In the aftermath of Sanlih Entertainment Television employee Chu Wen-cheng (朱文正) being wrongly arrested and injured by Taipei District Court police while covering a court appearance by Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘), all major TV channels have joined together in vehemently condemning the police actions as a violation of the freedom of the press.
The excessive force used by police during the incident and the threat that such behavior poses to journalists and photographers doing their job is certainly grounds for harsh criticism. Taiwanese society should support Chu's decision to sue the police for misconduct, injury and repression of his freedom.
However, this should also be considered from another angle. What role have the media, and especially television news channels, played in the explosive scandals surrounding Chao?
First, because of the major political and social repercussions of the scandal, the media should be praised for their determined pursuit of the story. This is especially true considering that Chao, as well as other high-level government officials, have not provided helpful answers or complete information. Journalists have been put at a disadvantage by officials' often patronizing, coy or arrogant attitudes, as well as the deliberate protection given by governmental and even non-governmental organizations, such as National Taiwan University Hospital. The frustrations of reporters are understandable.
However, this atmosphere didn't develop overnight. Criticism that news channels' reports are inflammatory, confrontational, petty, misleading and exaggerated are not unfounded. The most extreme manifestations of this have been in the coverage of Chao's housekeeper Lin Hsiu-jen (
The dogged pursuit of Lin and the bewildered children is problematic from the standpoint of professional ethics, and represents a lack of professional competence. The media have clearly not found an effective way to break through the government's deliberate deceptions and withholding of information. They have been unable to get to the heart of the matter and provide credible information to viewers who crave to know the truth.
Under these conditions, Lin, who is not protected by the system, has become a sacrificial lamb. She has also become a major, although not terribly meaningful, source of news, and even an object of ridicule. How can President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) family be so heartless as to subject one of its innocent employees to a media frenzy because it doesn't want to face the media itself? But the media is also to blame for its inhumane hounding of Lin.
Front-line journalists and photographers experience pressure and are at times themselves victims, and news bosses must share some of the blame. Aren't they the ones who order their reporters into harm's way to cover stories? Can forcing hardship and danger on reporters be ethically justified? It's a question that news bosses should rationally assess.
Media bosses should search their consciences. There have been many instances of police using excessive force in recent years. If the victim this time didn't work for a TV station, would all of the channels have spent so much time and energy reporting on it, and would they have put the same pressure on the courts and police?
Freedom of the press is of the utmost importance, but so is a responsible media. If the media really wish to monitor the government, dig up the truth and defend the spirit of freedom of the press, they shouldn't fill the airwaves with sensational and hollow reporting just to boost their ratings. And media bosses shouldn't sit back and wait for something bad to happen before joining together and demanding freedom of the press.
In light of the government's unwillingness to be forthcoming with information, media bosses should use all means at their disposal to demand a more transparent flow of information. This would protect their employees' safety and fulfill their responsibility to society. If they succeed in doing this, then the viewing public should support them.
Wei Ti is an associate professor in the Department of Mass Communications at Tamkang University.
Translated by Marc Langer
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS