In a research report published earlier this year, a National Taiwan University academic issued a “wake-up call” about the state of the news media’s dwindling revenues. Without traditional advertising income, newspapers have been forced to cut staff and quality, endangering the esteemed fourth estate essential to a functioning democracy.
Graduate Institute of Journalism professor Lin Chao-chen (林照真) laid the blame squarely at the feet of technology giants — particularly Google and Facebook — which use newspaper content to bring more eyeballs to their own ads without paying a penny toward the salaries of journalists or editors.
In her estimation, 60 percent of staff losses at Taiwan’s three largest newspapers — the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper), the United Daily News and the China Times — could be directly traced to the monopolization of online advertising by Google and Facebook.
She came to this conclusion by following the money, finding that advertising in the three papers totaled NT$11 billion (US$369.8 million at the current exchange rate) in 1996, compared with only NT$1.1 billion in 2020. By contrast, 2020 saw NT$48.26 billion of online media ad volume, creating what Lin called an “avalanche of losses” for newspapers.
Over the same period, the number of reporters and editorial staff at the papers dropped by 62 percent, along with their sizes and variety of coverage. Although the papers’ Web sites generate billions of views, up to 58 percent is redirected through Google or Facebook, while online ads sell for a pittance compared with print ads.
The issue is by no means unique to Taiwan, as traditional news media around the world have struggled amid the new landscape. News remuneration legislation is favored by many governments, starting with the European Copyright Directive passed by the EU in 2019, requiring platforms to pay publishers for content aggregated on their sites. Australia last year followed with its News Media Bargaining Code, while similar bills are making their way through the Canadian parliament and the US Congress. Google especially has complied with the rules wherever necessary, signing deals with hundreds of media companies to pay for rights to display their news content.
Lin in her report called for similar legislation in Taiwan, saying that Taiwanese society must intervene on its own behalf to protect an invaluable market for information and free speech.
While there are legal options, they must be considered with care, and implemented alongside other changes. As with the debate over Uber’s encroachment on the taxi business, the conflict cannot be solved in one legislative swoop.
First and foremost, mandating profit sharing poses the risk of entrenching large players on both sides. Alphabet and Meta could choose which publishers they sign deals with, leaving smaller players to fend for themselves. Canada, for example, is looking to rectify this by allowing smaller outlets to negotiate collectively. On the other hand, it could also become impossible for smaller online platforms to compete with the giants, as they might not have the same resources at their disposal to implement automatic copyright flagging and pay for all the content displayed on their sites.
At the same time, publishers themselves must adapt. They should take the initiative to negotiate and open up channels of communication with tech platforms, while also experimenting with new business models to minimize exposure to revenue streams that have run dry.
A free and open society requires that its people be well informed, which is only possible through robust news media. It is only fair that tech giants share their spoils, which hopefully would be the first step toward reinvigorating a stagnant industry.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS