2017年9月19日 星期二

Media milking typhoons for profit

Chen Ping-hung 陳炳宏

Tue, Sep 19, 2017 Taipei Times

For a while it looked like Typhoon Talim was going to hit Taiwan, leaving the public concerned about what damage it could do. In the end, it turned away. Some people were actually annoyed about this, as they were robbed of a typhoon day.

Some blamed the Central Weather Bureau for not getting its forecast right. However, one question that was not asked was why the media started reporting the trajectory of the typhoon when it was still several thousand kilometers away, getting the public all worked up for no reason.

Two or three decades ago, the bureau would not start forecasting the trajectory of a typhoon until it was 400km or 500km from the Bashi Channel to the south or the east coast.

At this point, it would remind crews on the seas or residents on the land what they could expect from the coming typhoon, giving people about two or three days to prepare.

Now the media start talking about a typhoon when it is still 4,000km or 5,000km away, typically a whole week, sometimes 10 days, before the typhoon hits, as if the whole point is to whip the public into a frenzy.

This premature, blanket coverage courtesy of the media puts pressure on the authorities to announce a typhoon day, creates concern among the public, obliges farmers to take precautions and sends people scurrying to shops to stock up on provisions.

The upshot is that the coverage puts the whole nation on edge, anticipating the worst.
None of this, of course, is the media’s intention.

What the media seek to achieve most is to orchestrate public trepidation about the coming typhoon and bring it to a crescendo, so that people will spend their time at work online checking and rechecking what the typhoon is doing, before rushing home to watch the weather forecast on TV.

The idea behind the media’s coverage of the typhoon is to maximize click rates and viewing figures, which means advertising revenue, which means more money for them.
Think about it. What other type of news can rile the public into such ecstasies of concern? Typhoon coverage is such a wonderful tool for grabbing people’s constant attention.

After the media discovered this little gem, typhoon stories became their new best friend, and also individual reporters’ most hated enemy.

Every time a typhoon looms, media bosses ask their reporters to seek the danger spots, because that is what makes a good story (read excellent click bait).

There is the television reporter, standing before the lens, microphone in hand, buffeted and drenched, swaying back and forth trying to play up the strength of the typhoon as much as possible.

The way typhoons are reported here in Taiwan has even made it onto CNN, as a light entertainment piece.

So, next time a typhoon is brewing somewhere off in the ocean, do not just sit there wondering whether you will get a day off and complain when you do not.

Perhaps you could turn your mind instead to how the media led you to the conclusion that it might, and think about how we should be approaching the information we are given and how the media should be reporting typhoons.

Chen Ping-hung is a professor at National Taiwan Normal University’s Graduate Institute of Mass Communication.

2017年9月16日 星期六

颱風一個轉彎 甩出媒體怪象

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

這幾天台灣民眾因泰利颱風過門不入再度陷入焦慮中,有人埋怨泰利為何要轉彎,害大家不能放假;有人則遷怒氣象局,責怪颱風預測不準確。可是筆者發現,從沒有人問一個問題,為何媒體要在颱風還在幾千公里遠時,便開始瘋狂報導其動態,讓全民陷入颱風來襲的期待中?

筆者記得二、三十年前,當有颱風來到巴士海峽或台灣東邊海域四、五百公里處時,氣象單位才會開始預測其走向,然後提醒海上船隻或陸上居民該如何注意其影響,這樣民眾大約會有兩三天可以準備防颱。但曾何幾時,近些年的媒體颱風報導都是早在颱風還遠在四、五千公里外,就開始說有颱風形成,然後幾小時就預測一次它的走向,每次颱風總要報上一個禮拜甚至十天,好像非得搞到全民陷入恐慌不可。其實這幾年大家都誤以為,近來颱風特別會轉彎,但實際上不是近來颱風會轉彎,而是媒體根本不用在颱風距臺灣還幾千公里,就開始報導其走向。

話說媒體撲天蓋地的報導颱風新聞會有何影響?一來會不斷升高民眾對放颱風假的期待,二來給地方行政首長要不要宣布放假的壓力,搞得地方首長都快變成氣象專家或通靈術士,三來即是讓民眾生活陷入恐慌,農民開始搶收農作蔬果,民眾搶購生活用品,搞到每個颱風訊息都成為全民心頭上的負擔。

但這些也許都不是媒體報導颱風新聞的本意,媒體最想要的其實是,透過不斷的颱風報導,引發民眾對颱風訊息產生強烈的需求,然後就會在上班時隨時上網查颱風動態,回家後趕緊看電視氣象報導;也就是說媒體提供颱風資訊的背後思維,其實就是點閱率與收視率,講白了,就是廣告效益,就是錢。

大家想想,昇平時期哪有那麼多新聞可以攪動民眾生活,而颱風資訊正是可以用來牽動民眾眼球的最佳工具,因此當媒體發現這個妙方後,颱風新聞便成為媒體的最愛,也變成記者的最恨。

每當有颱風來襲,媒體長官就會暗示加明示,要記者哪裡危險哪裡去,因為好看(就是說收視率啦),所以記者報導颱風會站在掀大浪的岸邊,或吹狂風的街上,還有電視記者曾透露,當報導淹水時,長官還會要求他們蹲低點,讓觀眾誤以為水淹得很高;另外還有某電視台記者在報導颱風時,竟然在鏡頭前面不斷的晃動,以製造強風的假象,因此被美國CNN當作是台灣媒體報導颱風新聞的趣聞來報導。但其實CNN很不上道,根本不懂這些都是台灣媒體吸引民眾關注颱風新聞的法寶(又是收視率),絕不是耍寶!

不能再講太多媒體如何藉由颱風新聞來騙點閱率或收視率的伎倆了!最後筆者想分享的是,幾千公里遠的颱風會怎麼走,真的不是氣象局說了算,請大家就放過氣象局與地方首長,也放過自己吧!不要當有颱風形成時,就在盤算會不會放假,搞得自己每天患得患失,這何苦呢?如果真有不要放過的,那要不要一起來思考民眾該如何正確面對颱風資訊?或是一起來檢討媒體該如何報導颱風新聞呢?



原文連結:聯合報:颱風一個轉彎 甩出媒體怪象(陳炳宏)

2017年9月1日 星期五

媒體有藍綠紅就是多元?

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

2012年9月1日記者節台灣各界發起的「901反媒體壟斷運動」今將屆滿五年,但五年來民眾對媒體日遭壟斷並未提升警覺,反倒有更多反對反媒體壟斷立法的迷思在傳散。難得日前NCC終於提出「媒體壟斷防制與多元維護法」草案,各界應該正視有心財團或個人提出媒體市場早已多元的說法來混淆視聽,並遂行其繼續操控媒體與言論市場之行徑,否則台灣社會終將要因漠視這議題而付出沉痛的代價。首先最常聽到的標準台詞就是,台灣現在什麼媒體都有,哪能壟斷言論?這種說法真是昧於事理,因為不是藍綠紅各類媒體都有就叫多元!民主社會追求的媒體多元,著重在內部的多元,而非僅是外部的多元;簡單說,我們期待一家媒體能提供各種言論意見,讓閱聽眾自由判斷與選擇,而不是所有媒體僅提供單面向言論,然後就說台灣有多元的媒體環境,所以不會有言論壟斷!接著又會說媒體有藍綠紅有何關係,這也是人民選擇的多元啊!但重點是,台灣正是藍綠紅媒體長期各自壟斷言論市場的受害者,有凡事只看顏色的媒體,台灣如何凝聚共識?再從實務面來看,有多少民眾會主動去接觸各種不同言論光譜的媒體?有多少人會看完《中國時報》後,再翻翻《自由時報》?聽聽中天怎麼報後,再看看三立如何講?有人像筆者,如果想從電視新聞瞭解重大時事,會從49台開始轉到58台,比較各台報導立場嗎?這種認定台灣存在不同立場的媒體,就叫多元,就不需反壟法的說法,不僅不懂何謂媒體多元,也真是昧於事實!也許反壟法無法立即解決藍綠紅媒體的問題,但至少可以讓三種顏色不至於只剩一種(多卑微的期待)吧!但筆者同意,反壟法立法目標的錯置是導致各界產生疑慮的主因。反壟法應在積極促進媒體的各式多元(包括內容、文化、消費權益等),而不只是消極管制媒體產權以防壟斷,因此「媒體壟斷防制與多元維護法」應該正名為「媒體多元維護與壟斷防制法」,以杜絕疑慮,並凸顯立法意旨。筆者如此想是因為過去防壟思維都聚焦在市場管制,對任何併購案都審視有無壟斷疑慮,但筆者更期待反壟法不僅在意市場端的多元,更應將消費端的多元當成立法重點,以免落入集中就是不好的迷思。所謂消費端的多元是指,當台灣民眾需要電視服務時,作為媒體消費者的他能同時有無線、有線、直播、MOD(IPTV),甚至OTT等五種以上的電視服務可任他自由選擇,那麼屆時全台灣即便只有一家有線電視系統業者,一家直播電視業者,一家IPTV業者,政府也許都不必太在意,因為只要消費者有五種電視服務的選擇,市場多元的議題焦點即在於管制媒體市場公平競爭的問題,而不在於某類電視服務是否只有一家業者在經營,不是嗎?其餘跨媒體市場多元管制亦同。筆者同意前述只是理念型例證,還有待各界集思廣益,但筆者想分享的是反壟法應該具備「多元維護重於壟斷防制,消費多元重於市場多元」的理念,以落實管制的核心意旨。此外滿多人認為,網路普及已是事實,且網路可自由傳散與取得資訊,哪需要反壟法?另也有人認為,網路已是大眾媒體,反壟法不規範網路,立此法何用?這兩種說法都未免過於簡化網路的問題。一來網路該不該管、該如何管都有待建立共識,但也不應說,一定要把網路納進來才可制訂反壟法吧!該法或許可增列網路平台業者扮演媒體角色的原則性規範,但還是應該制訂反壟法(前已有頗多論述),因為凡事有輕重緩急,且一碼歸一碼啊!最後筆者衷心期待各界在討論反壟法時,千萬不要以台灣媒體現況迷思作為反對的理由,因為如果大家繼續被這種媒體多元的假象所蒙蔽或作為反對該法的藉口,那台灣保證繼續沉淪!


原文連結:蘋果日報:陳炳宏:媒體有藍綠紅就是多元?

2017年8月14日 星期一

公務員是刀俎還是魚肉?

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

日前某報頭版刊登一張台東縣長黃健庭「秀濕背」的照片,凸顯行政院政策要求公務機關中午停電兩小時的荒謬。年改爭議當下,當前公務人員的角色真是尷尬,政府要年改先砍公務員,政府要節電,公務人員就身先士卒先受罪,雖不致受全民讚許,但也鮮少有人為公務員叫屈,所以即便是縣長也只能配合演出濕背秀,聽說還有公務員熱到昏倒。政府推動年改,導致國人誤以為過去公務員都吃香喝辣,因此贊成猛砍公務員權益來彌補過錯。同時媒體過度報導李來希等團體反年改的結果,更讓國人認定公務員都是既得利益者,只會爭權利。殊不知,除這些常曝光的個人外,還有更多的公務員依然選擇認分地工作,但媒體卻未同等對待與報導,甚至視為理所當然,如此一來一往,自認為公務員爭權益的個人或團體,成為傷害公務員形象的最大來源,而媒體的「不平衡」報導也成幫兇。游梅子,台東縣政府資深公務員,也許再過幾年即可申請退休,但單位最近人力緊張,有時下班後會到市區咖啡店坐坐以緩和工作壓力。坐在咖啡店裡,游梅子其實只是位來放鬆的顧客,但她卻努力向來店的遊客介紹這家咖啡店多有特色,此時游梅子彷彿就是店老闆,正賣力在推銷店的產品。在此同時,游梅子也在遊說店老闆加入全國首創的台東縣政府「TTPush」加值服務,民眾只要手機下載TTPush的APP,除可收到縣府相關訊息,及個人申辦各項業務的即時進度報告外,還可透過參與遊戲或活動賺取「台東金幣」,用來折抵停車時數、購物折價或進行公益捐款等。游梅子一方面向顧客介紹這店家的特色,一方面力勸老闆加入TTPush。他強調只要店家加入,顧客進店消費可用金幣折價,只要金幣夠多,甚至全部免費,另外對店家來說,加入TTPush不僅有免費宣傳,所收到的金幣還可定期換取現金,不僅不影響營收,更可能增加收入。原本這只是一段公務員下班後的休閒時間,但游梅子不僅把握機會向台東遊客積極推銷台東特色店家,也不放過機會向台東店家推銷縣府的新服務,力邀店家加入,且當場致電APP設計廠商趕緊與店家聯繫,一副不加入就吃虧的模樣,讓店家不得不接受他的好意,答應與廠商談談。此時游梅子的角色,是向遊客推廣台東特色的在地人,也是向縣民推銷縣政的公務員,多完美的角色扮演。這店家最後有沒有加入TTPush,筆者不得而知,但游梅子的舉動卻讓筆者深受感動。台灣社會有像李來希等公務員,也有像游梅子這樣的公務員,他們同樣關心自己的權益,也關心退休金,但在行動上卻選擇以不同的方式去面對自己的角色。因此當媒體聚焦報導李來希們的同時,是否也應給像游梅子這樣努力扮演好自己角色的公務員一個平衡報導的機會呢?好讓國人多了解其實台灣還有很多的游梅子們!


原文連結:蘋果日報:陳炳宏:公務員是刀俎還是魚肉?

2017年6月29日 星期四

中央通訊社是政府的,好嗎?

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

前天媒體報導:文化部將依《中央社設置條例》規定,提出第八屆董監事名單,在報請行政院遴聘後擔任,由劉克襄任董事長。去年中媒體報導:文化部宣布,行政院提名施振榮等人擔任第六屆公共電視董監事,將由立法院各黨團推薦15位審查委員,進行提名名單的審查工作。從以上兩則報導,可以看出中央社與公視兩媒體董監事任命程序的差異。首先,中央社董監事由文化部提名,經行政院長任命後即可擔任,並直接派任董事長。但是,公視董監事提名名單則要送立法院,由立法院依各黨派立委得票比率來分配審查委員的人數,再經四分之三以上的審查委員同意後,行政院長才能任命。也就是說,中央社董監事是政府說了算,執政黨想任命誰就任命誰,但是公視董監事則必須經立法院審查會高比例同意後才能擔任。因此用筆者慣用的說法,中央社是執政黨任命的政府媒體,公共電視是經立法院(民意)同意的國家媒體。因此,中央通訊社是政府的,好嗎?請中央社不要再對外自稱「國家媒體」!因為這是掛羊頭賣狗肉,是蒙混的言詞。其次,筆者要再說一次「中央社是政府的,好嗎?」前段的「好嗎」是肯定句,意指中央社就是政府的,不用再解釋了!但這段的「好嗎」是疑問句,想請大家思考,政府擁有媒體到底好不好?舉幾個媒體報導:本屆六都首長選舉期間,《自由時報》報導民進黨立委管碧玲、陳亭妃質疑,中央社未掛記者姓名而與台北市長選舉相關的新聞,幾乎都在偏袒連勝文陣營,以台北市長選戰相關新聞為例,類似的新聞共17則,就有13則是有利於連勝文陣營。另在本屆總統大選期間,《蘋果日報》報導(當時)民進黨立委蔡煌瑯批評僑委會所屬的宏觀電視是「洪秀柱競選頻道」,蔡統計宏觀報導國民黨總統參選人洪秀柱新聞2個月28則,報導民進黨總統參選人蔡英文新聞3個月18則,洪新聞內容連非洲地區成立後援會、擺兩個花圈,招牌都沒有也可以做新聞;反觀訪美的蔡英文,新聞不但少,甚至還是負面新聞。解讀以上報導,政府擁有媒體,可以用來宣傳政策,大選期間更可以攻擊反對黨!但是執政者將政府媒體當黨同伐異的工具,這會有利於民主政治嗎?也許往後大選期間,就會換成藍委指責中央社偏袒綠營。因此筆者呼籲,請將政府媒體中央社納入公廣集團,轉型為公共媒體。其次僑委會已同意將宏觀電視台交由公共電視經營,建議政府也該將專司海外宣傳的中央廣播電台納入公廣,這樣不僅可整合我國對海外僑民宣傳的廣電媒體,也可讓公視成為真正的公共廣電集團。最後再提醒,解決前述兩個政府媒體後,還有六個政府的廣播電台需要處理! 

2017年6月14日 星期三

Regrets over NCC’s block of deal


陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授
On May 31, the National Communications Commission (NCC) disallowed a bid by multiple system operator Taiwan Optical Platform Co to acquire Eastern Broadcasting Co.
Strictly speaking, there are no legal clauses that give the commission a clear basis to block the acquisition.
As an assessor in this case, I recognized this lack of a legal basis.
Although I respect the commission’s power of administrative discretion, it is hard to avoid certain regrets.
One irregularity is that the commission passed the resolution based on supplementary clauses, to demonstrate its determination to oppose media monopolies, even though a proposed media antitrust law has yet to be enacted.
I suggest that, having disallowed the buyout in this case, the commission should propose its draft media antitrust law as soon as possible, otherwise it will continue to face accusations of applying its administrative discretion in a way that oversteps legal boundaries.
The commission disallowed the merger because vertical integration between cable TV systems and channels would create the largest channel agency on the cable TV platform in Taiwan. The commission determined that the sheer size of the integrated conglomerate would have a great effect on the development of the industry and on the opinion market. On these grounds, the NCC determined that such a merger would do more harm than good to the overall public interest.
However, if one examines the resolution objectively, the way the commission has applied its administrative discretion could indeed easily give rise to controversy.
As Taiwan Optical said in response to the outcome of the deliberations, the commission says that Optical’s nearly 10 percent share of cable TV subscribers puts it in a dominant position that tends toward monopoly, but Article 24 of the Cable Radio and Television Act (有線廣播電視法) states that: “The number of subscribers of the system operators, their affiliates and their directly or indirectly controlled system operators shall not exceed one-third of the total number of subscribers in the nation.”
Taiwan Optical said that it has at most 9.38 percent of subscribers, which is well within the legal limit.
Furthermore, the commission took the view that if the acquisition went ahead, Taiwan Optical would become Taiwan’s second-biggest channel agency, giving it a strong market position that might hamper competition.
In its response, Taiwan Optical said that there are 110 widely viewed channels in Taiwan and its channels account for only 11.8 percent of them.
It said that this does not contravene Article 25 of the act, which says: “Programs provided by system operators and their affiliated enterprises shall not exceed 25 percent of the usable channels,” and hardly puts it in a monopolistic position.
The opinions of the commission and Taiwan Optical form an interesting contrast, with the commission applying its administrative discretion to disallow the acquisition out of concern for its potential effect on the industry, whereas Taiwan Optical objects to the decision on the grounds that it is not breaking any laws.
This clash of opinions highlights the importance and urgency to formulate a media antitrust law, otherwise Taiwan Optical can hardly be blamed for saying that the commission acted unfairly by blocking the buyout on the grounds of market monopoly concerns.
Although there is no clear legal basis to disallow Taiwan Optical’s acquisition of Eastern Broadcasting, it is reasonable to judge that such a merger would have an effect on the industry’s development.
An antitrust bill should include regulations governing horizontal market shares and vertical integration in the media industry. It should cover the allowance and permissible scale of combined vertical and horizontal integration, cross-media ownership and permissible equity ratios. It should state whether cable TV systems such as those involved in this case can own satellite TV channels, or what proportion of equity they are allowed to own.
Furthermore, opinions posited as grounds for disallowing the merger, such as that owning two national news channels or the news channel with the third-highest viewership, would have an effect on the opinion market should be formalized as soon as possible by drawing up a media antitrust law.
Another issue is the existing restrictions on investment in radio and television businesses by political parties, government authorities and the armed forces, as stipulated in the three radio and television acts: the Radio and Television Act (廣播電視法), the Cable Television Act (有線電視法) and the Satellite Broadcasting Act (衛星廣播電視法).
The commission said that this was not a major reason for its decision, but it did not deny that it was a factor. This shows that now is a good time to discuss the rules governing party, government and armed forces investment, whether this involves amending the acts or including the matter in the proposed media antitrust regulations.
There is widespread opposition to the legal restrictions, but recently we have also been hearing objections to government ownership of media in connection with the Hakka Affairs Council’s operation of a radio channel and in reaction to regulations introduced by the commission on the establishment of government-run radio or television stations.
The bewildering thing is that some people who are energetically pushing for an end to the rules governing investment by political parties, the government and the armed forces in media entities have also been criticizing the government for owning media.
I have all along held to the consistent positions of opposing abolition of the restrictions on parties, government and the armed forces and opposing government ownership of radio and television media.
How the roles of parties, government and the armed forces investment should be regulated should be open to discussion and consensus.
Such issues include whether and how to amend the rules about penalties for noncompliant media, how to formulate exceptional provisions — such those governing the size and form of equity shares — and the content of sunrise or sunset clauses, such as setting aside things that happened in the past.
However, a basic concept of democracy is that the media and government should stick to their respective roles as the overseer and the overseen.
In view of this, I am opposed to abolishing the restrictions on political parties, the government and the armed forces investing in media entities.
Chen Ping-hung is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Mass Communication at National Taiwan Normal University.
Translated by Julian Clegg

2017年6月2日 星期五

否准台數科後應加速反媒體壟斷法

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授國家通訊傳播委員會(NCC)周三決議否准台數科併購東森電視案。嚴格來說,該會並無明確法條可據以否准,筆者擔任此案鑑定人亦持此意見。雖然筆者能尊重NCC的行政裁量權,只是心中難免有些許遺憾,遺憾該會錯失在「反媒體壟斷法」未通過前,先以附帶條款之決議,來宣示該會反媒體壟斷的決心。因此建議NCC否准此案後,應盡速提出反媒體壟斷法,才能杜絕各界指責其行政裁量超越法律規範的悠悠眾口。NCC以此案涉及有線電視系統與頻道之垂直整合,將成為有線電視平台最大的境內頻道商,其整合規模至為顯著,對產業發展及言論市場之影響甚鉅,因此在認定對整體公共利益之損害大於其助益後予以否准。但客觀審酌NCC決議,其行政裁量確實易招爭議,如同台數科回應審議結果時稱,該會認為其有線電視訂戶數市占10%,具顯著地位,有壟斷之嫌,但《有線電視法》第24條規定有線電視訂戶數不得超過全國總戶數3分之1,而台數科最多僅9.38%,完全符合規定。另外NCC認為台數科併購後變成全國第2大頻道商,市場地位強大有妨害競爭疑慮。台數科亦反駁說,以台灣常看的110個頻道總數計算,其頻道數只佔11.8%,也未違反《有線電視法》第25條不得超過4分之1的規定,何來壟斷之嫌?前述兩者意見形成有趣的對比,NCC基於對產業影響的疑慮,行使行政裁量權否准,但台數科基於未違反現行法規提出異議,如此對立的意見正凸顯加速制訂反媒體壟斷法的重要性與迫切性,否則以市場壟斷疑慮否准此案,台數科的不平之鳴無可厚非。平心而論,台數科併購東森雖無明確法規可否准,但其影響產業發展的疑慮尚屬合理判斷。因此筆者建議NCC應儘速提出反媒體壟斷法草案,包括媒體水平市佔率、相關媒體垂直整合規範、水平兼垂直整合可行性及其規模,及跨媒體產權與比率等,還有與本案相關的有線電視系統能否擁有衛星電視頻道,或可擁有佔比等。另外如否准意見所稱,擁有兩個全國新聞頻道或收視率居新聞頻道第3大之新聞台會影響言論市場等意見,都應盡速透過制訂反媒體壟斷法以確立。 此外,NCC強調黨政軍條款並非主因,但也未否認是影響決議的因素,因此如何透過修廣電三法,或併入反媒體壟斷法同步研議黨政軍條款正是時候!各界反對黨政軍條款聲量不小,但最近因客委會經營廣播電台,以及NCC制訂「公設廣播電視台設立辦法」,各界亦有反對政府媒體之議,但令人傻眼的是,有些人一方面強推刪除黨政軍條款,另方面又批判政府擁有媒體,搞得筆者一頭霧水。筆者立場向來一致,反對刪除黨政軍條款,且反對政府擁有廣電媒體,至於黨政軍該如何務實規範(如罰媒體的規定該修)、如何制訂排除條款(如持股比例與形式),或日出(落)條款(如既往不咎)等,都可再集思廣益,但基於民主政治監督者(媒體)與被監督者(政府)應各司其職的基本理念,筆者還是反對廢止黨政軍條款。

原文連結:蘋果日報:陳炳宏:否准台數科後應加速反媒體壟斷法