Last week Britain saw the career demise of two TV personalities. One was a BBC presenter, found guilty, at least in the public eye, of taking drugs and serial adultery. The other was an Independent Television morning entertainment show presenter whose cocaine habit and alleged treatment of women turned him from commenting on the news into being the news. Both cases were too hot for the companies which employed these two and they were sacked. TV personalities, according to the UK's minister for culture, serve as "role models" and the wayward antics of these gentlemen were simply not acceptable. And this in a country whose tabloid press is an international byword for scurrilousness.
Hong Kong, also not exactly known as the soberest of news environments, had an even more bizarre media incident. Eastweek, a gossip rag, ran a front-page cover featuring a decade-old picture of a well-known actress naked on the back seat of a car. She was not disporting herself but rather was the victim of a kidnap and the nude photos were taken by her kidnappers to torment her. Eastweek published the picture with her face blurred and breasts covered but nevertheless the kidnapping itself is so well remembered that even in Taiwan there is no doubt about who the actress was. Local entertainers, including movie legend Jackie Chan (
It is worth stressing once again that both these incidents happened in places with a raucous and super-competitive media culture. Yet there is a sense in which the behavior of both of media/entertainment organizations and those who are closely identified with them can be called to account for overstepping the mark. It should also be stressed that neither the BBC, ITV nor Emperor did what they did because the government ordered them to. Rather there was an understanding that a line had been crossed, the organizations had been brought into disrepute and something needed to be done to win back public respect.
Can anyone remember this happening in Taiwan? We can't. And yet the faults of Taiwan's media go far beyond wayward TV presenters and the bad taste of the tabloids. Of course, we have these as well. The recent scandal of Kelly Hsueh (
But this is hardly of the gravest concern in Taiwan. Here one can, as The Journalist did, accuse the president of being a philanderer and accuse the vice president of providing the information, lose a libel case over the claim and still hold that what was done was both correct and in the public interest. No admission of shame there. Some news organizations make almost a fetish of relating scandalous tittle tattle, which usually turns out to be false, about people in the government in pursuit of their own political agenda. When they are conclusively proved to be in the wrong do they ever apologize? Of course not. When they can be shown to have thrown away the scepticism over stories which good journalists imbibe with their mother's milk in pursuit of their political vendettas -- the United Daily News and early October's "ear licking" scandal being the most recent example -- does anyone apologize? Don't be absurd.
Let's face it, here in Taiwan "journalistic ethics" is an oxymoron. Tolstoy said that "Journalistic activity is an intellectual brothel from which there is no retreat." Certainly there has yet to be a retreat in Taiwan.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS