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.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS