Don't believe it
I want to commend you on last Friday's excellent editorial, ("Don't believe everything you read," Oct. 10, page 8) which takes on the dissembling that followed President Chen Shui-bian's (
You particularly pointed out one very good example of how the Post's Beijing correspondent, John Pomfret, misrepresented Chen's words. With a bit more detail, this would benefit the reader more completely.
The paragraph from your editorial says: "Nowhere in the Post article, however, is a quote from Chen about `refusing to succumb to US pressure.' Instead it was Pomfret who made the observation, `Chen said he would not bow to US pressure,' after quoting Chen as saying, when asked about US pressure regarding his recent moves (ie, rewriting the Constitution and national referendums) was, `Any kind of democratic reform is our own affair. I don't think any democratic country can oppose democratic ideals.'"
One thing I would add to that would be a lesson in how to spot this sort of media spin. Instead of quoting Chen directly, Pomfret interprets Chen's supposedly intended meaning, without ever providing the "quote" from which he derived this interpretation. Anytime this happens -- you might have added -- it is a pretty good indication that the reader should pay more attention. They should read the article, as you have done for them this time, and find these discrepancies for themselves. It is a favorite tactic of unscrupulous "journalists" the world over. But don't just "give [the readers] a fish." Instead, teach them "how to fish."
Another thing you pointed out was the problem of language translation. You informed us that the title of the article, "Chen dismisses fears in US of rising tension," had the word "dismiss" translated as "contemptuously repel" (
It is especially in this kind of case where readers on either side of the language barrier need the professional assistance that can be provided by the Taipei Times and other media when they decide to be honest.
I think that in the interest of truthfulness, you should provide daily a list of contacts (for example, the names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses) of media watchdog groups where readers/viewers/listeners can report any such discrepancies they find in media reports.
The saying "Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see" is often attributed to Will Rogers or Mark Twain. But I wouldn't necessarily trust either attribution!
Andrew Hokanson
Taichung
Stand up for Taiwan
Regarding the situation with Liberia: Can the Taiwanese change their traditional "face saving" strategy?
Whenever something bad happens to Taiwan, what you will say is all so predictable and childish. Things like "We have all the information under control" or "Let it go, it is not worth it."
To some degree, I understand your feelings under the circumstance.
But more and more, I notice that Taiwan has started to give up its manhood and "cocoon" itself. You need to learn more from South Korea -- behave like a nation of bravado and courage in sports, in sciences and in politics.
If you refuse to mature, no one respect you as a "nation."
Ming Zhang
Chicago
Taiwan's jacket should fit
Wang Chien-chuang's article ("Absurd arguments should only be ignored," Oct. 16, page 8) is paradoxical itself.
The title suggests ignoring absurd statements, but the text elaborates three "absurdities." Are these "absurdities" or "truths" in Wang's mind?
It is immaterial when, where, how and by whom the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution was promulgated and enacted.
The important thing is that it was not designed specifically for Taiwan and does not fit even after amendments. The ROC Constitution applied to Taiwan is as cumbersome as a king-size men's jacket put on a little girl. What the girl needs is a jacket of the right size, a good design and proper material.
If a "Mr Wang" claims to be a "Mr King," he is most likely to be refused entry into a foreign country.
For the same reason, the UN has repeatedly refused to admit the ROC.
It's time to try the country's real name -- Taiwan -- instead. Taiwan should keep trying, even though China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS