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 and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS