On Saturday, several groups, including the Association of Taiwan Journalists (ATJ), took to the streets to protest media monopolization and call for more autonomy in the media. The demonstration coincided with the 18th anniversary of the Journalists’ Day march in 1994 in which 2,300 journalists and people working in the media protested in the pouring rain. Saturday’s demonstration brought together more broadcasters, students and civic groups than the 1994 march.
The 1994 demonstration happened after the Independence Post group was taken over — a move which caused Post workers to fear for their editorial autonomy and provoked unions to protest.
This occurred after martial law had been lifted, at a time when unions were quite powerful and news providers were just starting to join forces. Eighteen years later, big business has taken over. If Taiwan wants to have unbiased news from diverse sources all Taiwanese need to get involved.
Few people took much notice of Want Want China Times Group’s bid to acquire some of the cable TV services operated by China News Service when it was broached two years ago. Since then it has become a contentious topic, hotly debated in the legislature and sparking a string of protests because of the possible impact the ensuing media monopolization would have on freedom of expression.
Since the merger process began, there have been partisan news reports and such events make the public wary of concentrating too much power in too few hands.
How many media channels should a society allow one person or one company to own? To what degree should a nation allow its media to self-regulate? What lengths are Taiwanese willing to go to in order to protect our hard-won democracy and freedoms?
Self-regulation is not about the freedom to print whatever stories you want, it is about professional conduct. In news reporting, certain values and practices may change over time, but the most fundamental values — providing balanced reporting and respecting human rights -— are immutable. Mistakes are unavoidable, but self-regulation is about reflecting on the reasons for those mistakes after the event.
Want Want China Times Group published articles about Academia Sinica associate research fellow Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), accusing him of paying students to attend protests against the merger. One month later, following complaints from the individuals concerned and members of the public, it issued a public apology saying that Huang “had nothing to do with” the event, but defended itself by saying it never fabricated stories.
In 2003, the New York Times reporter Jayson Blair was found to have plagiarized and fabricated facts. The Times conducted an internal investigation, going through Blair’s reports with a fine-tooth comb. Blair was fired, his seniors disciplined and a public apology issued. On May 11 of that year, the Times printed a 7,239-word report, detailing the process and findings of the investigation, saying the affair was “a low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper.”
A similar case happened in Taiwan. In March 2007, cable station TVBS was embroiled in a scandal when it broadcast footage of a gangster in a video later found to have been fabricated by a TVBS reporter. Following an internal investigation into the matter, the National Communications Commission slapped its biggest fine ever on TVBS. The reporter and his superior were fired, the head of the news department and the assignment editor were given demerits and a public apology was issued.
The New York Times is a internationally renowned, quality publication. It was courageous enough to take responsibility for the scandal, initiate an investigation and admit its error. These actions won it the respect of its readership.
The TVBS scandal seriously damaged the station’s reputation and the public’s trust in it. Although it was the state regulator that stepped in to discipline the station, TVBS did show some contrition, and viewing figures returned to normal.
Bear in mind, though, that these are not media conglomerates with a habit of throwing their weight around.
Hung Chen-ling is an assistant professor at the National Taiwan University Graduate Institute of Journalism.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing