Media outlets covered President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) recent Central American trip very differently. Some offered excessive praise, while others offered only criticism. This is nothing new.
Before the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lost office in 2000, media outlets would choose sides, but their agendas were not so obvious. After the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) gained power, opposing opinions became increasingly evident. Some media described the government as always being right and the opposition as trying to put a curse on Taiwan, while others said the exact opposite.
After the KMT regained power, the media continued to behave in the same way, though now most of the media say the KMT is always right and the DPP is always wrong. Only a few outlets avoid the two extremes.
Most media outlets depict political parties as either perfect or evil beyond redemption. From a business standpoint, these outlets can attract readers or viewers who are either purely “blue” or purely “green,” allowing them to make a profit. From a professional perspective, however, they wield no influence.
While media outlets may hold political stances, they should strive to be impartial by balancing criticism and praise of the parties they support or oppose.
The presumption of innocence means no one can be convicted without proof. There may be cases where no law has been broken but unreasonable actions have been taken, such as when a citizen feels wronged by a civil servant but has no recourse to legal action. Luckily, the supervisory powers of the Control Yuan make up for the inadequacies of the judiciary.
The use of the Control Yuan’s power does not require adequate evidence of a crime, but relies on voting to pass impeachments and rectifications. Even if civil servants do not break the law, they could commit errors and can be brought before the Control Yuan.
However, the Control Yuan’s powers extend only to civil servants and elected administrative leaders, not legislators or county and city councilors. This means elected officials can do all sorts of ludicrous things as long as they do not break the law or there is no evidence they have broken the law. This has created many gray areas in society.
In most democracies, the media can shed light on such gray areas. The media are called the Fourth Estate because they make up for government inadequacies. The Fourth Estate puts pressure on elected officials who must amend their actions as a result. Unfortunately, Taiwan’s media have lost this function.
The public has no confidence in media objectivity. Because the majority of Taiwan’s media outlets have a specific political agenda and help certain politicians by attacking their opponents, they have lost their credibility. The media can no longer put pressure on elected officials who act inappropriately.
The media are also disseminators of knowledge, but once again, Taiwan’s media have failed to perform this role well. Some talk show commentators are known for playing fast and loose with the facts.
Most media outlets have failed in their role as a Fourth Estate watchdog. Their reporting is full of errors and often politically biased. Taiwan’s media still have a long way to go.
Chen Mao-hsiung is a professor of electrical engineering at National Sun Yat-sen University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Since being re-elected, US President Donald Trump has consistently taken concrete action to counter China and to safeguard the interests of the US and other democratic nations. The attacks on Iran, the earlier capture of deposed of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro and efforts to remove Chinese influence from the Panama Canal all demonstrate that, as tensions with Beijing intensify, Washington has adopted a hardline stance aimed at weakening its power. Iran and Venezuela are important allies and major oil suppliers of China, and the US has effectively decapitated both. The US has continuously strengthened its military presence in the Philippines. Japanese Prime
RSS