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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS