The Government Information Office's (GIO) decision to revoke the operating licenses of seven cable-TV channels has given rise to considerable controversy. In view of this, some have voiced their objections to the government's attempt to restrain the development of cable TV channels and even believe that the government should allow the market to dictate the fate of these channels rather than attempt to intervene in the media environment.
Such criticism represents just one extreme, from those who believe that the government should give a free hand to the media. Others claim that the government should keep a tight rein on media outlets. The fact is that any type of restriction imposed by the government will be regarded as a violation of press freedom.
Looking at Taiwan's political development, the memory of the past party-state and authoritarian rule is still so fresh that most people are still apprehensive about state control of any sort.
Since martial law was lifted in 1987, the operation of the media has been driven by the market. However, the media industry in Taiwan has yet to engender any positive results. In fact, most democracies, including the US, do practice a certain type of restriction to supervise the media, for the media is no ordinary industry.
Other than pursuing corporate profits and press freedom, the media is also a major influence on the nation's cultural and social development. Therefore, it is considered a special privilege to run a media outlet. In addition, those who run a media outlet have to fulfill their social responsibilities. That is why we should consider this controversy from the point of view of whether the media is conducive to public freedom.
If this is our point of departure, what are we to do when we see that the media is driven by profit and the fight for advertising revenue? They make shoddy news programs that incite public dissatisfaction. But because of the dominance of this environment, the public really has little freedom of choice.
Those who call for a free press should stop and think whether they are speaking up for the people, or simply protecting the interests of media proprietors.
Some people believe that the government's attempt to control the media will eventually silence media criticism of the government. What's worse, they might bend over backwards to please the government.
The failure of these seven cable-TV channels to have their licenses renewed also makes us wonder what kind of positive contributions these channels have made to Taiwan's democratization, and what type of efforts they have made to earnestly supervise the operation of the the government.
Do they only attempt to focus their attention on political strife and mudslinging rather than providing viewers with in-depth commentary and rational discussion during the elections? Shouldn't these TV stations be held responsible for all of their actions that have engendered a host of negative impacts on the democratic politics of the nation?
In the attempt to achieve higher viewer ratings, if media proprietors ask their editors or journalists to sensationalize their news coverage, is this not just as bad as the danger of silencing criticism through government intervention?
Some also claim that even if the government wants to regulate the media, it should not have acted as it did. In this regard, I totally agree that the existing law may not be a perfect one. Nor is the GIO in a good position to announce such a decision. The amendment of the existing law and the establishment of a new government agency to monitor the media is imperative.
Since the law is now being implemented, non-governmental circles could seek to actively participate in supervising and directing how such a law could be implemented to prevent the government from abusing its authority and constraining press freedom. They should not simply engage in unhelpful criticism or obstruct government through indifference.
However, a more concrete question has emerged: will the decision to revoke the licenses of seven cable-TV channels ultimately solve the problems plaguing the media? It certainly will not. However, we should view the policy implementation as a way to begin tackling these problems.
In short, there are three goals that we should strive to achieve in the future.
First, another focal point proposed by the media review committee is to ask TV channels to establish a mechanism that allows the public to evaluate the performance of all the TV channels and analyze the comments contributed by the public.
Whether or not the media proprietors are willing to adopt such an idea and whether or not civic groups or viewers can actively participate in such a cause will be crucial to the progress that these TV channels are likely to make.
Second, the government should also take into account the introduction of new high-quality channels to prompt benign competition among media outlets. However, the introduction of new channels should not be directed at generating revenue through commercials, for otherwise they will fall into the same rut as current stations. This should be done through non-commercial public broadcasting channels.
Third, the government has to seek the establishment and legislation of the National Communications Commission (NCC). Adequate supervision and debate from non-governmental circles are also needed to achieve such a cause. Otherwise the drive to reform the media will turn out to be a failure.
Wei Ti is an associate professor at the department of mass communications at Tamkang University.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS