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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS