The outcry over the decision by TVBS and nine other cable TV stations to broadcast a fabricated video of a gangster threatening his former boss may have unexpected positive consequences.
In the debate that has followed the incident, many so-called "media experts" have said that any form of self-discipline that might have been practised by the media in Taiwan has disappeared and that government controls have failed.
I believe, however, that government media policies can encourage media self-discipline, or, to put it more succinctly, that without appropriate media policies, the media will not have the stable environment required to be able to develop self-discipline.
An examination of media policies in Germany, France and the UK may help to clarify things.
Surveys have show that 70 percent of Germans feel that newspaper reports completely or almost completely reflect the actual situation, while 74 percent feel that TV news reports do so.
In France, 47 percent believe in the accuracy of newspapers and 49 percent in TV news, but in the UK the figures are 49 and 85.
The statistics indicate that the Germans trust the media the most, the French distrust the media the most and that in the UK, there is a huge difference between the public's trust in newspapers and TV news.
One explanation for the variation in trust in the media could be that Germans are credulous, the French are skeptical and the British sometimes credulous and sometimes skeptical. While this explanation plays heavily on national stereotypes, it also contains some truth.
If, however, we want to be more scientific in our approach, we need to question whether the British "sometimes" can be objectively defined.
The answer is "yes," because the UK's newspaper and television markets are structurally very different.
The newspapers' paparazzi style of prying into the private lives of celebrities is a reflection of the UK's lack of proactive newspaper policies. At least, the British government does not intervene in newspaper operations to the same degree that other European governments do.
On the other hand, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was the world's first public broadcasting organization. Although the company has its shortcomings, its operations are effective and it is relentless in supervising its stations in both the private and public sectors.
British government media policy not only regulates the BBC, it also imposes strict regulations on advertising revenues received by private stations such as ITV, the UK's first private station. The British government imposes corporate taxes and a special license tax on ITV.
When Channel 4, the UK's second privately funded public service channel, went on air in late 1982, ITV took charge of all the new station's advertising. While this practice was ended in 1999, ITV will continue to be taxed until 2010.
The UK's policies cannot be reproduced in Taiwan, but looking at the examples of Germany, France and the UK clearly shows us that appropriate government policies regulating television news create room for self-discipline.
In Taiwan, the executive and legislative branches are too slack in their regulation of the media at the same time that the public places an overly high degree of trust in television news.
These problems are interrelated. I hope that the Cabinet will consider the interests of the public and ask the Government Information Office and the National Communications Commission to cooperate to create a national television policy that deserves the public's trust.
Feng Chien-san is a professor in the Department of Journalism at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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