Angus Reid Slanted Backgrounder on Election

Check out the totally biased backgrounder at the Angus Reid Election Monitor website on the Taiwan Election. Straight from the KMT publicity machine. The opening paragraph will be a special joy for longtime fans of pro-KMT media bias. I sent them the following letter:

++++++++++++++

Dear Angus Reid Monitor:

I recently read your discussion of the upcoming presidential election here in Taiwan (http://www.angus-reid.com/tracker/view/16631/taiwan20080112/). It contains a highly one-sided background on the election, and several errors.

The opening paragraph contains a complete misreading of history:

In 1895, following a military defeat, China ceded Taiwan to Japan. At the end of World War II, the island was returned to Chinese control. In 1949, as Mao Zedong’s communists were gaining prominence in Mainland China, Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek established the Republic of China in Taiwan. Chiang acted as president from 1950 to 1975, maintaining hopes of ruling Mainland China once again.

At the end of WWII, Japan retained sovereignty over Taiwan, and would until 1951, when the San Francisco Peace Treaty was signed. Only the governments of the ROC and PRC claim Taiwan was “returned to China.” The Powers specifically designed the Treaty so that Taiwan’s sovereignty resided with no power, which was the open position of the United States until the Nixon Administration, and remains its official position today, as well as the quietly official position of other states. The US protested on precisely that ground when UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon rejected Taiwan’s application letter to join the UN.

The sentence “as Mao Zedong’s communists were gaining prominence in Mainland China” contains no recognition of the fact that Chiang was completely defeated and forced to retreat.

I hope that you will change that paragraph to reflect actual history.

Further down, you write:

In March 2004, Chen earned a second presidential term—defeating Lien Chan of the Kuomintang Nationalist Party (KMT)—in an election marred by controversy after an apparent assassination attempt.

There is no party called the “Kuomintang Nationalist Party”. The party’s official name is Kuomintang (check their website) and in English it translates to something akin to “Chinese Nationalist Party.” The use of the term “apparent assassination attempt” is a strong signal that the person who prepared this is pro-KMT – the assassination attempt was real, the shooter, a KMT supporter was identified from films and tracked by the police. He committed suicide before the police caught him. He was caught on TV the previous year uttering insults and threats at President Chen and former President Lee. The bullet maker, Tang Yi-shou, fled Taiwan ahead of the police and is now living in China with the notorious gangster Chang An-lo, who has old connections to the KMT’s security services. No evidence supports claims that Chen had himself shot. The “controversy” was caused by public rioting by KMT supporters who could not accept that they had blown an election that they should have won, had Lien Chan not mailed in his campaign. None of this is present in your discussion.

Again, more one-sided presentation in your discussion of the corruption allegations against President Chen:

In 2006, Chen and his family were investigated on allegations of corruption. In November, prosecutors indicted Wu Shu-chen, Chen's wife, for allegedly spending about $450,000 U.S. in public funds on personal expenditures. Authorities also said that the president had submitted fake receipts when drawing from the same fund and lied about how he spent the money.

The paragraph does not say that the fund was the private special fund of the president, used for secret national security initiatives – including funding dissidents in China – and lying about its purposes, as well as submission of fake receipts would not be unusual (in fact receipt fraud is quite normal here; one of Ma’s aides was sent to jail for it in the Ma corruption case). The lack of balance here is striking.

Moving on, you offer the words of Ma Ying-jeou:

On Jun. 25, Ma vowed to "rescue" Taiwan's economy if elected to the presidency and complained about the DDP government's policies, declaring, "Today don't talk to me about unification or independence, those are not real issues, don't talk me about that. That has nothing to do with the livelihood of the people. We just need to focus on the economy. We gave you seven-eight years. If you can't do it, then let someone else take over. It's just that simple."

Again, no balancing information is presented. The reality is that the economy grew 5.7% last year, unemployment is under 4%, and we are now the #2 exporter to China. Incomes have been stagnant because the factories have offshored and the economy is transitioning to a service, knowledge-based economy, but also because the KMT-controlled legislature has blocked needed budgets, apparently in a bid to hold incomes down so it can make credible its absurd claims that Taiwan’s economy is a mess.

Simply reading over the quotes from each side you present shows that current President Chen Shui-bian is cast in a negative light in each quote. Ma is twice quoted saying the economy is sluggish, though it is not. No balancing information is presented.

Further, no background on either candidate is given. Your backgrounder could have spent less space repeating KMT criticisms of the Chen presidency, and more on the background of the two current contenders. You could have mentioned Ma Ying-jeou’s long record of service to the authoritarian regime and his repeated public and private opposition to democratization, including opposition to the lifting of martial law and to the repeal of Article 100, the anti-dissident law. Hsieh’s entry into politics as a human rights lawyer and his successful experience as a lawyer (Ma failed the bar) and legislator (Ma has never held legislative office) could have been presented. Sadly, your article retains an obsession with Chen Shui-bian that is the hallmark of a pro-KMT stance.

Finally – and comically – at the top of the page it says:

Election Date: March 21, 2008
At stake: Legislative Yuan

The election date is March 22, not March 21, and at stake is the Presidency, not the Legislative Yuan.

I think it is sad that Angus Reid has presented such a one-sided view of Taiwan’s politics. I hope you will take the time to offer your readers a more robust view of the critical struggle for the Presidency of one of the world's most important flash points and a key player in global technology markets.

++++++++++++

Send your own letters, folks -- it is incredible that such a one-sided analysis persists. And because of that bias, look how much time is spent on hacking Chen Shui-bian, instead of giving richer, fuller backgrounds on the candidates and the issues. Complete contact info:

Mario Canseco
Director of Global Studies and Editor of the Angus Reid Global Monitor
Tel. 604-647-3570
Fax. 604-647-1005
mario.canseco@angus-reid.com

Gabriela Perdomo
Research Associate, Global Studies and Angus Reid Global Monitor
Tel. 604-647-3573
Fax. 604-647-1005
gabriela.perdomo@angus-reid.com

UPDATE: The dates were changed pretty quickly, but the rest of that incompetent and unbalanced article remains. UPDATE II: Angus Reid's response is below in the comments.

[Taiwan] [media]