作者: Pecker (Juliet是我的掌上明珠) 看板: Talk
標題: [轉貼] [譯] 他們抓不住真相
時間: Thu Mar 3 20:51:14 2005
原文出自
洛杉磯時報(by Mark Magnier, Times Staff Writer)
翻譯者為 Fitzwilliam 譯文原貼於 PTT Media-chaos
作者 Fitzwilliam (Uhlander) 看板 media-chaos
標題 [譯] 他們抓不住真相
時間 Thu Mar 3 20:17:49 2005
───────────────────────────────────────
之前板友提供的那篇洛杉磯時報評論台灣媒體的專欄。
我試著把它給翻出來。
http://tinyurl.com/5vvc4
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-28-fg-hounds28-story.html
(需登錄LATimes會員)
(by Mark Magnier, Times Staff Writer)
台灣媒體用盡一切辦法製造新聞，即使事件根本不存在。媒體改造者對如此放縱無忌的媒體文化也毫無辦法。
【台灣‧台北】
身著亮藍色套裝，戴著墨鏡的艾爾頓‧強爵士在午夜時分來到這裡時，在機場歡迎他的是一群向他推擠上來，對著他的臉猛按快門，並且咆哮著問問題的本地記者。
這位流行樂巨星想要躲開，但很快就面紅耳赤，開始怒罵三字經。
義不受辱的台灣記者們也回嘴大罵。有些人叫他滾到別的地方去。
「要是台灣人都像你們這樣，我們很樂意離開台灣。豬！你們這群豬！」這位擁有爵位的藝人，在去年秋天發出這樣的怒吼。
「我去過六十個國家，機場裡的那些電視記者和攝影記者，是我見過最沒教養的。」
幾個小時後的演唱會上，坐在鋼琴前的強對歌迷說：「如果我侮辱到任何台灣人，對不起，我不是有意的。可是對於那些人，我說的每一個字都是衝著他們的。」
姑且不論大明星的裝腔作勢，但台灣媒體確實是全亞洲最具攻擊性的。在台灣這個地方，文字和電子媒體時常為特定政商勢力搖旗吶喊，而人們對毫無節制的新聞自由看法也呈兩極化：或譽為對執政者大無畏的監督，或視之為亂源。
媒體內外的改造者們早已對媒體的放縱不羈，以及對他人名譽和生命的破壞力量憂心忡忡，也努力抵抗媒體內部蔚然成風的煽色腥、黨同伐異和腐敗墮落。有些人則辯稱，媒體只是台灣社會的寫照，反映這個亞洲最自由開放社會的現狀。
對島國這些自命為伍華德和伯恩斯坦(兩位揭發水門案的記者)再世，卻獲得食人魚、吸血鬼，和各種不堪入耳稱號的傢伙避之唯恐不及的，還不只是外國名人。幾年前，當時的台灣副總統兼行政院長連戰，在出訪多明尼加後甩開記者，秘密走訪烏克蘭，結果全台灣各大報社全體動員，在全球各地四處搜索他。
過了幾個月，外交部長章孝嚴又在出訪南非途中上演類似的脫逃戲碼。在密訪比利時後，章氏一回到台北就被憤怒的記者圍剿，於是提出「外交煮飯論」為自己辯護。他說，在記者的緊迫盯人之下辦外交，就像煮飯時鍋蓋不停被人掀開一樣。
但為免進一步開罪這些靠墨水吃飯的傢伙，他連忙道歉，並請求記者們見諒。
還有人指控，幾年前電視明星白冰冰的女兒被綁架時，就是因媒體的放縱而造成致命後果。這位歌星批評媒體駕著大小車輛和直昇機追著她全家跑，甚至在交付贖金的過程中窮追猛打。
「你們是在幫我還是害我？」她在一場記者會問道。
在她女兒的屍體尋獲之後，對媒體的控訴也就更尖銳了。「記者有罪！」白家鄰居們拉起了這樣的布條。
新聞界則少見反省，他們將問題歸咎於編輯的壓力。
「你漏掉這條新聞的話，從十四樓跳下去還便宜了你。」一位《聯合報》編輯在報社十四樓開會時說的這句話，後來被一篇呼籲媒體改造的文章引用：「你應該爬上二十樓，再跳下去！」
在台灣這個兩千三百萬人的市場裡，據政府統計，共有六個二十四小時播送的電視新聞台，4185家雜誌，172個廣播電台，135個有線電視台，2524家報紙，還有977個地方新聞通訊社。批評者說，收視率的肉搏戰帶來的只是對色情、謀殺、道德敗壞和綁架的渲染。
台北世新大學的新聞系教授管中祥，說到他的一位得意門生在某家地方電視台找到工作，卻在幾個月後匆匆辭職的故事。上司要她穿一件短裙，跨過排水溝裡的針孔攝影機，以完成一個關於遍布台灣的針孔攝影機如何偷拍猥褻鏡頭的「追蹤」報導。電視台手上沒有猥褻的影片，所以得自己製作一個。
管說，這位初入社會的學生強烈反對，她的老闆則反問：「你要的是良心，還是收視率？」
台灣媒體的性格部分反映了它的演進過程，有人把這樣的轉變說成是哈巴狗變成瘋狗。在1988年之前，主流的報紙和電視台都是國民黨政權的傳聲筒，協助他們維持數十年的鐵腕統治。
政府控制的減弱帶來了私有化，但幾家重要的電視台仍由政黨經營。政治在這個兩極對立的社會裡是血腥的格鬥(立院諸公的鬥毆直到幾年前仍屢見不鮮)，而媒體的客觀公正最多只能說是時好時壞。
陳水扁總統的民進黨當局，自有一套操縱媒體的手段，也有人說是操弄真相的手段。「台灣媒體的行徑實在很可恥。」華府戰略暨國際研究中心的葛萊儀(Bonnie Glaser)說：「但政府也經常參一腳。雙方都毫無顧忌。」
新聞界的守門人表示，有兩億五千萬的預算是用在「說服」電視台邀請將領和政府希望的人選上談話性節目，及編寫有利於推動政策或宣傳政令的劇本之上。
「台灣政府在國外搞金元外交搞了這麼久，當然也會在國內這麼做。」師大大傳系教授胡幼偉以當局付錢給外國政府換取邦交的作法比喻。
以小利籠絡新聞界，換取有利報導，在送禮傳統往往根深柢固的亞洲文化裡可謂司空見慣，目前也仍是台灣媒體的一大問題；儘管許多媒體觀察家認為這一現象正逐漸消失。
廣電基金會董事長，同時也是大學教授的盧世祥，兩年前開過一門關於新聞倫理的課，結果沒有一個新聞系的學生選這門課。他問學生們為什麼，有幾位學生回答，他們不想被現實世界裡毫無用處的道德束縛，讓自己「精神分裂」。
大多數新聞機構極少查證消息來源，也極少更正錯誤報導。記者都知道，搶先同業一步就能獲得重賞，報導錯誤也無需付出什麼代價。誹謗罪的傳統根本不存在。
「許多記者根本不查證他們的報導。」TVBS新聞網的資深記者陳昭仁提起台北一樁爆炸案的報導。友台在九點新聞裡發出一條最新消息，指當局已經逮捕一名嫌犯。
「我跟老闆說這是錯的，但他要我報了再說。」陳說：「然後到了十點，大家都在最新消息中說，那個人不是嫌犯。」
在去年總統大選裡，每家電視台都爭先恐後公布結果。某家電視台報導國民黨獲得八百萬票，當它知道國民黨其實只得了600萬票，尷尬的電視台趕緊停止計票，並宣布最新資料還沒送到。
然而，在一個國家政治領袖極少受到挑戰的世界裡，台灣記者對政治人物的攻擊性，和對大明星一樣強悍。資訊自由流通，其中一部分是事實。在包道格(Douglas Paal)2002年就任美國在台協會台北辦事處處長，成為實際上的美國駐台大使之後，敏感消息的迅速曝光就一直令他困擾不已。
根據「無國界記者組織」，國際記者協會和自由之家等監督團體在2004年的調查結果，台灣媒體擁有全球最高的新聞自由度。
不過，還是有人希望媒體能做些有意義的改變。
「從政治談話節目到新聞，綜藝節目，本地的電視節目全是一片慘不忍睹。」新聞局長林佳龍在一篇呼籲媒體改革的文章裡寫道：「媒體環境與機制的再造是當務之急。」
改革的呼聲正持續高漲，其中也包含了對政黨色彩和過度商業化減弱媒體告知大眾能力的憂慮。一項新法案要求所有政黨在年底前放棄他們在媒體持有的股份。廣電基金會也鼓勵全民杯葛不負責任的媒體，並提出誹謗告訴。名譽被媒體損害的人也開始打贏官司。
其他提升節目水準和媒體社會責任的提案也陸續出籠，包括一個以英國BBC或日本NHK為原型，由政府補助或訂戶繳費支持的公共電視網。
2003年，在被輿論批判為假中立之名偷渡政治利益之後，政府決定放棄對全台最大的六家中文報紙的報導正確度和公正性評比計畫。決策官員也做出回應，要求媒體更善盡自律之責。
媒體改革能在多快的時間見效還有待觀察，但也有論者相信，媒體只是反映了社會百態。
「我們的民主很可悲，媒體也一樣。」中天電視網資深副總裁陳浩說：「台灣社會既不穩定，又充滿黨派對立，我們得找到一個中間地帶。解決這個問題一點也不容易。」
在那之前，名人和政客仍需繼續抵抗媒體的窮追猛打。電視主播出身的陳說：「我們帶給他們知名度。這是他們要付的代價。」
—
※ Origin: 鳥窩 (BirdNest.twbbs.org) ◆ From: 218-166-90-188.dynamic.hinet.net
They Can’t Handle the Truth
BY MARK MAGNIER
FEB. 28, 2005 12 AM PT
TIMES STAFF WRITER
TAIPEI, Taiwan —
When Sir Elton John arrived here shortly before midnight in a bright blue track suit and dark glasses, he was greeted at the airport by local reporters who jostled him, slammed cameras in his face and barked questions.
The pop star tried to hide but was soon flushed out and started yelling obscenities.
Not known for taking an insult lying down, the Taiwanese journalists yelled back. Some suggested that he consider going elsewhere.
“We’d love to get out of Taiwan if it’s full of people like you. Pig! Pig!” the knighted entertainer screamed last fall.
“The television and the photographers at the airport were the rudest I have ever met, and I’ve been to 60 countries,” John said at his piano bench at a concert a few hours later. “I’m sorry if I offended anyone in Taiwan, I didn’t mean to. But to those guys, I meant every word.”
Celebrity histrionics aside, Taiwan’s media have the reputation of being among the most aggressive in Asia. In a region where print and broadcast reporters are often de facto cheerleaders for governments and billionaires, Taiwan’s no-holds- barred journalism is alternately seen as a gutsy check on authority and the embodiment of chaos.
Concerned about the media’s excesses and ability to ruin reputations and lives, reformers in and outside the industry are trying to stem the sensationalism, partisanship and corruption that characterize the business. Some argue that the media are merely a reflection of Taiwanese society, which is one of the most freewheeling in Asia.
Foreign luminaries aren’t the only ones trying to hide from the island’s aspiring Woodwards and Bernsteins, who’ve been called man-eaters, bloodsuckers and worse. Several years ago, when Taiwan’s then-vice president and prime minister, Lien Chan, gave his traveling herd of reporters the slip on a trip to the Dominican Republic and secretly traveled to Ukraine, newspapers summoned all their troops to search for him.
A few months later, then-Foreign Minister John Chang pulled a similar Houdini act during a visit to South Africa. Hounded by angry reporters when he returned to Taipei after a stealth visit to Belgium, Chang defended himself with what is now known here as the “rice cooker” theory of diplomacy. Making policy while one is barraged by reporters, he said, is like trying to boil rice with someone constantly lifting the lid.
Wary of angering those who buy ink by the barrel, however, he quickly apologized and begged the scribes’ forgiveness.
The media’s willfulness had a deadly outcome, or so some charged, when the daughter of television star Pai Ping-ping was kidnapped a few years ago. The singer criticized the media for following the family in cars, vans and helicopters, even hounding it during the ransom drop.
“Were you helping me or hurting me?” Pai asked at a news conference.
When her daughter was found dead, the accusations grew more pointed. “Reporters are guilty!” screamed placards hoisted by neighbors around Pai’s house.
Journalists showed little remorse, citing pressure from their editors.
“If you fail to get this story, jumping from the 14th floor is too good for you,” an editor at the United Daily News was quoted — in a well-cited essay on media reform — as saying during a meeting on the newspaper’s 14th floor. “You should climb up to at least the 20th floor and jump from there.”
In a market of 23 million people, Taiwan has six 24-hour television news channels, 4,185 magazines, 172 radio stations, 135 cable TV channels, 2,524 newspapers and 977 domestic news agencies, the government says. The desperate struggle for ratings results in stories on sex, murder, corruption and kidnappings and not much else, critics charge.
Kuan Chung-hsiang, a journalism professor at Shih Hsin University in Taipei, recounted that one of his top students landed a job at a local TV station but quit a few months later. She’d been told to wear a short skirt and to walk over a hidden camera positioned in a drain for an “investigative” piece about how hidden cameras all over Taiwan were secretly recording lewd scenes. The station couldn’t find videos of lewd scenes, so it was staging one.
When the former student strongly objected, Kuan said, her boss asked her, “Do you want conscience or do you want ratings?”
Part of the Taiwanese media’s character reflects its evolution, what some refer to as the transition from lapdog to mad dog. Until 1988, major newspapers and TV stations served as government mouthpieces controlled by the ruling Nationalist Party, which had maintained an iron grip for decades.
Less government control has led to privatization, but several important stations are still owned by political parties. In a polarized society where politics is a blood sport — fistfights in the legislature were not uncommon up until a few years ago — media objectivity is spotty at best.
President Chen Shui-bian’s ruling Democratic Progressive Party has its own tools to manipulate the media, and, some say, the truth. “The Taiwan media is truly scandalous in its behavior,” said Bonnie Glaser of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “But the government often joins in. None of them have any scruples.”
Journalism watchdogs cite a $250-million budget for “persuading” stations to invite generals and other people the government wants on talk shows, to write dramatic scripts favorable to its policies and to otherwise promote its agenda.
“The Taiwanese government has been doing dollar diplomacy so long overseas, it thinks it’s natural to do it at home,” said Hu Yu-wei, a journalism professor at National Taiwan Normal University, referring to the government’s practice of paying other governments to give it diplomatic recognition.
Small payoffs to journalists for favorable treatment — hardly unusual in many Asian cultures with strong gift-giving traditions — remain a problem, although media experts say the practice is on the wane.
When Lu Shih-hsiang, a professor and head of Taiwan’s Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence, offered a course on media ethics two years ago, none of his journalism students signed up. Asked why, several said they didn’t want to become “schizophrenic,” constrained by boring niceties that had no place in the real world.
Double-checking information is a rarity at many news organizations, as are corrections. Reporters acknowledge big rewards in gaining an edge over competitors and little cost for getting it wrong. There’s no tradition of libel suits.
“Many reporters don’t check their facts,” said Chen Chao-jen, a senior reporter with the TVBS network who recounted a story about a bombing in Taipei. Competitors ran a report on their 9 o’clock news saying authorities had arrested a suspect.
“I told my boss it was wrong, but he said write it anyway,” Chen said. “Then at 10 o’clock, everyone runs a story saying he’s not a suspect.”
During last year’s presidential election, stations raced to get the results first. Some reported that the Nationalists had garnered 8 million votes. After it was reported that only 6 million people had actually voted, the stations, embarrassed by their error, withheld results and announced that the data had simply stopped coming in.
In a part of the world where national politicians are rarely challenged, however, Taiwanese reporters are as confrontational toward their leaders as they are toward pop stars. Information flows freely, some of it true. Soon after taking office in 2002, Douglas Paal, director of the American Institute in Taiwan, the de facto U.S. embassy, fretted about how quickly sensitive information leaked out.
Taiwanese media enjoy some of the world’s strongest press freedoms, according to 2004 surveys by watchdog groups Reporters Without Borders, the International Press Institute and Freedom House.
Some continue to hope, however, that the media will adopt meaningful changes.
“From political shows to news and entertainment, local television programming as a whole is terrible in the extreme, indeed,” Lin Chia-lung, an official in the government information office, wrote in an essay urging reform. “The restructuring of the media environment and institutions has become essential.”
Calls for change have been growing amid concern that partisanship and excessive commercialism are undermining the media’s ability to inform people. A new law requires all political parties to divest their media holdings by the end of this year. The media excellence foundation has encouraged citizens to boycott irresponsible outlets and start filing libel suits. People whose reputations have been besmirched are starting to win verdicts.
Other proposals to improve programming and accountability are also under discussion, including a public network modeled after Britain’s BBC or Japan’s NHK that would be funded by the government or subscriber fees.
In 2003, the government decided to scrap a program that rated Taiwan’s six largest Chinese-language newspapers for accuracy and objectivity after critics charged that it was pursuing its own agenda under the guise of neutrality. In response, policymakers called for better self-policing.
How quickly reforms take hold remains to be seen, but some observers believe that the media are a reflection of broader social forces.
“We have a poor democracy and a poor media,” said Chen Hao, senior vice president of CTI Television. “Taiwan is unstable and partisan, and we need to find a middle ground. There’s no easy solution.”
Until then, celebrities and politicians will have to contend with the media’s bulldog tactics. Said Chen, the television reporter: “We give them popularity. That’s the price they have to pay.”
Special correspondent Tsai Ting-I in Taipei contributed to this report.
Ref.
可能是原作者
https://vegafish.blogspot.com/2005/03/translated-by-fitzwilliambbspttcc.html