How quickly the proverbial frog is being cooked. Less than three months ago, thousands of young Taiwanese and representatives of media organizations gathered to protest against the acquisition by Want Want China Times Group of cable TV services run by China Network Systems, fearing that such a purchase — since then conditionally approved — would create a “media monster.”
This week, Want Want Group is not only appealing the conditions set by the government, but is on the brink, along with two other corporate giants, of acquiring Next Media Group’s outlets in Taiwan, including the staunchly independent Apple Daily and Next Magazine, sparking a new round of protests over the past two days.
With a decision expected later this week, one of the few remaining neutral media organizations in Taiwan could be swallowed up by a triumvirate composed of the China-friendly Want Want China Times Group, Formosa Plastics Group and the Chinatrust Charity Foundation. All three have important business operations in authoritarian China.
The main danger of media monopolization is not that Taiwanese will be “brainwashed,” but that journalists and editorialists will feel compelled to avoid certain controversial subjects for the financial benefit of their employers.
The argument has been made that in the electronic age, traditional media have lost some of their prestige as a “fourth estate” scrutinizing people in positions of authority. As the recent revolutions in northern Africa have shown, blogs, instant messaging and other online media now play a crucial role in mobilizing the masses. However, the fact remains that the masses still do not get the press passes needed to attend important events — journalists do, and it will be a while yet before bloggers, no matter how good they are, acquire the legitimacy and access that come with working for recognized media organizations.
As a wealthy few take control of the local media, and as their reliance on China continues to grow, Taiwan could someday find itself in a situation where most journalists covering important events — say, negotiations on future cross-strait agreements — come from those few media organizations whose owners have a stake in not alienating Beijing or the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Reporters who do not self-censor, or who take an undue interest in politics, would risk their careers. As a result, the population would be denied information that would now be the privilege of an elite few, whose interests may not necessarily coincide with those of the majority.
In the years leading up to Japan’s decision to ally with Nazi Germany in World War II, the Japanese never fully understood the extent of Adolf Hitler’s apocalyptic vision. Perhaps, had the Japanese translator of Mein Kampf not edited out Hitler’s references to Japanese as part of the Untermenschen, or “subhumans,” they might have made a different choice.
The current situation places greater responsibility on the few remaining media that can lay claim to independence, as well as the foreign news outlets that continue to operate in Taiwan. Worryingly, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has at times been inimical to foreign reporters, either accusing them of not fully understanding the situation because they are foreigners, or in more extreme instances, threatening them with expulsion for exposing damaging information.
With domestic media forced into submission by powerful commercial interests and a foreign press that is constantly excluded, one wonders who is left to ensure Taiwan’s story continues to be told fully and with honesty.
The students and their supporters who braved the scorching heat of September and the damp coldness of November for the sake of a free media environment have already said they will not give up and intend to resume their protest tomorrow to ask that government agencies in charge of monitoring the media do the right thing. Many of them are too young to know what it is like to live in an unfree media environment, but have enough imagination to know they don’t want that for their future.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and