Witch hunt on secret media funding

On Thursday, another battle broke out between the pan-green and pan-blue camps over the involvement of political parties and the government in financing TV programs

Taipei Times
Friday, December 5, 2003

On Thursday, another battle broke out between the pan-green and pan-blue camps over the involvement of political parties and the government in financing TV programs, especially the now enormously popular political commentary talk shows and call-in shows.

The fight started when Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lo Wen-chia accused the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) of forking out NT$18 million to finance a political commentary talk show, The Hope of Taiwanese Hearts.

KMT spokesman Alex Tsai conceded that the KMT had helped fund the show, but he got back at Lo by saying that the DPP government financed certain TV programs through the selective placement of government advertisements during these shows. KMT Legislator Hung Hsiu-chu joined the chorus by voicing suspicions that several other commentary programs might be financed by the DPP, judging by what she referred to as these shows' "questionable" political content.

Sadly, as the two sides went back and forth, what is supposed to be the central issue to the entire controversy -- the question of transparency and political accountability -- was entirely missed.

First, it is not always illegal for political parties to finance TV shows. It is just that under the current law -- including the Broadcasting and Television Law, the Satellite Broadcasting Law and the Cable Television Law -- such a show must be classified as an advertisement. The reason is quite obvious -- to mandate transparency in funding by political parties for such purposes and to make them politically accountable for the views they present through such programs.

If a political party is funding a TV program, it is assumed that the party is trying to communicate its views by means of the program's content. Under the circumstances, viewers have every right to know what is going on, so that they can formulate their own opinion about what they are watching while taking into account from which perspective the show presents its views. Political parties should not be allowed to hide behind TV programs anonymously while these programs present a false impression of neutrality and impartiality.

As for the government's placement of advertisements, there is no question of selective allocation. First and foremost, all government budgets for these purposes are transparent and open to public scrutiny. Moreover, such advertisements are almost uniformly placed through one single agent -- the Government Information Office -- following a set procedure, which further enhances transparency. Viewers can also tell from the advertisements being run that the programs are being partly financed through government advertising.

Hung's accusations about programs with questionable content is even more ridiculous. It is like the Salem witch hunt, accusing political parties or the government of illegally financing certain programs based merely on the views presented in these shows, without a shred of evidence. This is not to mention suppression of free speech. According to Hung's twisted line of logic, most political commentary shows and call-in shows must be illegally financed by the pan-blue camp, since their views tend to be highly partial and prejudiced in the blue camp's favor.

It was also interesting to observe the egregious double standards on the part of the pan-blue camp in this whole incident. Not long ago, members of this camp were loudly condemning the producer of the now infamous Special Report VCDs for supposedly hiding in the dark instead of stepping up to shoulder responsibility. Yet it sees nothing wrong in its own decision to secretly fund The Hope of Taiwanese Hearts talk show.

Date Posted: 12/5/2003