Next Media’s News-in-Motion animated news service has provoked a great deal of discussion and debate. These short video clips can be considered a typical example of media convergence. What view should society take of this phenomenon and how should it be managed?
Before the concept of “media convergence” came into being, print and electronic media were seen as two separate domains. Each stood on its own, with little cooperation between them. Now, as various kinds of media converge, print media has joined the digital world by going online. At the same time, there is a growing trend of cross-ownership, mergers and acquisitions between different media sectors. Even before Next Media’s News-in-Motion was launched, the Chinese-language United Daily News provided a TV-like service by placing news clips edited from video recordings made by its reporters and campus correspondents on its Web site.
This emerging medium is a new competitive challenge for TV news channels. TV stations in Taiwan are bound by three laws. Anyone who wants to set up a TV channel must apply to the National Communications Commission for a license, as stipulated by the Cable Radio and Television Act (有線廣播電視法) and the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法). They must comply with the rule that political parties, the government and armed forces must not be involved in media ownership. Vertical integration of broadcasting system ownership must comply with the limitations imposed by the Cable Radio and Television Act and program content must be in line with the requirements of the three broadcasting laws.
A question that is often asked is whether the same regulations should apply to different media platforms when they broadcast the same content. In other words, if News-in-Motion content is subject to legal regulations when it is broadcast on cable TV channels, shouldn’t the same regulations apply when it is shown on the Internet?
The EU’s regulations for managing media convergence may be a point of reference. The EU’s Audio-Visual Media Services Directive defines media content in terms of linear and non-linear services and according to whether the content is edited by the service provider. With regard to News-in-Motion, conventional linear TV programs are those that are broadcast at set times by TV stations, which, as the main players in mass media, are regulated by the three broadcasting laws. This is in contrast to non-linear audio-visual content that is unedited by the service provider, such as video clips on YouTube. Since people can make their own content selections by clicking to view whatever they want, the broadcasting laws do not apply.
News-in-Motion is an interesting case because, although it is non-linear, it is edited by the service provider. This seems to put it in a category of its own, between the other two, hence the debate about how it should be handled.
The Taipei City Government fined Next Media under the Child and Youth Welfare Act (兒童及少年福利法) for failing to rate the content of its News-in-Motion clips. Now that Next Media has applied ratings to the content in accordance with Internet practice, will the government be able to regulate the content under existing laws? Officials should be very careful about how they try to enforce the law, especially when the content is non-linear, and when audio-visual files are hosted on servers outside Taiwan.
If authorities tried to use Article 8 of the Telecommunications Act (電信法) to regulate Internet connections, how would that be different from China’s Golden Shield Project and Green Dam Youth Escort?
Yu Yao-cheng is a contracted research fellow at the Taiwan WTO Center of the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Swirling within the cybersphere’s vast ocean of reports, statistics and graphs about the international coronavirus pandemic, there is a short sentence out there in the worldwide web, which the Chinese government doesn’t want people to notice. It is on the Johns Hopkins University website “https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html” which houses the popular “live map” of Wuhan coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) data from individual countries. That sentence reads: “The map’s names of locations correspond with the official designations used by the US State Department, including for Taiwan.” Most readers may think this merely is an unremarkable footnote, akin to other source data on the site. But
On March 6, China announced through Hong Kong’s Chinese-language Ming Pao that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) would visit Wuhan “soon.” On the same day, US-based Chinese-language IPK Media published an article by Chinese tycoon Ren Zhiqiang (任志強), with the headline: “An official call to arms against Xi: The clown who insists on wearing the emperor’s new clothes.” Will the truth about the struggles inside the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak finally be revealed? Ren’s article is reminiscent of Tang Dynasty poet Luo Binwang’s (駱賓王) “An official call to arms against Empress Wu Zetian (武則天)
Recent global media coverage of Taiwan has at times reduced the nation’s success in containing the spread of COVID-19 to some East Asian values such as cooperation with social control or Confucianism. An article in Wired magazine debunks this myth, crediting the nation’s success to democracy and transparency. It is appalling to learn that this misconception still exists. Here is one thing that world citizens should keep in mind: Taiwan is the first and only country in Asia that has legalized same-sex marriage. There is nothing Confucian about that. If anything, the Confucian legacy is a major obstacle that Taiwanese
The novel coronavirus known as COVID-19 — or the Wuhan virus, after the Chinese city from which it emerged — could not have come at a more advantageous time for China’s communist government. Not for the Chinese people, of course, thousands of whom have perished because of Beijing’s lack of transparency, disinformation and cruel refusal to cooperate with international public health organizations. No, the advantage goes exclusively to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), whose deceptive practices unleashed the deadly virus to the world. To understand how Beijing benefits from the pandemic, it is necessary