Sun, Jun 25, 2023 page8

• Writers reach world for Taiwan

  • By Daniel McIntyre
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Last month, renowned British broadsheet the Telegraph had their columnist Zoe Strimpel out in Taiwan. Unfortunately, her resulting article, published on May 15, came out under the condescending headline “What war? Taiwan residents seemed in blissful denial when I recently visited.” This was a shame, because the headline was not in keeping with the overall tone of the piece, in which she discusses Taiwan in glowing terms.

  What she said was “you might imagine, therefore, that the atmosphere in the nation of 23 million is fraught, [given Chinese military saber-rattling]. However, having just spent a week in Taipei, I can report that it is anything but. Daily life in the city is delightful. The people are friendly and generous, the atmosphere tranquil, even sleepy.”

  It is clear that the author probably did not write the headline. What is also clear is that headline writers at the Telegraph assume that the only way to frame Taiwan in ways that are relatable to their British readers is through a narrative of Taiwan as a “danger zone” and of Taiwanese as “passive” to their Chinese fate. This assumption is wrong. Taiwan stands as a living and breathing repudiation of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), with values that British readers share.

  With a little imagination and knowledge of Taiwan, British newsrooms can easily frame stories about Taiwan that play up these common values that emphasize Taiwan’s daily resistance. This is how British reporting has framed Ukraine’s repudiation of Russia for years.

  This week, another travel article by the same author in the Telegraph was published. Whereas the headline was innocuous — “‘We are aware, but we aren’t scared’: On holiday in the next epicentre of geopolitical tension,” — the subheading had an altogether more odious framing — “The threat of Chinese invasion makes Taiwan a seize-the-moment trip.” An extremely unpleasant and problematic framing.

  Yet, this case is a complicated one because the subheading is quoting the author.

  Headline writers cannot be faulted much for directly quoting their writers.

  Therefore, the problem would lie with the author herself for writing the line in the first place. It throws up some interesting questions about the utility and value of the “fly in, fly out travel writer” for Taiwan.

  Should writers be prevented from travelling to Taiwan if they are to write about Taiwan in a negative light? This is out of the question for a free and open liberal democracy.

  Another question is whether these kinds of “fly in, fly out” travel articles are a net positive for Taiwan. I would argue that they are.

  Taiwan’s continued exclusion from the UN and its affiliate organizations means it is harder for Taiwan than it otherwise would be to reach out to the world to build common understandings with like-minded countries. Travel pieces like these help Taiwan in increasing its visibility and international personality.

  Taiwan’s visibility in international media matters.

  However, the “travel writer” — of which these pieces are two examples, must be distinguished from the “non-specialist political reporter” who flies in and out of Taiwan to cover a specific story. Known pejoratively in the industry as “parachute journalists” — they lack the requisite regional or local expertise and would often reproduce errors or biases that contribute imperfect and sometimes problematic analyses of Taiwan politics.

  However, contributing political analyses is not the purpose of the travel writer. Travel writers’ principal task is to provide descriptive detail — the sights, the smells, the shopping, the culture, the food — adding texture to the place they are visiting, alongside observations about the culture and society. Politics and history are often included.

  However, they are not the main thrust.

  British Telegraph readers’ knowledge of Taiwan is not all that it could be. Whenever they encounter Taiwan it is probably through news reports on TV or in the papers about military exercises, fighter jet incursions, or US-China tensions. Sadly, none of this reporting provides much information on Taiwan, the place or Taiwanese.

  The travel articles help to plug that information gap. They bring Taiwan into the mental map of British readers, who might be curious to read about the place they hear about in the news, yet disinclined to read a 3,000-word article on Taiwan’s path to democracy; or the secret behind its economic miracle. The brisk travel piece can deliver key pieces of information, adding color to the shades of gray, bringing the place alive.

  This is important. UK foreign policy is informed to a degree by the perceptions of its voting public. The Telegraph’s Taiwan travel pieces have boosted Taiwan’s visibility to a British public whose consent the British government relies on to enact its foreign policy.

  A further point of criticism of Strimpel’s article is where she writes that Taiwan’s “relaxed liberal democracy and highly functioning, nuanced capitalism” renders Taiwan “a bit like Denmark, but more exotic.” A comment that feels old-fashioned, if not orientalist.

  Strimpel is writing for an audience that is primarily white, middle-aged and middle-class. They might have never visited Asia.

  Strimpel, too, is a white, middle-aged, middle-class Briton, whose observations would reflect her experiences. Strimpel situates her own experience in a narrative in a way that her audience relates to. She paints an attractive picture of Taiwan for her readers, encouraging them to visit. Foot-massage, nail and hair spas are “open till 1am.” The people are “incredibly kind.”

  Taiwan has an “enviable health system, efficient public services, wonderful food and a diverse landscape.” It is the idealized society wish-list for a particular milieu of middle-England.

  These types of travel pieces are not without their criticism. While they can be shallow, superficial, even patronizing, they do a fantastic job of personalizing Taiwan to a low-information public that might only encounter the nation through the prism of military exercises and US-China tensions.

  The Telegraph has since run three articles by Strimpel on Taiwan since her return. All sympathetic and pro-Taiwan. They should be commended. However, what needs to stop is the “impending war” and “denial” framing of Taiwan’s story in British headlines. These are unnecessary and only play into the CCP’s narrative of Taiwan as a danger zone and of Taiwanese being passive to their Chinese fate. British readers deserve better.

  Daniel McIntyre is a research assistant at the law institute of Academia Sinica. He is the author of the weekly newsletter The World’s Taiwan, The Taiwan World on Substack.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    First person arrested as Danjiang Bridge opens

  • 2

    TSMC shares stumble on report, but losses minor

  • 3

    Police identify man who engaged in indecency at park

  • 4

    TSMC expects global chip revenue to hit US$1.5tn

  • 5

    Trump weighs Taiwan arms package