A professor of labor law, commenting on the “one fixed day off and one rest day” policy on Tuesday, warned the public about “mediacracy,” or the media having control over how people perceive and appraise public policies.
While he was referring to the risk of allowing the media to set the policy agenda, Taiwan’s nonstop news has also awarded politicians room for ostentatious performances and remarks that are only corrected or evaluated — if at all — much later, when public attention has already faded.
The professor, who commented on poll results surveying perceptions of the new labor law, said that the government’s policy implementation is more like a “beauty contest”: The public tends to view it negatively when they see media coverage of a strong opposition.
The media has also been setting the tone of the policy, relating price hikes to changes to workers’ days off, he said.
Reporting, or reciting, employers’ complaints about cost increases has led the public to attribute price hikes to the policy, even though granting workers better working conditions — which requires employers’ effort — was the whole point of the amendments.
Social welfare organizations have reportedly been the hardest hit by the new law and they have complained to some business leaders, who in turn said the government was being “cruel.”
In one news report, a story by a third-grader who said the new law was going to make people “too poor to have anything to eat,” was cited.
Why is the media reporting on the possibility of the new policy leading to poor conditions for people in need if the question of why businesses are allowed to maintain their dogged practice and mentality of relying on “low personnel costs” remains unasked?
Constant updates motivated by the competition for viewers or readers has accustomed consumers to truncated and sensational or controversial news. Consumers’ habit of reading short pieces about “the latest of the latest” news has encouraged politicians to behave irresponsibly to gain media exposure, which is almost guaranteed with 24-hour media platforms needing to fill their time.
For example, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Chang Li-shan (張麗善) called a news conference to accuse the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of arbitrarily changing a regulation in an attempt to release information on National Farmers’ Association members to candidates running for election.
Chang said the change posed the potential for personal information leaks and “blackmail and bribery,” but failed to mention that incumbent politicians already have access to such information.
It was only weeks later, when a DPP lawmaker requested that Chang recuse herself from reviewing a budget proposal, that it was revealed that Chang’s husband is the head of the association.
It is a long shot to claim that Chang’s accusation would not have been made if there was no need for constant news updates, but it would not be unreasonable to argue that her news conference to accuse the DPP of “tyranny of the majority” — a term the KMT like to throw about — might have been encouraged by the knowledge that just one short report on the event would get attention and the sympathy of her party’s supporters based on confirmation bias.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)