Here is an interesting lesson about Taiwanese newspapers.
The background is this: former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Randy Schriver met with Taiwanese officials and spoke to Taiwanese reporters.
In his briefing he disagreed with the characterization of China's invitations to Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) to visit China as "flexibility," -- something which the pan-blue media and parties have trumpeted.
Instead, he correctly characterized these moves as "more creative," which, while the Chinese increase the pressure on Chen Shui-bian (
This is not to mention the loving gaze of 800 Chinese ballistic missiles and the pan-blue forces blocking arms purchases.
These new, more creative Chinese tactics then, he asserts, are clever traps from which Taiwan must maneuver carefully. Most importantly, he characterized China as the real trouble-maker -- a phrase given to Taiwan by former US president Bill Clinton and members of his government.
The coverage:
The usually pro-blue China Times, [http://news.chinatimes. com/Chinatimes/newslist/newslist-content/0,3546,110502+112005060400021,00.html ] was quick to make sure that readers know that Schriver is "very friendly to Taiwan," and gave this fair headline: "Schriver: China is the real troublemaker."
The pan-green Taiwan Daily [http://www.taiwandaily.com.tw/index03.php?news_id=44987&datechange=2005-06-04&news_top=c1] ran a story with the headline: "Schriver: Chinese policy towards Taiwan more creative, but from international pressures and threats of invasion one cannot see `flexibility.'"
The pan-green Liberty Times [Editor's note: the Liberty Times is the Taipei Times' sister newspaper.] ran the headline: "Schriver: Hu Jintao's (
In terms of content, all the articles read relatively the same, even the China Times noted that according to Schriver, Bush's "whatever it takes" to defend Taiwan comment was genuine.
Now let's turn to the United Daily News [http://udn.com/NEWS/FINANCE/FIN2/2713746.shtml]. It tucked the story deep inside its subsidiary Economic Daily News with a headline that misleadingly read: "Schriver: Taiwan must wisely utilize Beijing's creativity."
If you spend the time to parse the grudging UDN story closely, you pretty much get the main point, which is entirely contrary to the misleading headline. The UDN also strikingly took time to emphasize that Schriver "does not think the KMT and PFP leaders meant to hurt Taiwan" with their tours of China.
Strikingly, it also omitted the "troublemaker" observation. It should be noted that UDN is the Taiwanese strategic partner of the New York Times, and the publisher of that paper happens to be visiting Taiwan.
Liang Hong-ming
Shaker Heights, Ohio
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
A foreign colleague of mine asked me recently, “What is a safe distance from potential People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Rocket Force’s (PLARF) Taiwan targets?” This article will answer this question and help people living in Taiwan have a deeper understanding of the threat. Why is it important to understand PLA/PLARF targeting strategy? According to RAND analysis, the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” focuses on crippling an adversary’s operational system by targeting its networks, especially leadership, command and control (C2) nodes, sensors, and information hubs. Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, noted in his 15 May 2025 Sedona Forum keynote speech that, as
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) last week announced that the KMT was launching “Operation Patriot” in response to an unprecedented massive campaign to recall 31 KMT legislators. However, his action has also raised questions and doubts: Are these so-called “patriots” pledging allegiance to the country or to the party? While all KMT-proposed campaigns to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers have failed, and a growing number of local KMT chapter personnel have been indicted for allegedly forging petition signatures, media reports said that at least 26 recall motions against KMT legislators have passed the second signature threshold
RSS