Reporting by international wire agencies on Taiwan is often nuanced in a way that backs Beijing’s claims, even if inadvertently. This can mislead readers about everything from the reasons for tension between Taiwan and China to basic facts about Taiwanese and Chinese history — and there are no signs that sloppy reporting will end any time soon.
Careless wording in wire reports can lend credence to Beijing’s portrayal of Taiwan as a “renegade province.” Although a reporter may sidestep the word “country” to avoid taking a stance on Taiwan’s status, alternative phrasing may instead suggest that Taiwan is part of China. Frequent references in wire articles to China as “the mainland” and Taiwan simply as “the island” do just that.
An Associated Press (AP) report on Monday offers an example that is hardly limited to that agency. The report on the Strait Forum in Xiamen, China, said “mainland purchasing groups” would travel to Taiwan to buy agricultural products and mentioned “President Ma Ying-jeou’s [馬英九] policy of allowing more investment by mainland Chinese in the island.”
That wording suits Beijing. While the term “mainland” is appropriate to denote China in the context of Hong Kong and Macau, in an article on cross-strait relations it is misleading. More than geographical proximity, it implies a political link similar to that between China and its two former European colonies.
Wire reports also often contain straightforward and recurring factual errors. The same AP report recycles the claim that “China and Taiwan split amid civil war in 1949,” which also appears in an Agence France-Presse (AFP) article that same day. Read in combination with the terms “mainland” and “island,” the risk of misleading readers is considerable.
This error reduces the historical gap between Taiwan and China, suggesting the two were unified until 1949. That is a version of events that Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) have both insisted on and that can be dismissed as propaganda. Coming from international media, however, the effect is disconcerting. Independent media enjoy added credibility by virtue of their neutrality on cross-strait developments, but unfortunately what they are reporting in these instances is wrong in fact.
As news agencies often reuse these snippets as inserts, their inaccuracy is all the more unacceptable. Agencies need only get the background information right once, then draw upon it as needed.
Just as disturbing in the AFP report is its unqualified citation of a poll conducted by the KMT-friendly, Chinese-language China Times as showing that “a record number of Taiwanese believe traditional rival China is friendly.”
As a backdrop to this, AFP explains: “Relations between Taiwan and China, which split in 1949 at the end of a civil war, hit rock bottom due to the pro-independence rhetoric of Ma’s DPP predecessor [former president] Chen Shui-bian [陳水扁].”
This has the effect of sweeping under the carpet decades of aggression during which the KMT’s goal was to “retake the mainland” and Beijing’s was to “liberate” Taiwan through force. The blame for cross-strait tension is placed squarely on the shoulders of a president who never advocated aggression. This suits Beijing, which branded Chen a provocateur.
Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) may have claimed to rule all of China for decades at the UN, and China may have bombarded Kinmen in 1954, but AFP suggests Chen’s presidency was the nadir of cross-strait relations. Such reports may be laughable to informed readers but others have no cause to doubt them. Professional journalists are obliged to avoid such nonsense.
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS