According to news reports, while inspecting the General Information Office (GIO) some time ago, Louis Chao (
In theory, there are three forces regulating the media.
The first is "self-discipline," which is the hope that all media will understand their special role and develop the capacity to critique government policymaking, monitor the social climate and promote the development of democracy -- all without fear or favor. This is the most essential media-regulating force.
The second force is "the discipline of others," which means the monitoring of media performance by non-governmental organizations who can hold the media to the principles of journalistic ethics characterized in the last paragraph. This is something certainly worth pursuing, but is far from a reality at present.
The third force is "legal discipline," which refers to the regulation of media behavior through legislation. This is the bluntest of all regulating forces and unless it is absolutely unavoidable, efforts should be made not to use it, as this force can and often is used to threaten press freedom.
If we consider the request by the gentlemen from the Control Yuan that the GIO keep an eye on the media, we'll find hidden issues concerning the role and performance of the media that are well worth our deep consideration.
First of all, if even members of the Control Yuan, representing the judicial branch, do not accept media behavior and believe that a stern eye should be kept on media outlets, there are two issues worth consideration.
One, if the people of Taiwan believe that an eye should be kept on the media, then the media should engage in earnest self-examination over whether its performance has deviated from professionalism and the expectations of the people. Honestly speaking, though, looking at the present performance of the Taiwanese media, it seems that they have neither the ability nor the will to engage in self-reflection, and so the request for media self-discipline appears impossible.
But the question arises, who should control the media if they are incapable of self-reflection? If it is true as GIO Director-General Su Tzen-ping (
This is a taboo that no GIO director-general would dare break.
Under these conditions, legal discipline is both impermissible and impractical.
Finally, there is the "discipline of others." On the surface, it seems as if the "discipline of others" is the most accessible method for regulating the performance of the media. The problem is, however, who are these "others?"
These "others" are social and academic groups that Su said should be encouraged to exert the monitoring force.
More concretely, these "others" are you, I and all reading and listening people. The problem is that even though social and academic groups are willing to come out and monitor the media, they find it very difficult to obtain widespread popular attention and support. This is because the public doesn't know or believe that it can exert this kind of influence. The social groups that today have the intent of establishing a mechanism for the "discipline of others" therefore still stand alone, making "the discipline of others" a utopian force for regulating the media.
As there appears little hope for media self-discipline, or legal controls, we must place our hopes in the GIO to work for the wider public interest to come up with ways of encouraging or social and academic groups to initiate media regulation by "the discipline of others."
Chen Ping-hung is an associate professor in the Graduate Institute of Mass Communication at National Taiwan Normal University.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS