Next Media’s News-in-Motion animated news service has provoked a great deal of discussion and debate. These short video clips can be considered a typical example of media convergence. What view should society take of this phenomenon and how should it be managed?
Before the concept of “media convergence” came into being, print and electronic media were seen as two separate domains. Each stood on its own, with little cooperation between them. Now, as various kinds of media converge, print media has joined the digital world by going online. At the same time, there is a growing trend of cross-ownership, mergers and acquisitions between different media sectors. Even before Next Media’s News-in-Motion was launched, the Chinese-language United Daily News provided a TV-like service by placing news clips edited from video recordings made by its reporters and campus correspondents on its Web site.
This emerging medium is a new competitive challenge for TV news channels. TV stations in Taiwan are bound by three laws. Anyone who wants to set up a TV channel must apply to the National Communications Commission for a license, as stipulated by the Cable Radio and Television Act (有線廣播電視法) and the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法). They must comply with the rule that political parties, the government and armed forces must not be involved in media ownership. Vertical integration of broadcasting system ownership must comply with the limitations imposed by the Cable Radio and Television Act and program content must be in line with the requirements of the three broadcasting laws.
A question that is often asked is whether the same regulations should apply to different media platforms when they broadcast the same content. In other words, if News-in-Motion content is subject to legal regulations when it is broadcast on cable TV channels, shouldn’t the same regulations apply when it is shown on the Internet?
The EU’s regulations for managing media convergence may be a point of reference. The EU’s Audio-Visual Media Services Directive defines media content in terms of linear and non-linear services and according to whether the content is edited by the service provider. With regard to News-in-Motion, conventional linear TV programs are those that are broadcast at set times by TV stations, which, as the main players in mass media, are regulated by the three broadcasting laws. This is in contrast to non-linear audio-visual content that is unedited by the service provider, such as video clips on YouTube. Since people can make their own content selections by clicking to view whatever they want, the broadcasting laws do not apply.
News-in-Motion is an interesting case because, although it is non-linear, it is edited by the service provider. This seems to put it in a category of its own, between the other two, hence the debate about how it should be handled.
The Taipei City Government fined Next Media under the Child and Youth Welfare Act (兒童及少年福利法) for failing to rate the content of its News-in-Motion clips. Now that Next Media has applied ratings to the content in accordance with Internet practice, will the government be able to regulate the content under existing laws? Officials should be very careful about how they try to enforce the law, especially when the content is non-linear, and when audio-visual files are hosted on servers outside Taiwan.
If authorities tried to use Article 8 of the Telecommunications Act (電信法) to regulate Internet connections, how would that be different from China’s Golden Shield Project and Green Dam Youth Escort?
Yu Yao-cheng is a contracted research fellow at the Taiwan WTO Center of the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS