Media reports can at times be quite annoying as empty, meaningless news is hyped up. Sometimes this hurts the people concerned or even others in the periphery who have nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.
With this in mind, the first subgroup of the preparatory committee for the National Congress on Judicial Reform has suggested that media should be restricted from reporting on ongoing legal cases based on the position that investigations thta are still open should not be made public.
This might seem a worthy goal aimed at protecting people’s legal rights, but it is actually a move in the wrong direction. While it is true that many news reports seem to be made up, it is also true that police and prosecutors often deliberately leak information. Restricting the media from reporting such leaks is a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.
To keep ongoing investigations secret and retain the presumption of innocence are two important legal principles. In this respect, the past performance of police, prosecutors and the media has been disappointing.
The much-discussed case of the murder of a young model surnamed Chen (陳) and the allegations that the perpetrator’s friend, surnamed Liang (梁), set the whole thing up is a case in point.
Police and prosecutors released erroneous information which influenced public opinion and media outlets, social media Web sites and commentators played it up, in effect setting Liang up for trial in the court of public opinion. These are issues in desperate need of in-depth review.
The subgroup has proposed that media outlets attach a warning highlighting the presumption of innocence to reports about ongoing investigations. This of course is to protect our legal rights and it would help avoid the court of public opinion, but if we are to thoroughly implement the idea that ongoing investigations should be kept secret, the biggest responsibility should fall on the shoulders of police and prosecutors — the sources of reporters’ information.
Police and prosecutors representatives on the subgroup proposed a resolution that rules stipulating penalties should be introduced, and it was even suggested by a lawyer that media outlets violating the principle that ongoing investigations be kept secret should be handled in accordance with the Criminal Code.
Using legal means to restrict media outlets from reporting the news sets a precedent for using the law to clamp down on all reporting and it would be a heavy blow to the nation’s reputation for media freedom.
A member of the subgroup demanded that media outlets be prohibited from commenting on legal cases that have not been completed, based on Article 22 of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法). However, that article only applies to ongoing investigations and trials, and the suggestion is entirely unreasonable as the media must be able to comment on a court’s verdict, regardless of whether it is the first, second or third trial.
Fortunately, the suggestion was not accepted. If it had, it would have violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the press.
Self-discipline is important in the news media. Both the Constitution and Constitutional Interpretation No. 689 protect the freedom of the press and the media’s status as the fourth estate.
As the fourth estate, the media monitors the government, the legislature and the judiciary, and their exercise of power.
The National Congress on Judicial Reform should not use the protection of legal rights as a tool to suppress the freedom of the press.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
RSS