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
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
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