壹視遭台委百般拖延 失百億投資 肥佬黎上書華爾街怒批？

白禮仁

Taiwan's Less-Free Media
The government of President Ma Ying-jeou is tightening controls on Taiwan's press.

By JIMMY LAI

In China, government assaults on free expression regularly generate attention around the world. Less so in other parts of Asia, alas. So when Taiwan's telecommunications and broadcasting regulator rejected my company's application for new cable TV licenses multiple times in the last year, most recently last month, the news went almost unnoticed outside Taiwan.

We are not the only media company affected; the government of President Ma Ying-jeou has undertaken several initiatives to restrain the previously vibrant Taiwanese press. As the majority owner of Next Media, I have a strong vested interest in this particular case. However, I believe that anyone who values the free flow of information—not to mention the future of a free Taiwan—should be concerned.

In delivering its decision, Taiwan's National Communications Commission cited concerns that we might not be able to satisfy various regulations, and that we might try to circumvent existing program-rating restrictions. Most ominously of all, the NCC said it could not be sure that Next Media would "fulfill its social responsibilies as a mass media operator." These are all shockingly subjective rationales. Instead of dealing with the facts and merits of our application, the NCC is punishing us on the basis of what we might do.

And Next Media is not some tiny, fly-by-night startup. According to Nielsen, we are the publishers of the top newspapers and magazines in Hong Kong and Taiwan, along with the top news website in Hong Kong. In Taiwan alone, we have invested nearly $120 million into studios and equipment for our television launch. In so doing, we have created nearly 1,200 jobs for the Taiwanese people, and increased their options for news and entertainment.

You wouldn't know that from the way the government described our case. When NCC Chairwoman Su Heng appeared before Taiwan's Legislative Yuan in November, she asserted that there was too much overlap in senior management between Next TV and Apple Daily newspaper. If the chairwoman had looked into the facts contained in the Next TV application, she would know that of the eight department heads at Next TV, only one has prior experience working at Apple Daily.



AFP/Getty Images
President Ma Ying-jeou meets the press.

Apple Daily and Next Magazine (another of our print titles) figured prominently in another misleading assertion. Ms. Su complained that these two publications are "often the subject of litigation." What Ms. Su neglected to mention is that, of the more than 200 lawsuits generated by our investigative reports over the past three years, Apple and Next Daily have lost only three of these cases.

She also forgot to mention that the subjects of these investigative reports are usually corrupt government officials or business leaders not pleased with a free press looking into their activities. When we expose the misdeeds of such people, we regard it as a public service, fulfilling one of the highest responsibilities of a free press.

Nor has the government stopped with Next TV. Last week, the NCC revoked the entertainment channel license of another broadcaster, ERA TV, sparking protest from some lawmakers.

In an even more worrying development, the Taiwanese legislature is now considering a bill that would ban news outlets from "describing or illustrating violence, bloodshed, pornographic sexuality, or lewdness in detail." The language containing this provision is part of a group of amendments being pushed by an NGO called the Child Welfare League Foundation, as well as by the Taiwanese government's Child Welfare Bureau.

The goal, to shield children from violent or graphic content, is a laudable one. But in practice, this law would have a chilling effect on reporting for children and adults alike. So vague is the wording, it has the potential to impact the reporting of every crime, every accident—not to mention every embarrassing misadventure by a Taiwanese politician.

Here it helps to remember that though the NCC is an ostensibly "neutral" body, its members are nonetheless nominated in proportion to the number of seats of political parties held in the legislature. Today the KMT has an overwhelming majority in Taiwan's legislature and holds the presidency. So one has to wonder whether the quality of reporting in Taiwan is really the driving concern here. The NCC would not undertake actions that endanger press freedom and the reputation of Taiwan if President Ma and the ruling KMT did not back their actions.

As for the government, it has already drawn fire from the National Press Council for "embedded marketing." This is the practice by which the government pays for propaganda articles to appear as news reports in newspapers and on television. Given that the government is one of the biggest media buyers in Taiwan, the press council has asked the government to desist, seeing this as a tool to have the news reflect its own message.

Viewed in isolation, each of these developments might be written off as misguided, if well-intentioned, efforts. Taken as a whole, however, they look more like a program to increase government control over the media. Such developments help explain why for two years in a row the independent watchdog Freedom House has downgraded Taiwan's ranking for press freedom.

It is hardly surprising that Taiwan's leaders do not always appreciate critical and independent reporting. But the way a government treats its media critics is the true test of whether it truly supports a free press. By that standard, Taiwan is failing.

Mr. Lai is the founder and chairman of Next Media.

馬英九政府正加強箝制台灣媒體（黎智英）

在中國，政府對言論自由的箝制常會引起全球注意。遺憾的是，相同的事情發生在亞洲其他地方，引起的關注就沒這麼強烈。也因此，當台灣的通訊傳播當局在過去一年中（最近一次在上個月）數度拒絕發給壹電視有線電視執照，台灣以外的地方幾乎都沒有注意到這則新聞。

我們不是唯一受到影響的媒體。馬英九總統的政府已持續採取其他措施，限制原本生氣蓬勃的台灣媒體。作為壹傳媒的主要持股人，我在這事件上有龐大的既定利益。然而，我相信任何重視資訊自由流通的人都應該關心這件事，遑論珍視自由台灣之未來的人。
台灣通訊傳播委員會（NCC）在做出拒發執照的決定時提到了一些疑慮，擔心我們可能無法滿足各樣管制的要求，以及我們可能會設法規避現行的節目分級限制。最令人感到不安的是，NCC認為，它無法確認壹傳媒能否「善盡其作為大眾媒體的社會責任」。這些全都是令人震驚的主觀臆測。NCC不去審核申請案中所提的事實和優勢，反而依據我們可能會做的事來懲罰我們。
壹傳媒不是一個小規模、剛竄起的企業。依據尼爾森（Nielsen）市調公司的調查，我們是香港和台灣主要報紙和雜誌出版商，在香港也是主要的新聞網站。單在台灣，我們就為了成立電視台，投資了近1億2000萬美元（約35億元台幣）在攝影棚和其他設備上。由於此舉，我們為台灣人民創造了近1200個工作機會，也增加了他們在新聞和娛樂上的選擇。
從政府描述我們申請案的方式，你們無法了解這些事情。NCC主委蘇蘅11月在立法院堅稱，壹電視和《蘋果日報》的高階管理階層有過多的重疊。如果蘇主委細看壹電視申請案中所提的事實，她應該知道，壹電視的8名部門主管中，只有一名曾在《蘋果日報》工作。
《蘋果日報》和《壹週刊》（我們的另一項出版品）在另一項誤導性的說詞中成為箭靶。蘇主委抱怨，這兩項出版品「屢次引發訴訟爭議」。蘇主委略而未提的是，在過去3年我們因調查性報導所引發的200多件訴訟案中，《蘋果日報》和《壹週刊》只在3個案件中敗訴。
她也忘了提及，這些調查性報導的當事人，往往都是對於自由媒體調查其活動感到不悅的腐敗政府官員或企業家。當我們將這些人的劣行公諸於世時，我們認為這是一種公眾服務，是在善盡自由媒體的一項最高職責。
台灣政府不僅對待壹電視如此，NCC上周還撤銷了年代綜合台的執照，引起了部分立法委員的抗議。
更令人憂心的發展是，台灣立法機關正考慮立法，打算禁止新聞報導「詳細地描述或圖解關於暴力、血腥、色情、淫穢的情節」。包含這些文字敘述的修正案，是若干非政府組織兒福團體以及台灣政府內政部兒童局所推動修法的一部分。
保護兒童免於接觸暴力或血腥內容的目標是值得讚賞的。但在實務上，這項法律將對於給兒童與成人閱聽的新聞報導同時產生寒蟬效應。由於這項法律修正案的用詞如此模糊，以至於可能衝擊每一則犯罪、意外事件的報導，更別提報導令台灣政治人物難堪的不當行為。

這讓我們想起，NCC雖然表面上是一個「中立的」機構，但NCC的委員卻是由各政黨依其在立法院的席次比例所提名的。國民黨目前在立法院擁有壓倒性的多數，並且擁有黨籍總統，所以讓人不得不質疑，台灣的新聞報導品質是否真的受到當局重視。如果不是馬總統和執政的國民黨在背後支持，NCC不會如此行事，危害台灣新聞自由和聲譽。
台灣政府本身也因「置入性行銷」而遭新聞評議委員會批評。這是政府以付費方式，換取宣傳性的文章以新聞報導形式呈現在報紙或電視上。在台灣，政府成了媒體版面的最大買主之一，因此新聞評議委員會一直要求政府克制，認為政府藉此讓新聞反映官方的訊息。
個別來看，若上述每一個發展都立意良善，也許可以被視為是遭到誤導。然而整體來看，他們更像是政府加強對媒體箝制的一項計劃。這樣的發展有助於解釋為何獨立的國際新聞監督機構「自由之家」，連續兩年調降台灣的新聞自由評比排名。
台灣領導人無法總是公平看待批判、獨立的新聞報導，這並不讓人驚訝。但一個政府對待媒體批評的方式，卻是它是否確實支持新聞自由的真實測試。依此標準，台灣正在退步當中。（本文原以英文發表，刊登在昨日（12月28日）的《華爾街日報》）

作者為壹傳媒主席

Source:http://omm.hk/the-wall-street-journal-taiwans-less-free-media.html?comments=true