Thu, Apr 14, 2005 page8

• Editorial: `Free Chinese media' an oxymoron

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The Mainland Affairs Council's recent decision to temporarily ban reporters from China's state-run Xinhua News Agency and People's Daily has sparked a storm of derision from the pan-blue media. They have criticized the council for taking a regressive step for the nation's democracy. The two media outlets were reluctant to be outdone by their pan-blue soulmates and accused the government of obstructing cross-strait media exchanges. The council's decision need not be discussed here, but an old joke from the Cold War sums up the situation nicely.

  The joke goes: an American and a Russian are having an argument over whose country is more liberal. "In America, we can stand in front of the White House and call President Reagan a bastard," the American says proudly. "That is nothing," the Russian responds, "in the Soviet Union we can also stand in front of the Kremlin and call Reagan a bastard."

  The Cold War is no more, but the joke is still as pertinent as ever, for the Soviet Union has simply been replaced by China.

  Following this line of reasoning, China may well be the world's freest country. Its media are free to criticize any world leader and President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in particular, as long as they do not criticize Beijing's leaders and their allies. Chinese can also hold violent anti-foreign demonstrations and attack embassies and foreign nationals, as in the recent antagonism toward Japan. Who says that China isn't free? Even democratic countries don't allow violent demonstrations, but it's all right in China, as long as it isn't aimed at the government. If it is, then even peaceful demonstrations will end like the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989.

  A demonstration against Japan is patriotic, but one aimed at the government is a revolt: this is freedom with Chinese characteristics. It is the same with the media. Its role is to act as a weapon in the hands of the Chinese leadership, to praise political orders and attack dissent. Strong countries like the US or Japan can easily laugh off China's inferior weapons, but how can Taiwan, which has suffered for so long from Beijing's threats, allow it to deploy its human weapons on Taiwan's soil?

  Currently, the pan-blue media are making much of "freedom of the press," much in the same way as the pre-World War II British government allowed Nazi media to station reporters in the UK, believing that news exchange would promote mutual understanding. But the idea that this would plant the seeds of democracy in Germany was naive and ridiculous. The way to deal with the Nazi regime was to destroy it, not to reform it.

  Taiwan has only recently left the authoritarian era, and the memory of the media controls during that era is still vivid. Perhaps one should ask the pan-blue media whether their reporters were reformed by American democracy when stationed in the US, and whether they were able to publish professional and objective reports on US public opinion.

  We hope that the council's decision to temporarily close the offices of the two Chinese media outlets will serve as a wake-up call to Chinese reporters, and that it will lead to some soul-searching. If it does, the council will have helped the progress of media freedom in China. If not, Chinese correspondents may continue to serve as if they are frontline troops in China's united front -- but not here.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Bukele proposes prisoner swap with Maduro

  • 2

    HK, Macau residency rules tightened

  • 3

    Wild’s top line too much for Vegas Golden Knights

  • 4

    China turns on the charm for Taiwan businesses: study

  • 5

    Taipei would welcome return of Honduras as ally if it seeks to recognize Taiwan