Some academics once suggested that news media be operated by those with the most knowledge, wisdom and virtue. The reason was quite simple: Since news media are influential, they may have a negative impact if they are operated by those without social responsibility.
Perhaps these academics' standards were too high. However, the whole society will pay a price if our media are not in the hands of professionals.
Getting "scoops" is certainly the goal for all reporters. But since a scoop is "exclusive," reporters and editors should have much higher standards for the credibility of such reports. At the very least, the "scoop" should meet basic professional requirements of accuracy, objectivity and fairness. Otherwise, how can such "news" meet the test of both society and the media themselves?
Exclusive news should be obtained through legal methods and reasonable processes. Exclusives obtained through dirty tricks hurt the media's efforts to bolster its credibility.
In fact, some methods of getting a news story have become jokes. Take Paul Burrell for example. The former butler of Diana, Princess of Wales, wrote A Royal Duty to expose royal secrets, and his book was published last year. According to Burrell, the Daily Mirror in fact paid him ?300,000 (about US$550,000) in order to publish the content of his book in installments, including Diana's note to him, which reads: "My husband is planning `an accident' in my car, brake failure and serious head injury in order to make the path clear for him to marry."
A recent example is the case of British royal servant George Smith, who suggested falsely to a tabloid that Prince Charles of Wales was having a homosexual relationship with a servant -- in order to get a hefty reward. When such "checkbook journalism" -- in which a publication pays interviewees to answer questions -- becomes a popular new term in journalism, shouldn't we be worried about the situation?
Violating the privacy of others and selling out friends is despicable. But these newspapers' method of gathering news by offering money is also questionable. A reporter should obtain a news story through his or her knowledge, sensitivity, judgment and personal connections. Any involvement in crooked dealings or luring sources with money is unworthy of the profession, and damages the dignity and image of reporters' professionalism.
Recently, many of the media's self-proclaimed "exclusive" stories have caused the public to doubt the media. Some television stations so frequently claim that their reports are "exclusive, that we're unsure whether to laugh or cry.
An article published in The Journalist recently described such exclusive reports as "a poison to professionalism." This description was absolutely right. The author wrote, "The local electronic media's `Taiwanese-style' scoops include almost everything ... This is proof of the electronic media's decline."
Although this is a very serious accusation, it serves as a warning for our journalists to examine their methods. Traditionally, a "scoop" is proof of a media outlet's hard work and effort, and shows the media's concern for informing their viewers better than other outlets. Categorizing reports about hot springs or auctions as "scoops," is a humiliation to the entire profession.
We all understand that competition among the news media is fierce and that the pressure on journalists is intense. But which profession is without pressure?
If we simply sacrifice ethics and restrictions due to pressure, our past efforts to improve news professionalism could be in vain.
Cheng Jim-ming is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Journalism at Chinese Culture University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS