Democratizing Taiwan's media

By Chen Ping-hung 陳炳宏

Friday, Nov 09, 2001 Taipei Times

President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has prompted a great deal of discussion over his expectations of the media, as propounded in his new book, expectations which have become generally known as "Chen's new middle road for the media." I would like to make a suggestion to Chen: The advocacy of the de-politicization of media ownership and the de-merger of media organizations is the new road that the media must follow. Let's tentatively call it the "new" new middle road for the media.

I want to remind Chen that anyone can have expectations of the media, but for a politician to do so is most inappropriate. Leaving aside concerns about encroachment on the freedom of the press and of journalistic professional-ism, and looking simply from the perspective of the media's role as a monitor of politicians, it puts the media in a difficult position when politicians trumpet their expectations of them.

This is precisely why, as the US attacks Afghanistan, the US and British governments beat very cautiously around the bush and only "suggest" or "remind" when it comes to the content of media reports, afraid of saying that they "place their hopes" on the media acting in a certain way. Chen should follow their example.

Let's move on to the substance of Chen's expectations of the media. He expects them to bring both bad news and good, which means that the focus of his expectations is on balanced content. Such expectations, however, ignore the fact that it really is the structure of the media that determines its basic output. He reflects a preoccupation with whether or not content is balanced, but no recognition of the problems facing the media in Taiwan.

Chen, in fact, should be no stranger to this topic since the white paper on the mass media that he published during last year's presidential campaign provides clear considerations and solutions. But he has probably been too busy with state affairs after being sworn in, and has simply forgotten about it.

Since he is now beginning to pay attention to media issues, I suggest that he, when he has time, once again flip through the white paper, since it contains a set of approaches that could help him in his consideration of the fundamental problems of the media.

This means that Chen can still advocate that the media follows the new middle road, but not the new middle road which he expects to provide balanced reporting. It should rather be the "new" new middle road which I referred to above. (I hope the authors of the mass media white paper will forgive some borrowing of the better parts).

In other words, if the problems of the media are to be solved in their entirety, not only should balanced reporting be considered, but work should also be begun on the structure of media ownership. This means an attempt to rid media ownership of politicization and excessive mergers, which is what I call the "new" new middle road for the media.

The creation of a public TV group, for example, might form part of such a strategy. This is the only way to facilitate a comprehensive solution to Taiwan's media problems. Otherwise, in the event of intervention by inappropriate external forces, it won't be important whether the media is reporting bad or good news, because the media's only concern will be who their master is.

Of course there is an element of idealism in the democratization of the media, but don't we all live for a few ideals? The scholars and experts advocating the creation of a public TV group are not so naive as to believe that it will eliminate all the forces that inappropriately influence the media.

I believe, however, that their only hope is for all the forces attempting to influence the media do so in open competition. This will achieve the goal of public monitoring instead of the present situation where the public always has to worry about whose dirty hands are controlling the media.

If democratization of the media is an ideal, then shouldn't everyone be thinking about it? I don't know how difficult it will be for the DPP if Chen doesn't immediately implement his mass-media white paper, and if power changes hands in the future. Will they once again mobilize people to besiege TV stations, or encourage them to stop subscribing to newspapers?

Translated by Perry Svensson

Consumers' rights must be protected by the GIO

By Chen Ping-hung 陳炳宏

Thursday, Jan 11, 2001 Taipei Times

The controversy over amendment of the Cable Television Law (有線電視法) is intensifying. Currently, discussions are focused on cable subscription fees and the sharp exchanges between the local and central governments. However, it is important to stress that talk about the legal amendment should be based on an understanding of the"media nature" of cable television. If all agree that mass communications media are the cornerstone of political democracy and are thus distinct from all other industries, an analysis of the question of whether to entrust the management of cable television media to the hands of conglomerates and foreign capital, or the hands of the central government, should produce an answer to the current dispute.

Some may believe that the removal of Article 19 of the Cable Television Law, under which the ownership of cable company stock must be spread out, will facilitate a better business environment for cable operators. This is a matter for public debate, however. Unfortunately, the Legislative Yuan virtually "smuggled" through the amendment that removed the article.

The issue of who should be authorized by Article 51 to review subscription fees should also be analyzed from the point of view of the media nature of cable television. If we all agree that cable television should promote community awareness, and local culture, then who should manage the cable television industry is pretty obvious. Perhaps some think that as Taiwan is a small island, governance of which is affected by the presence of numerous local factions, placing management power within the hands of local governments would only strengthen local factions.

As the legislature has already approved the amendment, unless the Executive Yuan successfully has it overturned by requesting a legislative review, we can only hope that the Government Information Office (GIO) has the determination to enforce the law. The GIO should work on the following three areas:

First, truly implement Article 21's anti-monopolization clause by adopting measures to verify the subscription information of the cable operators.

Second, demand that the cable operators make public all their financial data and conduct effective financial audits of the cable operators.

Third, draft several fee proposals and authorize local governments to make the final decision in accordance with individual situations.

In sum, mass communications media are different from other industries. In drafting relevant regulatory policies, the government must consider the nature and the role of media. Just think, even media boss Rupert Murdoch had to relinquish his Australian citizenship and become a naturalized US citizen before acquiring the American TV network, Fox. How can Taiwan easily lift regulations on foreign investment in local cable televisions?

If we all agree that the interference of political, military, and political party interests in the cable TV industry has had a serious impact on the democratic development of Taiwan, then how can we allow business interests represented by the conglomerates to monopolize the cable TV industry?

In the past, the GIO failed to regulate matters it should have regulated and competed for the power to regulate matters in which it should not have meddled.

After the recent legal amendment, while I continue to feel pessimistic about the ability and determination of the GIO to protect consumers' rights and enforce the law, the GIO is our last hope now that the amendment has officially become law.

Keeping focused on a free press

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