk about how the public have the right to know the truth, yet spit out nonsensical rubbish. They declare that they represent independent views and critique, but at the same time conspire with others who share their opinions to serve certain interest groups. They also claim they exist to battle the injustices caused by those with special privileges, while at the same time being willing to help those in power create new injustices.
Many commentators claim to be intellectuals, but intellectuals should speak the truth to those in power in a society lacking freedom of speech. But even in a country with freedom of speech, Taiwan’s political commentators abuse their positions to serve those in power. This is a bogus form of freedom of speech and represents moral decay.
Who wields power now? The answer of course is President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his administration. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enjoys a majority in the legislature. Ma’s power will be even more far-reaching after he becomes chairman of the KMT.
People who criticize those in power are brave, while the underlings of the powerful who criticize and harass the opponents of those in power are cowards.
Some criticize political commentators, saying their biased and subjective opinions are bringing disaster to Taiwan and its public. However, they don’t have that much power. When we see the “freedom of speech” that these commentators hide behind for what it really is, we will realize a great number of them are in fact imbeciles.
The twisted, subjective opinions of Taiwan’s “renowned” political commentators and the supposed “inside scoops” they frequently dig up pose much harm to the credibility of the media. Reporters spend endless amounts of time and energy trying to find out the facts behind news stories, but all their hard work is nowhere near as influential as the conjecture of political commentators on TV and the way in which this conjecture comes across as a hard fact.
Media ethics have been seriously damaged in Taiwan. However, with developments on the Internet giving increased opportunities for people to express their opinions, I am sure the last days of these imbeciles are imminent.
Hu Wen-huei is a Liberty Times columnist.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers