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.
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
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
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS