Letting the world hear this side for a change

As Michael Turton touched upon in an earlier post on Taiwan Matters, CNN anchor Anjali Rao interviewed President Chen Shui-bian on the weekend show TalkAsia last week, addressing topics ranging from the March 19, 2004 shooting to the "scandals" surrounding his family to the reasons for repeatedly "provoking" Beijing and "rattling the bars of China's cage" (Excellent metaphor, that one!) to the so-called troubled relations with the US (Rao: "... the relationship between Taiwan and Washington at the moment is not as friendly as it once was."). [Note: I don't know where the Taiwan News got their information about the interview, but that stuff about Taiwan identity wasn't in the version I watched. Follow the links below, and see for yourself.]

The good
Rao asked some questions that sounded like the usual stuff we hear in international news about Taiwan. Whether the host was playing "devil's advocate" or not, I can't say, but she gave Chen a whole lot of space to answer the questions without interruption, and he gave pretty good answers to most of them. Even when she asked follow-ups, Chen gave relatively long, detailed responses which included some excellent statements about the reality of Taiwan's independence despite the lack of widespread international recognition or a "timely, relevant, and viable" constitution approved by the people. Rao repeatedly referred to and addressed Chen as "President," something many media outlets avoid by bending to China's will and calling him "leader" instead. CNN even put "Taiwan President" onscreen below Chen's name. To that much, I say "Hooray!"

The bad
There are lots of mistakes which may seem trivial or picky to point out, but I'm going to point out these groaners anyway and let you make up your own mind about the interview.

First, they messed up Chen's name in the onscreen titles, displaying it as "Chen Shui Bian." That's a pretty small mistake, and was probably the fault of the graphics person, but it shouldn't have happened. Rao appeared to be aware of the recent "redshirt" demonstrations, yet she appeared in the same solid red blazer/black top combo she frequently wears. Was this done on purpose? Only Rao and/or her producers know for sure.

Lost in translation
The translations were not completely accurate. For example, where I heard Chen say that there are "at least 988 missiles" ("至少有988枚"), it was translated as "The correct number should be 988 missiles." When Chen said the number of missiles had increased "more than fivefold" (五倍之多) the translator changed it to "almost fivefold." Regarding the shooting, when Chen said, "I believe that if it weren't for the shooting, we would have won by an even larger margin," the translation changed it to "... our camp would have won [making it sound like they hadn't won in the first place], and won even more votes.

Again, most of that's fairly minor stuff, but in the English version of one of the questions (normally restated for the camera and edited in after such interviews are completed), Rao implied that First Lady Wu Shu-jen had already been proven innocent of embezzlement charges. The question the president answered, which I assume was asked in Mandarin, was about the charges related to the Sogo gift certificates. Rao was born in Hong Kong, and an over-the-shoulder shot of Chen talking about being a "happy volunteer" after he leaves office showed her reacting with amusement, as if she understood immediately, but I can't assume that she's fluent in Mandarin, or that the shot was in sync with Chen's words -- I can only state what I saw.

President Chen gave a few answers that disappointed me, but perhaps he was once again being more diplomatic than I could ever be. Describing the "status quo" (as if one existed) as "peaceful" (despite the "anti-secession" law [which "legislates" the arbitrary use of "non-peaceful means" against Taiwan] and exponential missile build-up) was a bit disconcerting. Also, his response to the question about the shooting really should have gotten to the point, which is that forensics expert Henry Lee -- recommended by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) -- used actual evidence to report what the KMT continues to deny -- that Chen was really shot, that the bullet came from outside of the vehicle in which he was riding, and that the police were successful at finding the person who made the gun used to fire the bullets -- and that that very person has now fled to China, possibly into the arms of other Chen-haters.

The Island X files
In case you missed the interview and still want to see it (I think you should!), you're in luck. I've captured the whole thing, including the bumper intro and the three segments of the show and have uploaded it all to YouTube. Click the thumbnails below to view the clips.

Intro		Part 1
Part 2		Part 3

Excuses, excuses
Sorry for the poor quality of the videos, but that was the best I could do from within the cage that Taichung's cable TV monopoly and lack of a satellite dish has me in.

Related videos
* CNN專訪 總統暢談憲改工程 (2007-01-24) [CNN interview: President discusses constitutional changes] (via Taiwan TV) (1'31" YouTube video)
* 扁：國務費案 民主進展陣痛 (2007-01-24) [A-bian: "State affairs fund" case" is a "labor pain" on the road to democracy] (via FTV) (1'18" YouTube video)

---

Participants: Taiwan, 台灣, Republic of China, 中華民國, ROC, China, 中國, People's Republic of China, 中華人民共和國, PRC, 中共, Chen Shui-bian, 陳水扁, Taiwan Independence, 台灣獨立, Taidu, 台獨, sovereignty, 主權, democracy, 民主, CNN, TalkAsia, Anjali Rao, YouTube

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!

The right stuff -- but first, some wrong stuff

The editorial in yesterday's Taipei Times is a bit of an improvement over some of their recent drivel, but I think they still don't "get" why President Chen Shui-bian didn't kick and scream like a spoiled baby when during his relatively successful diplomatic journey to Nicaragua last week, Taiwan was mistakenly referred to as "China-Taiwan." (TT quote: "Whatever the reason behind such confusion, Chen, as head of state, should have taken a more active gesture and lodged a protest.")

I'm just making an educated guess based on some of the things that have occurred during Chen's administration, but I suspect the Taiwanese side, in an attempt to exercise a bit of control, requested that at the very least "Taiwan" be added to the usual designation of "Republic of China." I could imagine that on the Nicaraguan side, "Republic of China, Taiwan" may have seemed a bit long and that Nicaraguan officials unfortunately shortened that to the final two words. (Note: the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] thinks that their "ROC" equals China and often refers to PRC-controlled territory as "the mainland" instead of calling it "China," so it's easy to understand how others might be confused.) Yet the Taipei Times didn't even explore this possibility, and instead of commending Chen for the positive aspects of the journey (such as the simple fact that it happened, duh), they ironically whined that the president didn't whine. Go figure.

(Note: I would rather see people complain every time anyone in Taiwan refers to the country as 中華民國 [Republic of China] in non-diplomatic settings.)

Anyway, let's get to the better part of the editorial:

At the London School of Economics (LSE) last Thursday, Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng (杜正勝) demonstrated nicely how government officials should promote Taiwan and handle insults to the country in front of international audiences.

[...]

In view of the disruption and attempted provocation, Tu performed admirably. He did not avoid the questions.

Tu, poised and unperturbed, responded calmly, noting Taiwan's values, rights and freedoms. He emphasized to his audience that Taiwan, as a democratic country, would decide its own future according to the will of its people.

Looks like it's time for another round of "Spot the Difference." Chen was attending a planned meeting with friendly dignitaries, while Tu was facing off against hostile opponents. Both Chen and Tu, however, responded diplomatically and according to the circumstances.

"I am Taiwanese!"
Last Friday's edition of the FTV program 頭家來開講 ("Boss Talk") showed some excerpts from Tu's speech on "Education Reform in Taiwan: local and global perspectives" at his alma mater. (Note: Some editing is apparent in the footage, so it's unclear at times what exactly Tu is responding to. See the other footage linked below.) During the event, some students from China disrupted the speech by shouting slogans and holding up ironic signs saying "No cultural brainwashing" and "Taiwan is a part of China." (Note: Taiwan has never been controlled by the PRC [AKA China] -- which is a mere part of "mainland Asia" -- and the only reason anybody thinks so is because it has been repeated a million or more times.)

Because he doesn't have the same restrictions required of the president when on diplomatic missions, Tu was able to say loudly and proudly, "I am Taiwanese!" The audience cheered loudly for this seemingly simple statement of truth. They also shouted down the real "cultural brainwashers" in the audience who were pushing propaganda while merely pretending to ask questions. You should really see it for yourself.

Pass me the eye opener, will ya?
Look no further. Here's the segment from "Boss Talk." (Note: I added the yellow, green, red, and blue English-language titles seen onscreen.)



3'50" YouTube video: "Tu Cheng-sheng stands up for the Taiwanese"
Click here to download the latest version of Adobe Flash.
Click here for YouTube help.

Related videos:
* 教育部長杜正勝先生LSE演講 [Minister of Education, Mr. Tu Cheng-sheng, LSE speech] (0'31")
* 教育部長杜正勝先生LSE演講II [Minister of Education, Mr. Tu Cheng-sheng, LSE speech II] (0'51")
- the guy on the balcony can be heard out of frame talking about Taiwan "buying" allies
* 世界教育部長會 正名「台灣」 (2007-01-10) [Rectifying Taiwan's name at meeting of world's education ministers] (2'30")
- a Hoklo-language video from Taiwan's Formosa Television (FTV) which tells more about the event and focuses on the importance of Tu being listed as coming from Taiwan, not the ROC.
* 杜正勝倫敦演說 兩岸學生互嗆 (2007-01-11) [Cross-Strait students' shouting match during Tu Cheng-sheng's London speech] 3'33"
- Another FTV video with just a little more footage. This one shows the signs that were held up by the students from China.

UPDATE: Via fiLi's world, here's a link to a 152 kb PDF of the text of Tu Cheng-sheng's excellent speech.

---

Easels: Taiwan, 台灣, Republic of China, 中華民國, ROC, China, 中國, People's Republic of China, 中華人民共和國, PRC, 中共, brainwashing, 洗腦, Taipei Times, 台北時報, Tu Cheng-sheng, 杜正勝, London School of Economics, 倫敦政經學院, YouTube

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!

1/23/2007 - UPDATE/CORRECTION:
After spending two full weeks trying to contact both birders and people associated with the HSR project to get details that were missing from the article -- specifically images of bird strikes by the train -- I finally found one image on my own.


Although it comes with its own exaggerated headline about "12 ghosts of [beings] who were wrongly put to death or murdered," this photo indeed appears to show several marks which could certainly be bird strikes. (Note that the marks are unhelpfully obscured by thick red outlines [to help readers see the obvious?] which only serve to sensationalize a story which is bad enough on its own.) Having said that, it still doesn't qualify for the term "massacre." I wish that the person whose words Shelley Shan repeated and amplified hadn't used that description. At the same time, I hope that the operators of the HSR will do everything possible -- if they're not already -- to prevent this kind of thing from happening all along the trains' path, most especially in areas where birds like the Jacana and raptor are endangered.

Having said that, reporters who blowdry their HSR tickets, purposely insert expired tickets into the entry gates, or set off fire alarms to create false news stories are still psycho, and I'm sticking to that.

Everything below (except the strikethru) remains as it was originally written so you can see my mistakes. If anyone wants me to remove something, just ask, and I'll see if it warrants removal. [/END UPDATE]

Bloviating birdwatchers bleed blue blood

Cue up some Bernard Herrmann and check out this exaggerated headline to an article in Monday's Taipei Times:

High speed trains said to be causing bird massacre

That's right -- "massacre." For your info, here is Reference.com's definition of that word:

–noun
1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.
–verb (used with object)
4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.

Here is the most ridiculous part of the Taipei Times article:

Birdwatchers in southern Taiwan said last week that bullet trains are killing "many" wild birds along the high speed rail routes. Although they could not provide numbers to support their claims, they pointed to bloodstains "commonly seen" on the bullet trains as evidence of an avian massacre.

It's a damn shame to see sensationalist writing like this in the Taipei Times, but this isn't the first time I've complained about their writing in recent days. On the first day of this new year, I had this to say about their lack of self-awareness:

Hey, Taipei Times editors -- wake up and smell what you've published!

Looks like they need another reminder.

Perspective
It's certainly unfortunate when animals die because of human carelessness, but cars, trains, and airplanes kill birds every day, despite efforts to avoid such things. Being a vegetarian and an animal lover myself, I would agree totally that if such a problem exists, something should be done about it. However, such exaggerated reporting does little to help the situation. The frenzied media reports I've seen about the HSR have shown viewers everything but "bloodstains" on the train, and the content has given me little reason to believe them this time around.

This and this and this and this are what actual massacres look like, by the way.

Psycho newsfakers
I describe these reporters as "psycho" because they spend valuable time pretending that it's in the viewers' interest to tell them about incredibly foolish things that I can't really think they expect me to believe are important. For example, one report demonstrated that if you hold a blowdryer a couple of inches from your HSR ticket and direct the hot air onto it, it will turn black. (Gasp!)

Without too much effort, I think you can figure out the problem with their "logic." One might also conclude that if people have a habit of blowdrying their HSR tickets, their brains have already turned to mush.

Who dunnit?
The byline of the Taipei Times article tells us it was written by Shelley Shan (冼立華). The name stood out because I recalled that Shan co-wrote two articles just after the recent earthquakes in southern Taiwan in which she quoted TVBS twice when she could have quoted just about any TV station that reported the same basic information about the quakes and failed to clarify basic details of the story.

Shan's name doesn't begin appearing on articles in the Taipei Times until 2006, so I wondered if she was part of the reason for or merely a symptom of the decline in quality in that paper lately. Then I discovered that she used to work for the China Post. That kind of tears the curtain open a bit, eh?

"Consumer advocates" bleed blue blood, too
Another group being used in an attempt to add credibility to the crazy complaints about the HSR is the "non-governmental" Consumers' Foundation. A quick web search revealed to me that their full English name is "CONSUMERS' FOUNDATION, CHINESE TAIPEI." Next time you see this group complaining about something while accompanied by pan-blue legislators, that might make you think twice about the validity of the complaints. In fact, since you should normally think twice anyway, think 39 times in these cases!

And remember, question everything -- especially vertigo-inducing things like this!


Liberty Times image
Translation: The man at left is saying, "The HSR is green, better paint it black!" (i.e., "vilify it via groundless allegations"). On the front of the train is the short form of "High Speed Rail," or "高鐵." To the right, a man with sunglasses is holding a sign which reads, "Refuse to ride!! Consumers' Foundation," using the short form of their name, "消基會."

---

Alfred Hitchcock's unfinished movies: Taiwan, 台灣, media, 媒體, Taipei Times, 台北時報, Shelley Shan, 冼立華, TVBS, China Post, 英文中國郵報, THSRC, 台灣高鐵, HSR, 高鐵, Consumers Foundation, 中華民國消費者基金會, 消基會

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!

With writing this bad, it's gotta be on purpose

In a spot-on impression of the "Newspeak" of George Orwell's 1984, yet another BBC article without a byline has distorted Taiwan with its "reporting." Somebody could start a whole blog just to expose the mess the BBC makes whenever they write about Taiwan. For now, you get to watch me rip another one of their articles to shreds.

Who hit whom first?
Right off the bat, the article sucker punches the observant reader with this headline:

China hits back at Taiwan leader

Rarely will they call Chen Shui-bian "president" in a headline, so I'm disappointed, though unsurprised. However, in order to "hit [someone] back," the other person has to "hit" first. For your information, this seems more like a first "hit" to me:


The article presses forward with this remarkably ignorant subhead:

A Chinese government spokesman has accused Taiwan's president of trying to ruin ties with the mainland.

How can you "ruin" something that's not good to begin with? And wouldn't it have been better to put "president" in the headline and "leader" in the subhead, or would that have made China's unelected leaders cry like they had Tabasco® in their eyes?

Skipping down to the third single-sentence paragraph below that subhead, we get this copy-and-paste piece of easy-to-repeat nonsense:

China sees Taiwan as part of its territory.

While that's essentially true that China "sees" things that way, the BBC's unnamed writer could have just as easily pasted in, "The people of Taiwan see China as a foreign country which constantly threatens their sovereignty." Rebecca MacKinnon once told me in all seriousness that this is simply the result of "journalistic laziness." If that were the case, I would seriously recommend that they try my equally-accurate version sometime. (I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.)

Fists of factuality?
In a brief respite from the diligent "laziness," we get some facts about what President Chen said in his New Year's Day speech:

"Only the people of Taiwan have the right to decide on the future of Taiwan," Mr Chen said in his speech on Monday.

"Taiwan's sovereignty belongs to 23 million people. It definitely does not belong to the People's Republic of China," he said.

That, dear readers, is what the BBC implies to be a "hit" in its misleading headline. However, it is a simple historical fact that the PRC has never controlled Taiwan -- not even for a single day.

Here's how China responded to those historical facts:

A day later, the Chinese government made clear that it was not happy with Mr Chen's remarks.

An unnamed spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office told the state-run news agency, Xinhua, that Mr Chen "spares no effort to make disturbances".

"Chen intends to unreasonably restrict cross-Strait exchanges and cooperation... and ruin the peaceful and stable development of cross-Strait ties," he said.

"We will... never allow secessionists to separate Taiwan from the motherland in any name or by any way."

Every time Chen Shui-bian wakes up in the morning and brushes his teeth in the free country that is known as Taiwan, the leaders of the foreign country known as China are "not happy." Xinhua (新華, which is quite fittingly a homophone for 新話, or Newspeak) "spares no effort" to distort the truth. President Chen once again opened trade with China even further, probably to the dismay of many, and China's "anti-secession" law (which "legislates" the arbitrary use of "non-peaceful means" against Taiwan) hardly dictates that "cross-Strait ties" be described as "peaceful and stable." Furthermore, you can't "sece[de]" or "separate" from something you're not part of. It's both a physical and a logical impossibility. Taiwan is its own "motherland."

Here are two more muddled paragraphs:

China remains deeply suspicious of the Taiwanese leader and his independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party, accusing Mr Chen of planning constitutional changes that would destroy hopes of eventual reunification.

But despite his tough talk, Mr Chen has also made clear many times in the past that he has no plans to declare official independence except in the event of a Chinese invasion.

What "tough talk" are they babbling about? Did Chen threaten China when I wasn't looking? Despite what might superficially resemble balance in those two paragraphs, the article taken as a whole definitely leans way over towards China's bellicose perspective.

The final two paragraphs of the article provide more faux balance which observant readers would realize favors China by omission:

Tensions, though, are still high. Late last month China announced plans to upgrade its military, highlighting its dispute with Taiwan as one of several regional security threats.

Meanwhile, Taiwanese legislators have recently been discussing a controversial and much-delayed US arms deal package.

Balanced? Think again! The "arms" being offered to Taiwan are purely of a defensive nature, and if whoever wrote that doesn't know it, they have no business writing about Taiwan.

There's not much I left out, but if you so desire, follow the link up top and go read the rest of the nonsense. Just be sure to question everything written about Taiwan by the BBC.

RELATED LINKS:
* Transcripts of President Chen's New Year's Day speech can be read at the following links. [Hanzi] [English]
* A Taipei Times article about unelected Chinese "leader" Hu Jintao's (胡錦濤) same-day speech, "Hu stresses sharing the wealth in New Year's speech" (while number of missiles keeps increasing, "anti-secession" law still in place)
* Previous reamings of the BBC on Taiwan Matters! (all within the past 3 months):
1) BBC gets Taiwan all wrong
2) BBC angers all who care about Taiwan
3) BBC still not getting Taiwan right
4) BBC continues Taiwan deception
5) BBC strikes again
6) BBC Taiwan Coverage: Pathetically Biased
7) BBC cooks up more nonsense about Chen recall bid
8) Who will observe the Taiwan observers?

---

Seeming defiers of the laws of physics: Taiwan, 台灣, Chen Shui-bian, 陳水扁, China, 中國, People's Republic of China, 中華人民共和國, PRC, 中共, Hu Jintao, 胡錦濤, missiles, 飛彈, media, 媒體, BBC, 英國廣播公司, Xinhua, 新華

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!

Words mean things

Both Feiren and I wrote on Saturday about DPP chairman Yu Shyi-kun's dispute with the China Times. Among the differences in our posts was that Feiren linked to ESWN, a blog by Hong Kong-based Roland Soong in which the author takes little tidbits of truth and presents them buried among tons of crap.

Feiren had this to say about Soong's presentation:

In this rather long post, I summarize and comment on a typical example of ESWN's misleading work on Taiwanese politics: ESWN's treatment of DPP Chairman Yu Shyi-kun's dispute with the China Times [...] What I find particularly objectionable and intellectually dishonest are ESWN's rhetorical gestures toward objectivity by giving 'both sides' of the story and his suppression of the context that even relatively informed readers (such as China-based correspondents) need to make a critical judgment.

Therefore, it was hardly surprising when Soong took the BS-TV approach in what may be a response to Feiren touching a nerve. I'll begin with paragraph 7 of Soong's post:

In my blog post, I have summarized all the pieces from
various parties that I have come across the mainstream Chinese-language media in Taiwan. If you only read English, you may have not have read all of them. So I was just collating the reactions and translating them from Chinese to English as a public service. For balance, you can read Taiwan Matters.

I think he has the part about "balance" right. There, he links to Feiren's post in which Feiren was careful with his words and opinions. But the other part about "just" doing those things "as a public service" falls just as flat as it has every time he's made similar claims. Soong has a constant habit of using words like the ones within these posts (hover your cursor over the numbers to see: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) to attract visitors to his site. Then, when he has your attention, he hits you with crap like this (continuing directly from above):

For comparison, I ask you to imagine:

At a Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs press conference, the spokesperson declared that no questions will be taken from New York Times reporters until as such time as their China bureau chief is removed on account of a specific article as well as what is perceived as persistent negative criticisms.

At a Hong Kong Government Information Office press conference, the spokesperson declared that no questions will be taken from Apple Daily reporters until as such time as its chief editor is removed on account of a specific article as well as what is perceived as persistent negative criticisms.

At a White House press conference, the spokesperson declared that no questions will be taken from the Washington Post until as such time as its chief editor is removed on account of a specific article as well as what is perceived as persistent negative criticisms.

Let's begin at the beginning. Soong wants readers to "imagine" a completely different scenario while he pretends these things somehow relate to Yu's comments about the China Times. The other bits I've highlighted demonstrate how Soong repeatedly gets the most basic details wrong. Yu's court case against the China Times is based on a specific point of contention which, as Feiren pointed out, was repeated several times over a period of five days, culminating with a front page story. The things the China Times repeatedly printed weren't "criticisms" -- they were actual lies, not merely "perce[ptions]." Furthermore, even Tuan "if he isn't a spy for the China Times, he might as well be" Yi-kang said that the China Times had repeatedly twisted his words. Yu's reasons, therefore, weren't limited to just the cases involving him -- the paper was harming the reputations of the Chen Shui-bian administration, DPP officials, and their supporters.

Worldwide reaction? Universal condemnation? Ubiquitous BS?
Soong finishes his crap off by taking the reader to the Toilet Bowl of Hyperbole [/high-PURR-buh-lee/] (again, continuing directly from the previous quoted section):

Worldwide reaction would be overwhelmingly against those hypothetical decisions. This is the reason why Yu Shyi-kun was almost universally condemned across the board -- blue and green. Given all that is said, what would you do in Yu Shyi-kun's place? This is not just about your personal reactions, but also about your sense of global reactions from others. My purpose in going through those collations/translations is to pose that question to you, whether you are in mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the United States or elsewhere. If you believe that Yu Shyi-ku's actions are correct, please say so to the whole wide world.

And there you have it -- a bowl filled to the brim. The problem here is that Soong not only doesn't give you enough information to make up your mind for yourselves -- he distorts the information he does give you, and confuses you with non-analogous imaginary situations. How do you spell "deceit"? R-O-L-A-N-D_S.

It's real simple, and it goes like this: If somebody repeatedly spreads lies about you, your associates, your friends, and your supporters, there's no reason to trust them to accurately represent your words. That's the stuff of self-destruction, and anyone with a healthy mind and an ounce of intellectual honesty could see it.

Just some of Yu's vocal supporters
Taiwan Society backs Yu in press spat (Taipei Times)

Aside from the Taiwan Society, other groups lending support to Yu's decision include the Taiwan Northern Society, the Taiwan Southern Society, the Taiwan Eastern Society [Maddog note: The Taipei Times told us just last June that the Taiwan Society is an umbrella group which covers those other three plus many more] and the Taiwan Bugle Society [Maddog note: previously corrected to "Taiwan Society Herald" in Taipei Times reports] -- all known for their pro-Taiwan independence stance.

Before Yu's announcement, these groups had months earlier already denied the newspaper interviews and refused to read or subscribe to it.

[...]

[Secretary-general of the Taiwan Society, Chet] Yang (楊文嘉) yesterday said as much as he respects the China Times reporters' rights to work, he did not think these rights should be overemphasized.

"Their work rights cannot take priority over and exclude other public values," he said. "For example, they should not exploit their rights to creating false news."

In a public statement last Friday, the Taiwan Society criticized the newspaper as a "media trust" which "fabricates news" and "sows discord."

It said Yu, as a public figure, was not refusing to be interviewed by other media, and was not trying to avoid media supervision.

The China Times should initiate a review of the quality of its own reports instead of blaming others the Taiwan Society said.

Hey, Roland -- I gotcher universe right here! (Hey, Taipei Times editors -- wake up and smell what you've published!)

---

Things which are and aren't parts of China (not necessarily in that order): Taiwan, 台灣, media, 媒體, Taipei Times, 台北時報, ESWN, 東南西北, Roland Soong, 宋以朗, China Times, 中國時報, Yu Shyi-kun, 游錫(方方土), Taiwan Society, 台灣社, Chet Yang, 楊文嘉, Tuan Yi-kang, 段宜康

Cross-posted at Taiwan Matters!