Listening to public opinion is important for political leaders in a democracy, but how that opinion is gathered and disseminated is crucial. Commentary on current events found on the ever-widening sources of social media — often satirical and even more frequently divorced from the facts — has become a source of concern in society.
Politicians, media outlets and anyone who seeks to understand public opinion through the Internet, Twitter, Line, Facebook or other formats should take the information they find there with a doubting Thomas approach and be sure to add a grain of salt. This is even more true if they using these sources to gather information.
Those who tread less cautiously could soon regret it, as shown by a news conference held this week and its aftermath.
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Pasuya Yao (姚文智) and DPP Taipei City Councilor Hsieh Wei-chou (謝維洲) on Monday apologized for a previous news conference they held where a woman accused Taipei Veterans General Hospital obstetrician Chen Chih-yao (陳志堯) of causing the death of her newborn baby.
The woman said Chen had mishandled the baby during labor, causing death, and that he had then mishandled the body by putting it into a paper box.
That same day, former National Taiwan University Hospital physician Liu Lin-wei (柳林瑋) spoke out in defense of Chen on Facebook, condemning Yao and Hsieh for making spurious accusations and saying that Chen had resigned because of the news conference.
Liu’s post triggered an outpouring of criticism from netizens, who accused the two politicians of worsening the nation’s already serious labor shortage in medical institutions.
However, on Tuesday, it turned out that Chen had submitted his resignation in March. That led Liu to apologize for failing to check the facts before posting his remarks.
It is not wrong for politicians — especially lawmakers or city or county councilors to speak out in support of their constituents. Part of their jobs is to identify problems and push for changes to rectify such situations.
However, Yao and Hsieh would have better served their constituents and society at large if they had done due diligence on the story before calling a news conference, including, perhaps, reaching out to Chen to hear his side.
Their apology would have also meant more if they had actually apologized for not checking their facts first. Instead, they apologized for repeating something that someone said on Facebook that proved not to be true.
Liu had also written a post about a rumor that he had read on the Internet without verifying it first, but at least he then apologized for not fact-checking.
Yao, Hsieh and Liu have demonstrated the error of taking action based solely on Web postings.
Netizens certainly have the right to express their views, but the anonymity provided by the Web and social media allows people to say things that they would not say face-to-face, while the urge to respond quickly means they are less than cautious when commenting on stories, other posts, photographs or rumors.
A pack mentality can also quickly develop, but not one that actually represents a majority of Taiwanese — or people of any other nation. Voices on the Web can be amplified far beyond their actual dimensions.
There is a popular saying among netizens that “you are losing if you are too serious with netizens.” This is something politicians should heed. The Internet and social media may appear to be an easy source of public opinion, but it is also a dangerous channel to rely upon.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers