The slow demise of institutions such as Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Voice of America (VOA) is not just sad, it is a warning: The era of relying solely on publicly funded media for independent, quality news is coming to an end. It is also a chance to build something more sustainable and modern.
Public media in democracies is not a state mouthpiece. I have worked for public broadcasters in four democratic countries, including Taiwan, and not once did I receive instructions from a government agent. Editors did their job. Journalists had independence. The idea that a democratically elected government would systematically meddle in public broadcasting is not only false: It would be counterproductive. Journalists are stubborn and sternly attached to their autonomy.
Please do not tell me we are “paid by” whoever your favorite political scapegoat happens to be. If it were the case, journalists would not be so perennially broke. Just because you do not like what we say, does not mean someone has controlled us: Sometimes the facts are just not what you want to hear.
The truth is simpler and harder: Journalism costs money. That money has to come from somewhere: public money or businesses. It has never come from the audience. People have never paid enough to sustain news. The press always needed advertising revenue. The money came from businesses (ads) or from the state (public funding).
People love state-funded news, because it allows media outlets to invest in areas commercial broadcasters ignored. Public media was not just about journalism either: It provided cultural content, educational programming and more. It guaranteed diversity of voices.
This model is now being challenged. Working in state-funded media today means you are exposed to the whims of the next populist leader eager to destroy anything not run by tech bros or party loyalists. Public funding has become fragile, it is not the safe opportunity for deep reporting that it once was.
The fall of RFA and VOA should be seen not just as a tragedy, but as an opportunity. It is time to reimagine journalism as an agile, modern, independent industry — one that can survive outside of both the state and the big corporate machine.
This reinvention is more feasible than ever.
Over the past 15 years, I have seen the cost of journalism drop dramatically. The equipment has become cheaper. The tools are lighter. The technical know-how is more accessible. I have seen young people shoot better video on consumer-grade cameras than we used to manage with entire crews. What used to take dozens of people and thousands of dollars now takes little more than professionalism and a few smart tools.
Of course, private media has its risks. No one wants to see journalism captured by billionaires with political agendas or reduced to clickbait factories chasing ad dollars. However, we do not need media empires to rebuild trust.
If two YouTubers or a podcast duo can make a living from an audience, why not a small newsroom? Why not a collective of field reporters? Why not former RFA and VOA professionals — smart, experienced, underused — creating something leaner, sharper, freer?
We do not need to rely on giants such as Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk to bankroll the news. Small to medium-sized sponsors, ethical investors, local advertisers and a side of reader support — they are all part of the landscape now. With modern tools and distribution models, the barrier to entry has never been lower.
An eager government can still help, not by controlling content, but by creating the right ecosystem. Offer tax incentives for media start-ups. Treat journalism as part of the innovation economy. Support digital infrastructure in smaller cities so that journalists can live and work outside expensive capitals.
Public funding’s weakness lies in its strength: accountability. When every cent must be justified, signed off and approved by layers of managers, decisions slow to a crawl. Independent teams can move fast and still be rigorous.
The best way to honor the legacy of public media is not to mourn it. It is to build something stronger in its place: modern, independent and built for this era.
Julien Oeuillet is an independent journalist in Kaohsiung and the head of news Web site Indo-Pacific Open News.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
RSS