The concern over the drafting of a broadcasting media monopolization prevention and diversity preservation law, recently announced by the National Communications Commission (NCC), has arisen because many consider the bottom-line standard for prohibiting integration of companies to be excessively lenient and fail to see how the draft could be effectively implemented.
In particular there is the readership rate and the viewership rate, which are, according to the draft, to be calculated as a percentage of the nation’s population of 23 million. This means that the average readership or viewership figures for any given media outlet need to exceed 3.4 million and 4.6 million people, or 15 percent and 20 percent of the population, respectively — as per Article 23 of the draft — before the integration prohibition comes into effect.
It seems that the accusations levied at the NCC — that the draft is toothless and not worth the paper it is printed on — are not without foundation.
Even if the base at which the readership or viewership rates are to be calculated were amended, the serious loopholes that exist in the NCC’s draft would still compromise it. One major omission is that there is no regulation concerning integration between daily newspapers.
The Want Want China Times Group’s bid to buy the Apple Daily would have been permissible according to the integration concept in Article 7 of this NCC draft. However, one problem is that the draft restricts itself to applying only to integration of the broadcast and television media, and does not extend to integration between two daily newspapers.
The NCC has tried to defend this flaw by saying that the integration of any print medium that does not involve broadcast or television media lies beyond its jurisdiction. However, not only does this statement run counter to the organizational responsibilities of the NCC, it also contradicts the stated regulatory remit that the NCC set out in the draft.
Section 3 of the draft deals with the protection of professionalism and independence in the media. Article 29, for example, deals with the correction of errors in reports and Article 30 deals with recourse. These articles are clearly aimed at media that include print media, yet do not require newspapers to comply with the integration requirements.
If print media do not lie within the jurisdiction of the NCC, as laid out in Article 1 of the National Communications Commission Organization Act (國家通訊傳播委員會組織法) where it stipulates that the NCC is to “enforce the Constitution’s protection of freedom of speech” and “protect the media’s professionalism and independence,” why would this draft, which the NCC is responsible for implementing, regulate professionalism and independence in the print media?
It also appears in Article 11 of the draft that the NCC, faced with the contentious issue of newspaper integration — and the public opinion and debate it is creating — sees its role as being limited to giving its opinions on competition within the telecommunications broadcast market and on the balanced development of multiculturalism, leaving the key issues for the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) to deal with.
On the one hand, the NCC’s self-proclaimed remit to “pronounce its opinion” does nothing to fulfill the organization’s two fundamental duties of enforcing the Constitution’s protection of freedom of speech, and professionalism and independence within the media.
On the other, when I asked the FTC, during its review of the Next Media Group acquisition, to look beyond pure economic factors — Article 12 of the Fair Trade Act (公平交易法) states that a merger could be approved “if the overall economic benefit of the merger outweighs the disadvantages resulting from competition restraint” — and consider the impact of media integration upon democratic values and news professionalism in the nation, an FTC spokesperson said that the commission’s position is that “non-economic factors” used to enforce the protection of freedom of speech and the media’s professionalism and independence are beyond its jurisdiction.
These two factors have caused a situation in which neither the NCC nor the FTC seem to be responsible.
The Next Media Group acquisition case, which has created the perfect legislative conditions for expediting regulation to prevent a media monopoly, has become an example of why the NCC draft is useless.
If the FTC, which is to review this acquisition, prevaricates now and refuses to consider media concentration and the news industry’s professionalism and independence, this could be a grievous error that may do irreparable damage to the nation’s democratic values.
Huang Kuo-chang is an associate research professor and director of the Center for Empirical Legal Studies at the Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS