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
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