By Chen Ping-hung 陳炳宏
Monday, Nov 26, 2001 Taipei Times
According to news reports, while inspecting the General Information Office (GIO) some time ago, Louis Chao (趙榮耀) and four other members of the Control Yuan expressed a wish that, since they were worried over the "chaotic" media situation, the GIO keep an eye on it. The role and performance of the media has been an issue of concern for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and now members of the Control Yuan want their say as well.
In theory, there are three forces regulating the media.
The first is "self-discipline," which is the hope that all media will understand their special role and develop the capacity to critique government policymaking, monitor the social climate and promote the development of democracy -- all without fear or favor. This is the most essential media-regulating force.
The second force is "the discipline of others," which means the monitoring of media performance by non-governmental organizations who can hold the media to the principles of journalistic ethics characterized in the last paragraph. This is something certainly worth pursuing, but is far from a reality at present.
The third force is "legal discipline," which refers to the regulation of media behavior through legislation. This is the bluntest of all regulating forces and unless it is absolutely unavoidable, efforts should be made not to use it, as this force can and often is used to threaten press freedom.
If we consider the request by the gentlemen from the Control Yuan that the GIO keep an eye on the media, we'll find hidden issues concerning the role and performance of the media that are well worth our deep consideration.
First all, if even members of the Control Yuan, representing the judicial branch, do not accept media behavior and believe that a stern eye should be kept on media outlets, there are two issues worth consideration.
One, if the people of Taiwan believe that an eye should be kept on the media, then the media should engage in earnest self-examination over whether its performance has deviated from professionalism and the expectations of the people. Honestly speaking, though, looking at the present performance of the Taiwanese media, it seems that they have neither the ability nor the will to engage in self-reflection, and so the request for media self-discipline appears impossible.
But the question arises, who should control the media if they are incapable of self-reflection? If it is true as GIO Director-General Su Tzen-ping (蘇正平) says, that unless it is illegal, the GIO really "cannot exert any control" because such an action would not only be seen as political interference in media freedom, it would also be seen as bringing democracy backwards.
This is a taboo that no GIO director-general would dare break.
Under these conditions, legal discipline is both impermissible and impractical.
Finally, there is the "discipline of others." On the surface, it seems as if the "discipline of others" is the most accessible method for regulating the performance of the media. The problem is, however, who are these "others?"
These "others" are social and academic groups that Su said should be encouraged to exert the monitoring force.
More these "others" are you, I and all reading and listening people. The problem is that even though social and academic groups are willing to come out and monitor the media, they find it very difficult to obtain widespread popular attention and support. This is because the public doesn't know or believe that it can exert this kind of influence. The social groups that today have the intent of establishing a mechanism for the "discipline of others" therefore still stand alone, making "the discipline of others" a utopian force for regulating the media.
As there appears little hope for media self-discipline, or legal controls, we must place our hopes in the GIO to work for the wider public interest to come up with ways of encouraging or social and academic groups to initiate media regulation by "the discipline of others."
Translated by Perry Svensson
Monday, Nov 26, 2001 Taipei Times
According to news reports, while inspecting the General Information Office (GIO) some time ago, Louis Chao (趙榮耀) and four other members of the Control Yuan expressed a wish that, since they were worried over the "chaotic" media situation, the GIO keep an eye on it. The role and performance of the media has been an issue of concern for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and now members of the Control Yuan want their say as well.
In theory, there are three forces regulating the media.
The first is "self-discipline," which is the hope that all media will understand their special role and develop the capacity to critique government policymaking, monitor the social climate and promote the development of democracy -- all without fear or favor. This is the most essential media-regulating force.
The second force is "the discipline of others," which means the monitoring of media performance by non-governmental organizations who can hold the media to the principles of journalistic ethics characterized in the last paragraph. This is something certainly worth pursuing, but is far from a reality at present.
The third force is "legal discipline," which refers to the regulation of media behavior through legislation. This is the bluntest of all regulating forces and unless it is absolutely unavoidable, efforts should be made not to use it, as this force can and often is used to threaten press freedom.
If we consider the request by the gentlemen from the Control Yuan that the GIO keep an eye on the media, we'll find hidden issues concerning the role and performance of the media that are well worth our deep consideration.
First all, if even members of the Control Yuan, representing the judicial branch, do not accept media behavior and believe that a stern eye should be kept on media outlets, there are two issues worth consideration.
One, if the people of Taiwan believe that an eye should be kept on the media, then the media should engage in earnest self-examination over whether its performance has deviated from professionalism and the expectations of the people. Honestly speaking, though, looking at the present performance of the Taiwanese media, it seems that they have neither the ability nor the will to engage in self-reflection, and so the request for media self-discipline appears impossible.
But the question arises, who should control the media if they are incapable of self-reflection? If it is true as GIO Director-General Su Tzen-ping (蘇正平) says, that unless it is illegal, the GIO really "cannot exert any control" because such an action would not only be seen as political interference in media freedom, it would also be seen as bringing democracy backwards.
This is a taboo that no GIO director-general would dare break.
Under these conditions, legal discipline is both impermissible and impractical.
Finally, there is the "discipline of others." On the surface, it seems as if the "discipline of others" is the most accessible method for regulating the performance of the media. The problem is, however, who are these "others?"
These "others" are social and academic groups that Su said should be encouraged to exert the monitoring force.
More these "others" are you, I and all reading and listening people. The problem is that even though social and academic groups are willing to come out and monitor the media, they find it very difficult to obtain widespread popular attention and support. This is because the public doesn't know or believe that it can exert this kind of influence. The social groups that today have the intent of establishing a mechanism for the "discipline of others" therefore still stand alone, making "the discipline of others" a utopian force for regulating the media.
As there appears little hope for media self-discipline, or legal controls, we must place our hopes in the GIO to work for the wider public interest to come up with ways of encouraging or social and academic groups to initiate media regulation by "the discipline of others."
Translated by Perry Svensson
沒有留言:
張貼留言