Julian Baum has an excellent piece in the CS Monitor on the erosion of press freedoms here in Taiwan. An important point:That question is especially serious amid the backdrop of the changing ties with China. As the Nationalist-led government reconciles with China in closed-door talks and multiple agreements that have opened up commerce, investment, and transportation across the Taiwan Strait, it's the manipulation of China-related news and deals like the ECFA that he says most worry the public.This means that outside the Green press the public in Taiwan is getting two types of news about China: news from self-censored center-right mainstream press organizations, and news from totally pro-China propaganda houses.“In the past, criticizing China was not something we avoided,” Yao said. “Now there are many things that can’t be said. So many Chinese delegations and VIPs are arriving, so many agreements have been signed, and certain topics are no longer discussed.”
Nearly all the Taiwanese media practice self-censorship in reporting about China, agrees Chuang Feng-chia, senior editor at the independent website newtalk.tw and a past president of the Association of Taiwan Journalists.
It is also worth noting that ECFA was unable to obtain majority support in Taiwan despite the propaganda barrage and the self-censorship.
It is also another illustration of the countless demonstrations of the fact that the closer Taiwan gets to China, the farther it gets from democracy.
UPDATE: The Ma Administration responds to the piece by Jimmy Lai.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.
10 comments:
So let me try to rephrase this: They're worried that a country with only one "neutral" paper has less press freedom when that Neutral paper is less than a decade old in Taiwan while completely ignoring the GIO and the widespread long-term practice of paying journalists for favorable and unfavorable coverage of events, people, and places.
How about we look at my theorem instead: Outside of Apple Daily most if not all other papers are losing money or have had their profit margins diminish due to diminished circulation and lowered advertising rates. The use of advertorials bolsters their bottom line and allows them to continue printing and not cause painful high profile closures and layoffs which would embarrass the govt.
Evidence: Before the internet, the newspaper industry enjoyed profit margins twice that of the oil industry and pretty much equal to the profit margins enjoyed by Big Pharma without the huge capital outlays. Then the internet came. Like most businesses faced with a disruptive technology; this lead to losses in their core industry.
So basically we're only seeing a continuation of govt policy from the martial law period for most newspapers, hence why it's quite easy to find them on the newspaper rack yet Apple Daily is normally sold out before 10 am on most days despite having a larger number of newspapers available in their own bin. Apple Daily being viewed by the public as the most trustworthy actor in a cast of unsavory characters.
So, hows that different from Fox news? Taiwan has free media, but NO independent media.
It seems no different from anywhere else in the free world. For media, it comes down to the bottom line, and with the failure to embrace modern technology and delivery methods, people turn to other sources for news. It's got nothing to do with green or blue or politics or China and everything to do with profits.
Okami, the first page of Julian's article is about gov't advertorials.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703314504576060544191394506.html?KEYWORDS=Taiwan
Michael, I read the whole article before commenting and I have to say that it pretty much defines why I don't pay for news anymore. It's a snapshot at one point in time that neither looks to the past practices, current practices nor current economic decisions. Whether it's an advertorial or a payoff to a journalist, the same thing happens whereby the public is misinformed.
Apple Daily doesn't run advertorials not because they don't want the money but because they know it would kill there market share and ruin their independence. I'm sure enough pressure has been put on them that they would go so far as to put an editorial in WSJ about it. In Asia, that's big, damn near dog-whistle level stuff as well. Apple Daily pulls off the seemingly impossible stunt of appearing neutral, which is really rare in news media in any country. I'm not saying they are perfect, just very good at what they do.
Yes, I'm impressed by Apple's ability to be seen as in the middle.
The NCC's decision to block NextMedia's application is not based on NCC's economics or media failure to embrace new tech -- quite the opposite as Next is technologically ahead of other media. I don't why you are talking about that. The NCC is driven by politics on one hand and by pressure from existing cable news services that don't want more competition.
The NCC's decision to block NextMedia's application is not based on NCC's economics or media failure to embrace new tech -- quite the opposite as Next is technologically ahead of other media. I don't why you are talking about that. The NCC is driven by politics on one hand and by pressure from existing cable news services that don't want more competition.
I'm not arguing this as the govt versus just them getting the TV channel but as the govt vs the entire next media empire. Everybody has noticed how Apple Daily has eaten out a huge market share in newsprint which is amazing. I'd reckon it's akin to selling ice to Eskimos. I'd even argue that the news channels are scared having seen what a seemingly impartial newspaper has done to newsprint what they would do to an already overcrowded TV news networks. The cartoon news videos are pure genius. Think of how they could satirize the govt in a way that Simpsons, Family guy and South Park do in the US without repercussions. It's a shame we're still 5-10 years away from them being able to only be an internet channel due to broadband issues.
As I see it, the picture is rather complicated. The compromises by Taiwan's newspapers and TV news channels are not confined to the 'blue' or China-friendly outlets. It's rather a lack of commitment to journalistic independence and taking seriously the watchdog mission, regardless of political leanings. The Liberty Times, for instance, doesn't have correspondents based in Beijing so they aren't as inclined to censor their coverage of China. On the other hand, they don't, perhaps for that very reason, do much original reporting to balance the absence of independent reporting on China, except to repeat what others are saying. Reportedly, they are also part of the advertorial world, commercial pressures being what they are. So it's really a mixed picture. And there's no substantive investigative reporting to be found anywhere, apart from personal scandals and publicizing accusations made by others -- except occasionally in magazines such as Commonwealth and Global Views. Some of the best reporting during the debate on ECFA was by Commonwealth.
Michael, I too read the whole Baum CSM article before commenting here now as anon and I have to say that it pretty much defines why I don't pay for news anymore. It's a snapshot at one point in time that neither looks to the past practices, current practices nor current economic decisions. One major ethical question that has to be answered is: was the author Julian Baum actually IN Taiwan to write and report that article or did he fake it to his editors in Boston by using the dateline "Taipei, Taiwan" for his piece, when in fact he was at home in Washington DC and did the entire piece by internet? If that is so, the CSM should lose its liense to publish and Mr Baum, should confess he sort of told a big white lie. yes or no?
Captain Ahab,
Linsen North Road
Post a Comment