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
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
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS