Checking sources
The Taipei Times’ recent article by Yang Mien-chieh and William Hetherington, “Most Taiwanese encounter media disinformation: poll” [Feb. 20, page 2], shines a disturbingly bright light on an ever-present challenge in today’s ever-expanding communication world: that of easily identifying misleading or blatantly false information.
As chair of the Public Relations Society of America’s Board of Ethics and Professional Standards, I see as one of my committee’s ever-present challenges that of educating and reminding our members and the general public of the critical importance of communicating truth and fact, not distorted or deliberately manipulated rumors.
Thankfully, public relations and journalism professionals have access to professional organizations that have and actively promote ethical standards as a hallmark of their line of work. But there are, sadly, those who do not choose to act accordingly.
One of the forefathers of the public relations profession, Ivy Ledbetter Lee, stated this belief clearly in 1906 — more than 100 years ago: “Our plan is frankly, and openly, on behalf of business concerns and public institutions, to supply the press and public ... prompt and accurate information concerning subjects which it is of value and interest to the public to know about.”
Unfortunately, toward the end of the 20th century, a proliferation of non-traditional communication avenues emerged that made it possible for anyone and everyone to act as a “journalist” and communicate without supervisory oversight “the news.”
Unfortunately, as well, there are those communication outlets — radio, television, print — that are more concerned with financial success than with journalistic integrity. The challenge thus falls to the news consumer to verify information that they receive.
In addition, I must observe as a public relations professional now having taught future generations of communication pros for two decades that our education systems — particularly at the pre-college level — are not doing a very good job of helping young minds grasp the importance of verifying information that they receive.
Our future government and business leaders must be taught the fine art of “critical thinking,” asking: “Why am I being told this? Who has verified the accuracy of this information?” rather than blithely saying: “Oh, I saw it on television, so it must be true.”
The challenge is real. No longer can we say, as my grandmother was fond of replying confidently when I asked her where she got her information: “I heard it on the radio.” We must check and double-check what we read/see/hear. As I am fond of saying myself, caveat lector — “let the reader beware.”
Kirk Hazlett
adjunct professor, University of Tampa
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS