TV AUDIENCES WERE recently treated to the spectacle of reporters from various news media competing to report on the movements of Chen Hsing-yu (陳幸妤), daughter of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), as they followed her around New York, where she went to take a dentistry exam. The incident gave rise to an unusual situation in which two satellite TV stations took each other to task.
Meanwhile, the National Communications Commission (NCC) made public a set of proposed amendments to the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法), exposing disagreements among NCC members in the process. While internal strife in the former first family and the NCC may have a certain entertainment value, let us not overlook the significance of the two incidents as pointers for achieving more orderly standards in the media.
The rights of every individual to privacy and to uphold his or her good reputation are protected by the Constitution. When these rights are violated, people can take legal action to set things right. As the daughter of a political figure, Chen Hsing-yu finds it hard to live in peace. Her privacy has been invaded again and again, and her words and actions are discussed in public. Considering the storm raging over corruption charges against her father, the media were only doing their job of informing the public by reporting on her activities overseas.
Chen Hsing-yu will have to put up with such intrusions, annoying as they may be. At the same time, however, the media should try to strike a balance between freedom of reporting and the rights of individuals. When gathering news, they should know where to draw the line between what is reasonable and what is not. For example, they can hardly be faulted for filming public figures on the street, but it would be both unacceptable and illegal for them to sneak into their homes under false pretenses or disturb their privacy in the middle of the night.
Of course, the law cannot be expected to cover each and every possible infringement the media may make on people’s rights, or to set punishments for every such action. Common standards for what is and is not acceptable in newsgathering must therefore be decided through ongoing introspection on the part of the media. In TVBS and CTITV’s recent bout of criticisms of each other’s reporters, it is hard to say precisely who is right and who is wrong. Such exercises in mutual criticism are, however, to be encouraged, and we hope to see more of them. If news media can apply high standards in assessing their rivals, and then apply the same high standards to themselves, it can only be good for a democratic society.
If, on the other hand, our media fail to examine their own conduct, what can the rest of us do about it? With so many channels competing for business, Taiwan’s news media seem to be going from bad to worse. Widespread discontent with this trend is the main reason why the NCC is now proposing revisions to the Satellite Broadcasting Act. The draft proposals include imposing fines when news media make false reports after failing to check facts, and banning product placement in news and children’s programs. The NCC declared that “in reviewing policy, the second NCC committee’s purpose will, as before, be to overcome bias in the market. In doing so, it will give considerable weight to the criteria of social and cultural values.”
In plain language, the NCC’s policy will reflect trends in public opinion.
If one were to ask members of the public or news media workers whether reporting should be truthful and free of hidden commercial messages, probably everyone would say yes. Let us then ask this basic question: Why would anyone object to supervisory bodies imposing penalties on news media that fail to meet these standards? For most people, the answer would be concern about government control versus freedom of reporting. Another question: The Enforcement Rules of the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法施行細則) stipulate that “the contents of news and other programs shall be objective, fair, factual, comprehensive and not of an advertising nature.”
Surely there is not to be such a high standard for reporting by terrestrial broadcasting stations but a lower one for those that broadcast via satellite?
A third question: Are supervisory bodies actually capable of ensuring truth in reporting, as they are supposed to? Should they just control the content, or should they delve into the structure? Would it be more effective to combine media self-regulation with oversight by civic groups? When these questions are taken into consideration, the idea that government control is tantamount to restriction of news reporting may be seen to be an oversimplification. Various interests and social realities need to be taken into account. Exactly what kinds of control are needed is a matter that will require further discussion and debate.
From the controversy between TVBS and CTITV over Chen Hsing-yu’s treatment in New York to the clash of opinions within the NCC over how far it should go in controlling the media, we have been presented with an opportunity to take a fresh look at the questions of freedom of reporting and the responsibilities of the media. How is freedom to gather and report on the news to be protected along with the rights of individuals featured in news reports? Should it be through strict self-regulation by the media, or through an appropriate level of supervision by government bodies and civic groups? These questions remain open to continued debate, and are not an exclusive choice of either the one thing or the other.
Hung Chen-ling is an assistant professor at the National Taiwan University Graduate Institute of Journalism.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS