The government is making rampant use of embedded marketing, which includes advertorials, to promote the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). This is the main reason that veteran China Times reporter Huang Je-bing (黃哲斌) resigned in protest on Dec. 12, comparing the practice with propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party. Seasoned journalists and professors of communications have come out in droves against the practice, with more than 100 signing a petition calling on the government to stop the practice.
Some may ask what all the hubbub is about. Don’t all governments seek to promote themselves? That’s just a feature of party politics, right?
Embedded marketing involves advertisements that don’t stand out from other content in print or broadcast media. An ad for a leading corporation or political party can be made to look just like a news story, masquerading as the truth, even though a significant amount of money changed hands for it to be placed.
Just about every major news outlet in the world quietly employs teams of sharp, be-suited salespeople, working for independent companies, who spearhead the drive to get the CEOs of the world’s largest corporations and leaders of the world’s richest political parties to hand over oodles of cash for embedded marketing. This includes quality papers that print full-page stories — with an advertisement logo nowhere in sight or surreptitiously hidden away — about the benefits of doing business in a tiny -despot-led country where the rule of law can be bent at the will of a dictator.
The rampant use of embedded marketing in Taiwan has painfully obvious negative connotations for the role of news media here, and therefore the ability of that industry to prop up the country’s democracy.
So what is the government doing? Simple: blaming the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), apologizing and admitting how big the problem is, forcing a TV station off the air for broadcasting advertorials, but ultimately doing nothing to stop their use.
For senior officials of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration, when in doubt, blame the DPP. That’s exactly what Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) did on Tuesday when under fire for government use of product placements. Wu started by saying that advertorials were first used by the DPP 10 years ago, but failed to add that their use has skyrocketed since Ma came to power. Wu then apologized, admitting that the Ma administration has failed to address the issue properly, ostensibly showing the government’s sincerity — this was a political necessity given public anger. Then, right away, the government forced ERA TV’s variety channel off the air for violating rules related to embedded marketing, showing how serious the government is about stopping this practice. But why ban only one station when many are doing it? And why not push through regulations defining the use of embedded marketing rather than only relying on TV broadcasters to exercise self-discipline?
The answer is that embedded marketing is an effective tool in the political as well as corporate sphere. Neither the big corporate players nor politicians that are in power want this tool to be taken out of their hands. They had to look as if they were doing something, because it has come to public attention that this form of marketing is “dishonest,” as Wu put it. Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) went even further, saying he did not expect the legislature to pass regulations governing embedded marketing anytime soon.
So the government must obfuscate (blame the DPP), prostrate (say it’s sorry) and invalidate (crack down on somebody), but at the same time discombobulate (confuse by doing nothing).
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS