By Chen Ping-hung 陳炳宏
Friday, Jul 17, 2009 Taipei Times
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications recently announced that it would auction up to five new terrestrial television licenses. While many people rubbed their hands in anticipation following the announcement, others worried about the future of the digital television industry. We must ask ourselves if Taiwan needs more terrestrial TV stations.
Before considering how to issue these licenses, the ministry should first consider whose needs it is meeting by doing so, and to what purpose. Is it because media operators need more stations to improve their content? Or could it be that advertisers want more channels for marketing?
I think it is none of these possibilities. Taiwan has more than 200 terrestrial and satellite TV stations. That should be enough. Over the past 10 years, total spending on TV advertising has dropped from NT$35 billion (US$1.1 billion) in 1998 to NT$18 billion last year. TV stations are having a hard time finding advertisters. It is clear that the planned addition of licenses stems from neither a need to increase the number of media operators nor a need for more advertising channels.
A release of new terrestrial television licenses should be based on the needs of viewers nationwide and on public expectations of the development of televised media. Taiwan does not lack TV stations that focus on viewer ratings and place profits above all else; what it lacks is public service programming and TV stations that fulfill their media function. It also lacks qualitative and innovative programming that avoids cheap or vulgar content.
The ministry should put terrestrial channels to their most effective use by giving priority to appointing or reserving terrestrial frequencies for TV stations performing public services, such as public television or Aboriginal television. Making terrestrial television the sole domain of commercial operators will only stifle the public character of terrestrial frequencies.
Healthy public media services are needed to make up for the damage to society caused by commercial television and balance the excessive commercial leanings of the television market.
The next issue is how to license the frequencies. After the ministry auctioned off 3G mobile licenses in 2002, it wanted to use the same method to sell terrestrial frequencies. It is worth noting, however, that terrestrial television frequencies are fundamentally different from mobile telephone frequencies, because mobile frequencies are intended purely for commercial use and the purpose for selling them is transparent, whereas terrestrial television frequencies have several possible uses: They can be for commercial or for public use, and they can be run as for-profit or not-for-profit businesses. This means that auctions should not be the only considered means of releasing these frequencies.
Once the government has policies in place for releasing frequencies intended for different uses, those intended for commercial use could be sold through an auction procedure, but frequencies intended for public services could instead go through a review process or be directly allotted to an operator. Different methods should be adopted to issue licenses depending on their use. The government must avoid the view that such licenses are only a means to increase its revenue.
Even if commercial licenses are sold at an auction, the government must continue to regulate their use. If, for example, the ministry — which is in charge of frequencies for terrestrial television — decides to issue commercial licenses, the National Communications Commission — which is in charge of televised media — should still restrict the use of these licenses.
One frequently discussed issue has been whether a company that has obtained a license should be allowed to set up a shopping network or a pay-per-view station. This is completely different from the operations of current commercial terrestrial television stations, which also have to consider certain public welfare duties, but make profit the highest guiding principle.
The commission may have denied that it would allow the operators that obtain licenses to set up shopping networks, but it should still quickly set up regulations for the new operators. This issue is all but certain to have an effect on the development of digital television, and this makes the competition and survival of the new license holders a major issue that must not be overlooked.
Chen Ping-hung is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Mass Communication at National Taiwan Normal University.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
from:http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/07/17/2003448875
2009年7月17日 星期五
2009年7月12日 星期日
When newsmakers sell their souls
By Chen Ping-hung 陳炳宏
Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 Taipei Times
A report in the Chinese-language Apple Daily suggests that at around the time of the anniversary of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) inauguration, local newspapers and TV stations carried a large amount of paid-for “news” about the government’s achievements.
Certain ministries are alleged to have contracted out the responsibility of keeping the public informed to marketing companies; these firms organize a number of campaigns each year to fill a quota of newspaper space and TV programming with news about their clients.
This trend represents a revival of embedded marketing by government institutions. Actually, “revival” is too mild a word considering just how rampant this kind of placement marketing has become. “Ubiquitous” might be more appropriate.
The ministries are not alone. Even Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) newspaper interviews are paid for. If those at the top set a bad example, their subordinates will follow suit.
Unless the Ma administration expressly forbids government departments from paying for embedded publicity, bureaucrats will continue to use taxpayers’ money in this way to claim false achievements and cover up their incompetence.
The question most often raised in this regard is: Can news media be relied on to monitor the government if they take cash to report news on the government’s activities?
A cornerstone of democracy is that the press should act as the Fourth Estate.
But how can the public be confident that the media will perform this duty when they take their orders from those in power? At election time, viewers may not be able to tell whether news is information gathered to monitor the government and inform the public or undeclared advertising paid for by candidates and other politicians.
If even on-the-spot news can be bought, how can the public believe anything in a news bulletin?
Sadly, those voicing concerns about this issue have little effect. Civic groups and academics have for years reminded the media of their responsibility to monitor the government.
They have pointed to the harm that embedded propaganda brings to Taiwan’s democracy. What more can be said or done when those in power turn a deaf ear to these warnings?
The harmful effects of government-funded embedded marketing go beyond those mentioned above.
For example, government officials get accustomed to not having to take responsibility for policies. If the government can buy news segments, then officials need not worry what people will think or say about them.
When bureaucrats devote part of their budget to buying media time in the guise of news, it blunts the media’s willingness and ability to criticize. If officials are allowed to employ the media to improve their image, then they will go ahead and do just that. With the media at their beck and call, officials will not be accountable for their policies.
What you end up with is a bunch of incapable bureaucrats who answer to no one. Regardless of what happens, they will hide behind the manufactured image of achievement embedded in the media.
I can’t say for certain whether the Ma administration needs civil servants like these, but the public certainly does not.
An assistant to a government official once told me that the main reason ministries buy media time and space is not the possible influence it will have on public opinion.
Rather, they use TV and press reports as tools to convince officials higher up the chain that they are working hard.
In other words, lowly ranked bureaucrats use the media to inform — or hoodwink — their superiors in order to protect their jobs. If what my informant said is true, it can be surmised that ministries pay for embedded reports to hoodwink the Cabinet, and that the Cabinet buys slots to fool the president.
Do ordinary people realize that officials are using taxpayers’ money to fool each other and everyone else? If so, and if they find this acceptable, then Taiwan is in real trouble.
I have a modest request for those in government: Please stop using embedded marketing to paint over the cracks in your policies. Civil servants should be willing to answer for their performance. The media, for their part, should remember their proper role, and media workers should ask themselves what became of the ideals they had when they chose to work in the industry.
Otherwise, there will come a time when the public loses faith in the media altogether. The democratic system will be weakened and everyone in Taiwan will suffer the consequences.
Media workers should not sell their souls in this messy potage, and media outlets should consider more than just the bottom line.
Chen Ping-hung is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Mass Communication at National Taiwan Normal University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
from:http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/06/14/2003446102
Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 Taipei Times
A report in the Chinese-language Apple Daily suggests that at around the time of the anniversary of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) inauguration, local newspapers and TV stations carried a large amount of paid-for “news” about the government’s achievements.
Certain ministries are alleged to have contracted out the responsibility of keeping the public informed to marketing companies; these firms organize a number of campaigns each year to fill a quota of newspaper space and TV programming with news about their clients.
This trend represents a revival of embedded marketing by government institutions. Actually, “revival” is too mild a word considering just how rampant this kind of placement marketing has become. “Ubiquitous” might be more appropriate.
The ministries are not alone. Even Premier Liu Chao-shiuan’s (劉兆玄) newspaper interviews are paid for. If those at the top set a bad example, their subordinates will follow suit.
Unless the Ma administration expressly forbids government departments from paying for embedded publicity, bureaucrats will continue to use taxpayers’ money in this way to claim false achievements and cover up their incompetence.
The question most often raised in this regard is: Can news media be relied on to monitor the government if they take cash to report news on the government’s activities?
A cornerstone of democracy is that the press should act as the Fourth Estate.
But how can the public be confident that the media will perform this duty when they take their orders from those in power? At election time, viewers may not be able to tell whether news is information gathered to monitor the government and inform the public or undeclared advertising paid for by candidates and other politicians.
If even on-the-spot news can be bought, how can the public believe anything in a news bulletin?
Sadly, those voicing concerns about this issue have little effect. Civic groups and academics have for years reminded the media of their responsibility to monitor the government.
They have pointed to the harm that embedded propaganda brings to Taiwan’s democracy. What more can be said or done when those in power turn a deaf ear to these warnings?
The harmful effects of government-funded embedded marketing go beyond those mentioned above.
For example, government officials get accustomed to not having to take responsibility for policies. If the government can buy news segments, then officials need not worry what people will think or say about them.
When bureaucrats devote part of their budget to buying media time in the guise of news, it blunts the media’s willingness and ability to criticize. If officials are allowed to employ the media to improve their image, then they will go ahead and do just that. With the media at their beck and call, officials will not be accountable for their policies.
What you end up with is a bunch of incapable bureaucrats who answer to no one. Regardless of what happens, they will hide behind the manufactured image of achievement embedded in the media.
I can’t say for certain whether the Ma administration needs civil servants like these, but the public certainly does not.
An assistant to a government official once told me that the main reason ministries buy media time and space is not the possible influence it will have on public opinion.
Rather, they use TV and press reports as tools to convince officials higher up the chain that they are working hard.
In other words, lowly ranked bureaucrats use the media to inform — or hoodwink — their superiors in order to protect their jobs. If what my informant said is true, it can be surmised that ministries pay for embedded reports to hoodwink the Cabinet, and that the Cabinet buys slots to fool the president.
Do ordinary people realize that officials are using taxpayers’ money to fool each other and everyone else? If so, and if they find this acceptable, then Taiwan is in real trouble.
I have a modest request for those in government: Please stop using embedded marketing to paint over the cracks in your policies. Civil servants should be willing to answer for their performance. The media, for their part, should remember their proper role, and media workers should ask themselves what became of the ideals they had when they chose to work in the industry.
Otherwise, there will come a time when the public loses faith in the media altogether. The democratic system will be weakened and everyone in Taiwan will suffer the consequences.
Media workers should not sell their souls in this messy potage, and media outlets should consider more than just the bottom line.
Chen Ping-hung is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Mass Communication at National Taiwan Normal University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
from:http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/06/14/2003446102
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
