On Dec. 4, the China Times ran a front-page story that President Chen Shui-bian (
First, was the story subjected to the established reporting procedures of truly professional journalists before publication? According to the editorial desk's explanation the next day, "the newspaper cross-checked the story with various sources. But the confirmation was incomplete, because the paper failed to verify the allegation with Chen or appropriate presidential staff in a timely manner."
The media can be more confident about the accuracy of information when it is confirmed by at least two sources. However, reporters are not always able to complete laborious confirmation work before deadlines. As a result, they have to depend on the reliability of their sources, as well as their own understanding of the story. Mistakes are inevitable under such circumstances. In this case, the paper verified the story with various sources. But it did not obtain a comment from Chen and without it the report was not balanced.
The report referred only to reliable sources and insiders. Is it appropriate not to name sources? Reporters should name sources in the interests of their own cred-ibility as well as their accountability. Still, when a story is sensitive, it's perfectly normal for reporters to protect their sources. Undoubtedly, some reporters may use the protection of sources as a pretext to hide their laziness and irresponsibility, but the occasional genuine need to protect sources cannot be ignored. Nor can it be presumed that a report in which a source is not identified is necessarily incorrect.
Did the newspaper itself play the role of gatekeeper? This role is crucial to the way in which a story is presented. The process can also reduce mistakes, although it's difficult to avoid personal biases and structural distortion. More importantly, through repeated checks and discussions, journalists can reduce the possible political, economic, social or legal impact of a report.
Third is the media's own news judgment, which determines the value that the public places in a report. The more valuable a news piece is, the more noticeable a position it occupies. Editorial desks should stick to their guns once they have decided to run as front-page leads -- after thorough confirmation and evaluation -- reports making grave charges.
In the name of truth and the media's duty to monitor the government, journalists must strive to get to the bottom of this story.
Ku Lin-lin is an associate professor of journalism at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
RSS