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
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
China has successfully held its Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, with 53 of 55 countries from the African Union (AU) participating. The two countries that did not participate were Eswatini and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which have no diplomatic relations with China. Twenty-four leaders were reported to have participated. Despite African countries complaining about summit fatigue, with recent summits held with Russia, Italy, South Korea, the US and Indonesia, as well as Japan next month, they still turned up in large numbers in Beijing. China’s ability to attract most of the African leaders to a summit demonstrates that it is still being
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
RSS