During the protests against the cross-strait service trade agreement, many of my students and friends have obtained most of their information from independent media or social media Web sites. Many students feel that reporting in the mainstream media, such as newspapers and TV stations, is biased and one-sided, and might just as well be ignored. Anyone who visited the protest site in front of the legislature could see signs reading “oppose defamation by the media” and “the TV deceives my parents.”
Excessive protest, such as verbal abuse and violence directed at reporters by a minority is unacceptable, but disgust with media because they are biased is natural. The most creative and appropriate response to the problem that I have encountered were the sticky notes pasted on the satellite uplink trucks from two of the TV news stations reporting on the protests.
The notes were of course filled with complaints against the two news stations. If there is such a thing as karma, then the sticky note protest is precisely what the mainstream media had coming to them, because some of them have been very busy putting labels on people lately.
The most obvious example is the way media outlets supporting the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used words and expressions such as “mob” and “undermining stability and order” when talking about the protesters. Many people understand that this kind of language is biased labeling used to discredit the protests, because most protesters, including those protesting against the agreement, are simply members of the public that do not agree with a certain issue, and not a violent mob.
Media opposed to the President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration are also guilty of this kind of crudity and defamation when they talk about tyranny without going into a deeper discussion of the pact.
With regard to the recent protest, the media should have discussed and explained the issues. For example what the agreement actually entails, what the impact would be if it were passed, what factors should be taken into consideration during negotiations and whether free trade is a good thing for Taiwanese. All this before they started to resort to using labels such as “mob” or “tyranny.” Still, during the one year or so since protest against the agreement began to be heard, most mainstream media outlets have never discussed these issues.
If this really is a case of government “tyranny,” the reasons for saying so should be explained. Perhaps the media — the fourth estate — have been neglecting their duties for so long that they now only resort to reporting gossip.
Although it is difficult to find in-depth discussions in the traditional media about the agreement and the protests, this discussion can be found in the independent media or the Facebook pages of individual reporters. This means that there is no shortage of people who are capable of such reporting, but that mainstream media are unwilling to provide the necessary space or resources.
In a climate of cutthroat competition, the mainstream media no longer rely on quality reporting to attract readers and viewers, but are instead cutting cost in order to increase profit. For example note the way new reporters are told to report on the destruction of public property, the sun cakes that Cabinet Deputy Secretary-General Hsiao Chia-chi (蕭家淇) said students had eaten during the short-lived occupation of the Executive Yuan, and the green jacket that student leader Lin Fei-fan (林飛帆) wore — it is much easier and much cheaper.
The labeling in mainstream media reporting is a result of imbalances in the industry structure. Taking TV stations as an example, the local Taiwan market for TV advertising is not very big compared to many other countries, but it has the world’s highest density of TV news stations. In terms of profit concerns, obtaining a mere 1 percent of the viewership is enough to generate sufficient advertising income.
The result is that news stations tend to aim for diehard blue or green supporters and rely on taking extreme political positions to divide the market, and they then minimize the costs required for staff and reporting. This creates a formula for profit-making news that focuses on political diehards, gossip and sticking labels on people.
The students protesting against the pact should not be the only ones to reject this kind of mainstream reporting. It is imperative that they are joined by the general public and reporters. Policy and other public measures should be used to improve the structure of the media industry so that it begins to rely on quality reporting to attract readers and viewers.
This is a more fundamental and effective approach than pasting sticky protest notes on satellite uplink trucks.
Chad Liu is an associate professor of journalism at National Chengchi University’s College of Communication.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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