According to US-based Freedom House’s report this year on freedom of the press, Taiwan scored its lowest ranking since 2002, continuing a slide that began in 2008. Taiwan dropped 16 places in the global ranking and went from being the freest media in Asia to second place.
The report cited problems such as the debate over the chairpersonship of the Taiwan Public Television Service (PTS), government-funded embedded advertising, increasing frequency of flattering reports about the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and likewise with negative reports about the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). These remarks were very similar to what the US Department of State said in its Human Rights Report last year and they all have an impact on the image of Taiwanese democracy and freedom.
Since the KMT took power in 2008, the international community has been paying a lot of attention to Taiwan’s press freedom. The 2008 Human Rights Report cited the International Federation of Journalists, which issued a report on Oct. 9, 2008, in which they accused the government of interfering with the media. They cited the inappropriate appointment of staff and directors at PTS, the Central News Agency and Radio Taiwan International. While the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) denied these allegations, in November that year, the federation and Reporters Without Borders criticized a decision passed by the Legislative Yuan that demanded that content broadcast by public broadcasting groups first be approved by the Government Information Office. The US’ 2009 Human Rights Report accused the government of conducting inappropriate embedded advertising.
In early January this year, the legislature passed an amendment to a clause in Article 62 of the Budget Act (預算法) that stated that budgets allotted for advocating policy should be clearly listed as advertising, that the names of the authorities or departments responsible for managing or sponsoring such advertising be made public and that such advertisements not be published as embedded advertising. However, academic circles questioned whether this could be implemented.
On April 13, DPP Legislator Huang Wei-cher (黃偉哲) asked Minister of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-shiang (施顏祥) about this during a question-and-answer session in the legislature, saying that “outsourced advertising,” “features,” “advertisements” and “special reports” were all in breach of regulations and demanded that “the government organizations responsible for the publication of such reports be clearly listed and that such reports be listed as paid advertising” in accordance with the law.
The Alliance to Oppose Government News Buying has also announced that it would be monitoring such issues more closely.
News is news and advertising is advertising, and the two should never be confused. This is a norm media outlets worldwide follow. In Taiwan, however, many media outlets happily accept the government’s embedded advertising and even think of all sorts of ways of colluding with the government in order to get more such advertising.
In the process of doing so, they sacrifice the public good that should be provided by news and press freedom. Protecting press freedom represents protection of freedom of expression, a core democratic value. This core value should not be allowed to be dragged down to the absurd level where the one that should be monitored — the government — suppresses the one that should be doing the monitoring — the media — regardless of whether they do it by bribing the media or using their power to achieve this end.
Lu I-ming is the former publisher and president of the Taiwan Shin Sheng Daily News.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS