On New Year’s Eve, a group of students gathered in Liberty Square in Taipei to fight for an ideal that might never be realized. They were unlike other young people taking part in New Year’s Eve celebrations. They did not have any celebrities entertaining them, only thousands of like-minded young people with a burning desire to see the progress of civil society and democracy in Taiwan, as they protested against media monopoly.
Unfortunately, the president and senior government officials were neither willing to thank them for their love of their country nor show them any support, and I really cannot get my head around the government’s attitude.
When I teach university courses about media, I stress that the mass media are like the eyes and ears of the public in modern societies. The media are very powerful because people rely on them to understand what is going on in the world around them and how whoever owns and controls the media can control what people hear or do not hear and see or do not see.
For example, if Chinese media outlets did not report about how Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) won the Nobel Peace Prize, the general public would not have known about it, given that not everyone in China knows how to get around the government’s strict Internet controls to find alternative sources of information on the Web.
Therefore, if those running media outlets do not regard the media as a public instrument, and if their choice of content is always based on the preferences of a media boss who happens to own many different media outlets, then the public would receive only what that person likes or wants people to know. If that media boss is not happy with something and does not want people to know about it, the media outlets will simply not report it. Is that really what a democratic society and freedom of the press are supposed to be about?
A democratic society is valuable because it allows a free competition of ideas. The media serve as a public forum where people can express different opinions in a fair manner.
However, what can actually be expressed is still subject to a certain set of standards that help guarantee that what is expressed is in line with public interests. These standards are what media being a type of public forum in democratic societies is all about.
However, some legislators have used this as an argument for the right of TV stations to broadcast what they want, as well as not to report what they do not want. This is a depressing viewpoint. Such legislators have no clue about the role that the mass media should play and the responsibilities they bear in a democratic society. They probably believe that running a media outlet is like a hawker selling food from a roadside stall — hawkers can prepare their food any way they like and if customers do not like it, they do not have to buy it.
The Taiwanese audience really has it bad. Not only does it have to worry about the media being controlled by a minority and not hearing what they should hear about, it is also concerned about the media being manipulated as part of the battle between the pan-blue and pan-green political camps.
Taiwan cannot have a democratic future if the media is only concerned with the struggle between political ideologies instead of the pursuit of truth.
Taiwan can never become a true civil society as long as the public remains ignorant of and lack interest in knowing what role media should play and the functions it should perform in a modern society.
Looking at the process of democratization in Taiwan, shows that those born in the 1940s and 1950s put up a hard resistance against authoritarian rule, establishing a democratic system and laying down a basis for democratic development in the nation. These are the common memories of the people of that era.
Following in their footsteps, those born in the 1960s and 1970s fought for democratization within school campuses, making democratic movements on campus the common memories of people of this generation.
Those born in the 1980s and 1990s will be the next lot of people to take charge of society. We would do well to stop for a moment and think about what their common memories will be.
After martial law was lifted, the media have been in a chaotic state that has lasted up to this day. This situation has been aggravated by capitalist ideas about maximizing returns on investment, resulting in a worsening media environment.
It has come to the point that the hard work that those born in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s have done for the nation’s democratization is about to be swallowed up by media controls. Faced with these challenges, those born in the 1980s and 1990s have to work harder to push media reform.
This will not only make a huge contribution to the nation’s future, but will also become a common memory that they can proudly tell future generations. Young people fighting against media monopoly should continue doing what they are doing.
Chen Ping-hung is a professor at National Taiwan Normal University’s Graduate Institute of Mass Communication.
Translated by Drew Cameron
The White House’s decision to take a 9.9 percent stake in Intel Corp is looking like very shrewd business indeed. Since the government bought in at US$20.47 a share last August, the US chipmaker’s surging stock price has delivered the US a US$43 billion return. One of the reasons the investment has so far proved so sound is that the White House has made sure of it. According to The Wall Street Journal, Howard personally pushed deals on Intel’s behalf with some of the most lucrative clients imaginable. They include Nvidia Corp, the company at the heart of the AI
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS