A report in the Chinese-language Apple Daily suggests that at around the time of the anniversary of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) inauguration, local newspapers and TV stations carried a large amount of paid-for “news” about the government’s achievements.
Certain ministries are alleged to have contracted out the responsibility of keeping the public informed to marketing companies; these firms organize a number of campaigns each year to fill a quota of newspaper space and TV programming with news about their clients.
This trend represents a revival of embedded marketing by government institutions. Actually, “revival” is too mild a word considering just how rampant this kind of placement marketing has become. “Ubiquitous” might be more appropriate.
The ministries are not alone. Even Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) newspaper interviews are paid for. If those at the top set a bad example, their subordinates will follow suit.
Unless the Ma administration expressly forbids government departments from paying for embedded publicity, bureaucrats will continue to use taxpayers’ money in this way to claim false achievements and cover up their incompetence.
The question most often raised in this regard is: Can news media be relied on to monitor the government if they take cash to report news on the government’s activities?
A cornerstone of democracy is that the press should act as the Fourth Estate.
But how can the public be confident that the media will perform this duty when they take their orders from those in power? At election time, viewers may not be able to tell whether news is information gathered to monitor the government and inform the public or undeclared advertising paid for by candidates and other politicians.
If even on-the-spot news can be bought, how can the public believe anything in a news bulletin?
Sadly, those voicing concerns about this issue have little effect. Civic groups and academics have for years reminded the media of their responsibility to monitor the government.
They have pointed to the harm that embedded propaganda brings to Taiwan’s democracy. What more can be said or done when those in power turn a deaf ear to these warnings?
The harmful effects of government-funded embedded marketing go beyond those mentioned above.
For example, government officials get accustomed to not having to take responsibility for policies. If the government can buy news segments, then officials need not worry what people will think or say about them.
When bureaucrats devote part of their budget to buying media time in the guise of news, it blunts the media’s willingness and ability to criticize. If officials are allowed to employ the media to improve their image, then they will go ahead and do just that. With the media at their beck and call, officials will not be accountable for their policies.
What you end up with is a bunch of incapable bureaucrats who answer to no one. Regardless of what happens, they will hide behind the manufactured image of achievement embedded in the media.
I can’t say for certain whether the Ma administration needs civil servants like these, but the public certainly does not.
An assistant to a government official once told me that the main reason ministries buy media time and space is not the possible influence it will have on public opinion.
Rather, they use TV and press reports as tools to convince officials higher up the chain that they are working hard.
In other words, lowly ranked bureaucrats use the media to inform — or hoodwink — their superiors in order to protect their jobs. If what my informant said is true, it can be surmised that ministries pay for embedded reports to hoodwink the Cabinet, and that the Cabinet buys slots to fool the president.
Do ordinary people realize that officials are using taxpayers’ money to fool each other and everyone else? If so, and if they find this acceptable, then Taiwan is in real trouble.
I have a modest request for those in government: Please stop using embedded marketing to paint over the cracks in your policies. Civil servants should be willing to answer for their performance. The media, for their part, should remember their proper role, and media workers should ask themselves what became of the ideals they had when they chose to work in the industry.
Otherwise, there will come a time when the public loses faith in the media altogether. The democratic system will be weakened and everyone in Taiwan will suffer the consequences.
Media workers should not sell their souls in this messy potage, and media outlets should consider more than just the bottom line.
Chen Ping-hung is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Mass Communication at National Taiwan Normal University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Two weeks ago, Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) raised hackles in Taiwan by posting to her 2.6 million Instagram followers that she was visiting “Taipei, China.” Yeoh’s post continues a long-standing trend of Chinese propaganda that spreads disinformation about Taiwan’s political status and geography, aimed at deceiving the world into supporting its illegitimate claims to Taiwan, which is not and has never been part of China. Taiwan must respond to this blatant act of cognitive warfare. Failure to respond merely cedes ground to China to continue its efforts to conquer Taiwan in the global consciousness to justify an invasion. Taiwan’s government
This month’s news that Taiwan ranks as Asia’s happiest place according to this year’s World Happiness Report deserves both celebration and reflection. Moving up from 31st to 27th globally and surpassing Singapore as Asia’s happiness leader is gratifying, but the true significance lies deeper than these statistics. As a society at the crossroads of Eastern tradition and Western influence, Taiwan embodies a distinctive approach to happiness worth examining more closely. The report highlights Taiwan’s exceptional habit of sharing meals — 10.1 shared meals out of 14 weekly opportunities, ranking eighth globally. This practice is not merely about food, but represents something more
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
RSS