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.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
International debate on Taiwan is obsessed with “invasion countdowns,” framing the cross-strait crisis as a matter of military timetables and political opportunity. However, the seismic political tremors surrounding Central Military Commission (CMC) vice chairman Zhang Youxia (張又俠) suggested that Washington and Taipei are watching the wrong clock. Beijing is constrained not by a lack of capability, but by an acute fear of regime-threatening military failure. The reported sidelining of Zhang — a combat veteran in a largely unbloodied force and long-time loyalist of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — followed a year of purges within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA)
On the last day of the extended legislative session on Friday last week, the Legislative Yuan, with a slight majority held by the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), continued to refuse to review the government’s annual budget for this year, which is already overdue. It was the first time in Taiwan’s constitutional history that the government budget was not reviewed in its supposed legislative session. Instead, the opposition rushed to pass three controversial bills, which many people have criticized as self-serving. Since the Executive Yuan submitted its annual budget proposal to the Legislative Yuan in August last
RSS