Over the past decade, the public has grown used to hearing the word “scoop,” and some revelations from media and TV talk show personalities have caused significant political and social turbulence. However, in the world of professional journalism, there is no such thing as a responsible or an irresponsible scoop; there is only the exposure of irregularities by the media in the public interest. In short, revealing a scoop requires professionalism and must not be a frivolous enterprise.
In the 1960s, muckraking journalism was popular in the US press. Following careful investigations and interviews, human rights violations or corruption in society and government were exposed. The apotheosis was the Watergate scandal, which was uncovered by the Washington Post and led to the resignation of then-US president Richard Nixon.
However, muckraking was not carried out just to expose irregularities. The ethos for breaking news in this way must be that the story is in the public interest. Paparazzi belong with tabloid journalism rather than in major newspapers, because major papers must preserve their integrity. Taiwan’s paparazzi culture, which is spreading its influence on to other media, has long been an international laughingstock.
Muckraking must not be indiscriminate and must be backed by solid evidence. If a reporter gets a lead claiming that a social system is flawed or that a politician is involved in irregularities, the reporter must first conduct a careful and in-depth investigation, collect comprehensive evidence and double-check it to up a strong case before the report is published. Evidence must be uncovered all at once so that the target of the report does not get a chance to cover things up. When revealing the news, the reporter must not hesitate, insinuate or make ambiguous remarks.
Before revealing irregularities, reporters must have solid evidence that will hope up to the scrutiny of a judge if the target of the report decides to file a lawsuit. Reporters cannot just begin somewhere, hint at something, and then expect the target of the report to admit guilt. Neither can reporters make groundless accusations based on hearsay and then expect the justice system to pick up from there and start investigating the issue. If reporters cannot provide evidence, why should the accused respond to their gueswork?
Exposing irregularities is a serious and professional act on which journalists stake their reputations and careers. That was why the Washington Post so painstakingly double-checked all the facts in the Watergate report, making sure that they were not mistaken in any way, before they began uncovering the irregularities of the Nixon administration. At the outest of the disclosures, journalists from the three major TV networks were reluctant to follow suit, and it was only after more solid evidence was brought to light by the Washington Post that they started reporting the scandal.
By contrast, scoops in Taiwanese journalism, especially when exposing a politician’s misdeeds, are usually presented in the form of vague statements lacking sufficient evidence. The reporters then say that the target of the report is welcome to file a lawsuit so that everything will be cleared up in court.
If that is the case, why not simply bring their accusations and evidence directly to prosecutors instead of reporting it in their paper? In the end, their attempt at revealing irregularities might fail and their reputation for professionalism will suffer.
Delivering a scoop is not child’s play, and it must be conducted with the utmost professional expertise and according to the highest standards.
Hu Yu-wei is a professor at National Taiwan Normal University’s Graduate Institute of Mass Communications.
Translated by Ethan Zhan
Since the end of the Cold War, the US-China espionage battle has arguably become the largest on Earth. Spying on China is vital for the US, as China’s growing military and technological capabilities pose direct challenges to its interests, especially in defending Taiwan and maintaining security in the Indo-Pacific. Intelligence gathering helps the US counter Chinese aggression, stay ahead of threats and safeguard not only its own security, but also the stability of global trade routes. Unchecked Chinese expansion could destabilize the region and have far-reaching global consequences. In recent years, spying on China has become increasingly difficult for the US
Lately, China has been inviting Taiwanese influencers to travel to China’s Xinjiang region to make films, weaving a “beautiful Xinjiang” narrative as an antidote to the international community’s criticisms by creating a Potemkin village where nothing is awry. Such manipulations appear harmless — even compelling enough for people to go there — but peeling back the shiny veneer reveals something more insidious, something that is hard to ignore. These films are not only meant to promote tourism, but also harbor a deeper level of political intentions. Xinjiang — a region of China continuously listed in global human rights reports —
The annual summit of East Asia and other events around the ASEAN summit in October and November every year have become the most important gathering of leaders in the Indo-Pacific region. This year, as Laos is the chair of ASEAN, it was privileged to host all of the ministerial and summit meetings associated with ASEAN. Besides the main summit, this included the high-profile East Asia Summit, ASEAN summits with its dialogue partners and the ASEAN Plus Three Summit with China, Japan and South Korea. The events and what happens around them have changed over the past 15 years from a US-supported, ASEAN-led
To the dismay of the Chinese propaganda machine, President William Lai (賴清德) has been mounting an information offensive through his speeches. No longer are Taiwanese content with passively reacting to China’s encroachment in the international window of discourse, but Taiwan is now setting the tone and pace of conversation. Last month, Lai’s statement that “If China wants Taiwan it should also take back land from Russia” made international headlines, pointing out the duplicity of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) revanchism. History shows that the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) stance on regional territorial disputes has not been consistent. The early CCP
RSS