The Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence (新聞公害防治基金會) has recently become the focus of widespread attention for monitoring newspapers at the behest of the Government Information Office (GIO). Much advice has been offered from all quarters, and we will respectfully follow it in the firm belief that this advice will help increase the accuracy and rigor of our research reportage. Moreover, some of the media reports and analyses of this project have confirmed the original sense that led us to undertake the research in the first place: that certain news media still need to raise their professional standards and must be monitored and restrained appropriately.
The foundation participated in the bidding for this project because monitoring the media is one of the purposes for which it was established. The news media is an important pillar of democratic society as well as the primary source of day-to-day information for every citizen.
In Taiwan, however, there are some media organizations that public opinion polls have pointed to as a source of chaos in society because their everyday handling of the news is unprofessional. The foundation hopes to promote professional media standards by increasing the public's understanding of the media and monitoring the media. At the same time, we accept appeals from victims of the media to help them take necessary legal measures for redress as a way of helping the media fulfill its function and responsibility to society. In simple terms, the foundation's mission is to prevent the media from becoming a detriment to society.
The GIO has been appointing non-governmental organizations to monitor the media for years. For the last three years, this job has been given to the National Press Council (新聞評議會). Our foundation's participation in the bidding this year went through an open process of solicitation and evaluation. The process was legal, transparent, and subject to inspection. Recent claims by the National Press Council and the United Daily News that there was malfeasance involved are all groundless slander. They are an insult to the scholars who acted as judges, the GIO and our foundation, and they reflect the character of those making the accusations.
Due to budget limitations, the foundation has chosen to monitor four pages in each of two different newspapers on a daily basis. In addition, we feel that concerning ourselves with whether today's newspapers adhere to basic professional ethics by checking facts, providing balance, and clearly stating their sources is more important than problems of sensational sexual, violent or gory content. The bulk of our work is done by two professors of journalism in charge of three graduate students. Other scholars and experts are also invited to participate, and when results are made public, advice will be solicited from the news world.
Some people question whether this research is primarily designed to monitor political news. In fact, we selected pages one through four due to budget restrictions. We are not using sampling methods, and naturally we couldn't throw away the most important news in each paper by selecting the back pages. Moreover, pages one through four aren't necessarily all political news. In March, there were also the issues of the war in Iraq, SARS and the suicide of Hong Kong actor/singer Leslie Cheung (張國榮). Furthermore, looked at in terms of professional ethics, even if political news is examined by our experts, what is there to fear? Most basically, the foundation's research must be responsible to the public and accept criticism from every corner.
Unfortunately, certain reports and analyses don't confine their discussion of certain news events to the methods and content of our research but instead harp on irrelevant aspects in an unscrupulous attempt to discredit one or more parties involved. Some of the most egregious examples are listed below.
First, a double standard: this assignment was designed to be carried out by journalism scholars. It is purely a case of the government commissioning independent research from outside sources, and it is similar in nature to academic research commissioned by the Ministry of Economic Affairs on matters such as the economic impact of Taiwan entering the WTO. The GIO has respected the independence of our foundation throughout and has never interfered in any way. Future research results are also intended only for everyone's reference purposes. Since the Publishing Law (出版法) was abolished, there should be no danger of the report taking on an administrative function or being used to reward or punish the media. But while the economics ministry can commission outside research, the GIO can't. While the National Press Council can conduct research for three years running, our foundation can't even make an initial attempt at such research. This is obviously a case of hypocrisy and a double standard.
Second, character assassination: Certain reports and analyses don't question the research project itself but instead view the whole matter through the tinted glasses of conspiracy theory and political interests, thereby maligning our foundation. The April 17 editorial in the United Daily News is a quintessential example. It falsely accused the foundation of "being guided by the administration behind the scenes," and of, "merely posing as a non-governmental organization."
Of the foundation's nine directors and members, not one is a political figure. They variously have expertise in journalism, law, academic research and finance. Not one is a member of a political party, and all are concerned about the healthy development of the news business. This instance of slander has already damaged the reputations of the foundation and its directors. It would appear that Wang Tih-wu's (王惕吾) guiding principle of "upright journalism" at the United Daily News went to the grave with him.
Third, blurring the facts: The foundation is responsible for carrying out media-monitoring research, but this has been painted as evidence of trying to manage the media. Moreover, media monitoring, a point system and industry surveys are three different things, but they have been discussed all in the same breath. Others have exaggerated the meaning of a free press to the extent that any monitoring of the media or passage of legislation is seen as violating press freedom. No mention is made of the facts that although the media enjoys freedom, it must still be responsible to the public.
Some of the reports quote anonymous sources attacking the foundation with false claims, like that of absent scholars also being listed as judges. These were rashly carried out without fact checking. Little balance was provided in the reports, which were such a hodgepodge of fact and opinion that the headlines weren't even consistent with the content. Although passions have run high and heated words have been spoken, it has not been possible to convey the true facts to the public, and it also hasn't been possible to raise the level of the debate to that of a rational discussion of press freedom and responsibility.
A simple case of the GIO commissioning a research project has given rise to endless erroneous reports and analyses, reflecting the fact that certain journalists still haven't become any more reasonable or professional.
As for monitoring the media, given financial aid from the GIO and in the absence of financial aid from outside sources, we still plan to continue our work.
Lu Shih-xiang is chief executive officer of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
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
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS