Everyone's getting hysterical about that TVBS co-production starring a self-declared hitman with toy guns, so it falls to me to say: Don't be distracted. There are deeper problems at play, not the least those afflicting many of TVBS' accusers.
One of them is Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), who drools every time he gets a chance to plug greater government control of the media. And anyone who appeals for retribution from the National Miscommunications Commission -- an unconstitutional agency -- deserves a Dutch oven in a broken-down elevator. That pretty much covers everybody who broke a sweat over a couple of hacks plying their sleazy trade in gorgeous Taichung.
Speaking of gorgeous, did you know that Taiwan has an indigenous parrot? Her name is Connie Lin (林育卉), the head of a media watchdog called the Broadcasting Development Fund, and of late she has taken to parroting less clued-up parts of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). So expect a sermon on the evils of TVBS from her any day now.
On Tuesday, Lin parroted some DPP rabble-rousing legislators and attacked CNN and The Associated Press (AP) over an article and TV report that dusted off Beijing's labels for Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) -- to wit, "scum of the nation" and "insane." Squawk.
Lin and a few other media watchdog types had gathered at a Broadcasting Development Fund gabfest, safe in the knowledge that they were among friends. Lin said Western news agencies were hiring more and more pro-Beijing Chinese journalists, but she had no evidence. Another browbeater, Formosa Television news manager Paul Tsai (蔡滄波), said AP and CNN were barbaric, which summed up the stupidity on show.
Huff and puff all you like, people. But can you explain why it has taken you, like your DPP friends, years and years to identify that there is a problem with the international media? And then could you explain why you have picked the least offensive examples of this problem to put on your song and dance?
Taipei Times editorials, blogocrats and yours truly have been sifting through this stuff for a long time. Lin must have no knowledge of these efforts -- probably because her English is not so good. Which makes me wonder if she can distinguish out-and-out bias from the trappings that come with ordinary wire write-ups stuck in a pattern of "China says" and "renegade province."
The plain truth is there are far worse instances of foreign correspondence that misrepresents Taiwan. None was picked up by the Broadcasting Development Fund, which suggests its staff rely on political triggers to identify targets. If so, it can't be taken very seriously (let's not mention its historically close ties to the Government Information Office, which commissions research from it).
Calling yourself a media watchdog is easy. I dare to do so, though I don't have the budget of the Broadcasting Development Fund, which means I meander across topics as they interest me. And if some dumb-ass from the pan-green camp gets up and says something dumb from out of his ass, then I call it just the same as if it came from the pan-blue camp.
The problem with Lin and her team is they make only token efforts to be and appear "neutral," which is essential for credibility. Instead, they seem to suffer from Pavlovian responses to political mischief. Ring a pan-blue bell and they salivate all over their microphones.
In the case of AP and CNN, I hoped for a deeper analysis of foreign reporting from them. Instead, all we got was a puerile attack on the AP reporter, Lee Ming (李閩) -- not for anything he wrote, but simply for the fact that he comes from Hong Kong.
What was I saying about dumb asses?
Hong Kong is interesting. Among all those hard-working, down-to-earth, no-nonsense Hongkies is a group of people trying to bring about democratic reforms. I dare say it includes journalists. Indeed, some in Hong Kong, like China, look to Taiwan for inspiration. Who knows? Maybe the AP reporter was quietly one of them until the lynch mob saddled up.
By taking an extreme line (as opposed to a considered but forcefully expressed line), Lin kills her ability to analyze the subtleties of local journalism. And by making snide references to a journalist's nationality (or "special administrative regionality" in Lee's case), she blinds herself to profound processes of media control in other countries, including China.
Extremism wears other clothes, too. If you can count on one thing, it's that the more visibility you enjoy, the less likely you are to support sexual expression. Three-and-a-half years ago, Lin nearly launched a boycott of the Apple Daily over sexual content, a threat you would expect from religious and parent-teacher groups, not a media foundation. "Give me sexless newspapers, or give me death," you can hear her cry as she lies down in front of the Apple Daily's delivery trucks.
Forget soft porn for the masses; what interests me is why these "watchdogs" haven't gone after the blatant sexism (as opposed to sex) and exploitation that flourishes in print media -- sexism that makes my quaint attitudes from yesteryear seem chivalrous by comparison.
And the Liberty Times is no exception.
Sample this gem of a headline from Wednesday's edition: "Daddy touched the boobies of Auntie Betel Nut" (page B3). On the same page: A gratuitous rear-view picture of a naked child who died after a parental beating. Hey, guys: What the hell were you thinking when you ran that photo?
But breathe easy, gentlemen: ol' Connie Lin won't be lying down in front of Liberty Times delivery trucks anytime soon.
Also present at the Broadcasting Development Fund love-in was Lu Shih-hsiang (盧世祥), chief executive officer of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence. Impressive title, no? But the Chinese title reads "Foundation for the Prevention and Treatment of Public Harm by News [Media]" (新聞公害防治基金會). Hmmm. Why the difference?
As with the CNN/AP fracas, Lu Shih-hsiang's take on the Apple Daily back in 2003 was moderate, but his response to the earlier affair deserves another airing. He said: "Newspapers should have content that is appropriate for a general readership. Although I have lived abroad for a long time, I do not agree with the idea that publishing pornography is practicing freedom of speech."
Well, to each his own. The issue, surely, is not whether pornography amounts to speech, but whether we should have the freedom to consume it.
But he had praise for the paper: "Apple Daily has very good shopping information pages, which are very popular among its readers. Many readers also find the more relaxed style of Apple Daily easier to read than the serious tone used in other newspapers."
Dumbed-down and commercialized speech is OK, but orgasmic speech isn't?
Elsewhere, he argues thus: "Media outlets reflecting public opinion and conveying facts to help the public get a clear picture of what is going on are indispensable for the public's ability to make a rational judgment about the political situation" ("The great Taiwanese media failure," Taipei Times, Nov. 21, 2006, page 8).
I beg to differ. Public opinion is frequently divided. And a fact is a fact, no matter how many refuse to accept it. The two are not necessary partners, and good reporters do not pander to popular views, because the majority of people can be blisteringly ignorant.
But all this is small cookies compared with the media's low threshold for conflict of interest. And that includes the watchdogs.
Here's an example. The Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence produces reports that take newspapers to task for sloppy or fabricated reporting. Based on its data, pro-blue-camp rags are easily the worst offenders.
Now, if you did a survey and applied professional standards across the board, who knows? Maybe you would find that pan-blue media outlets do commit more sins than pan-green ones. But that's not the point. If a watchdog is thrown bones by one of the groups being watched, how can a conflict of interest not exist?
The foundation got roasted in a Jan. 4 piece by a China Times editor, Chang Ching-wei (
It was the kind of stuff that you would expect a senior China Times editor to say. But it was Chang's conflict of interest questions that hit home. He finished his article with this: Does the foundation get money from the government? What are its methods? Do its members serve as government appointees in other capacities? And do they act as advisers for media outlets?
These were rhetorical questions, because Chang knew very well what the answers are.
If I were a China Times journalist and on the receiving end of a bad review -- regardless of its accuracy -- I'd be pissed that it came from someone aspiring to institutional neutrality but who was on the competition's payroll.
See what I mean? Even if neutrality exists in the detail, the general perception of neutrality remains a distant dream.
Taiwanese politics, as with the media, needs a space for common interest. A certain degree of unity and "neutrality" is essential to promoting good will and resolving disputes.
But if the neutrality of a watchdog is compromised, it doesn't matter how impressively it barks. Because it won't bite hard enough when leashed.
Heard or read something particularly objectionable about Taiwan? Johnny wants to know: dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com is the place to reach me, with "Dear Johnny" in the subject line.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS