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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS