2017年10月16日 星期一

何不讓國語日報公共化

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

《蘋果日報》報導,《國語日報》董事改選引發爭議,教育部已向台北地方法院聲請解除該報全體董事職務,並請求指派臨時董事協助該報回復健全運作。教育部長潘文忠表示,該報從創刊到成為法人,都是由政府捐助,教育部本於主管機關及根據多項事證了解,才向法院聲請解任董事,但未來不會干預媒體自由,更不會接管財產。

如果該報董事會違法,教育部作法無可厚非,潘部長說法也值得肯定。不過問題在於,如果由教育部指派董事,如何做到不干預媒體?如果是政府捐助,如何能不接管財產?這是高難度的承諾。

如果教育部無法從實務上去證明可以做到不干預、不接管,那又如何讓《國語日報》員工信服?如何讓社會各界釋疑?

政府不應干預媒體天經地義,但目前台灣只有廣電三法要求黨政軍退出廣電媒體,並沒有任何法規規定政府不得經營平面媒體;也就是說政府擁有平面媒體是民主體制的問題,是被監督者與監督職權的混淆,而沒有違不違法的問題。

其實比較難解的是,如果由教育部指派董事,如何做到政府不干預?這事不能空口無憑,恐怕要審慎計議,但時間緊迫,筆者建議教育部應組成《國語日報》董事遴選委員會,然後接受各界推薦董事人選,最後選任適宜人選組成董事會後接管,以平息眾議。

除前述建議外,其實筆者最想分享的是有關台灣公共報業的想像。公共報業倡議者常以英國《衛報》(the guardian)作為典範。創立於1821年的英國《衛報》,在1936年時的經營者為讓該報財務與編務的獨立與自主得以永續確保,決定將其交由信託公司經營。80年後(2016年)《衛報》在英國每天印行16萬2千份紙本報紙,若加上線上讀者(排名世界第五大線上報紙),每天約有900萬英國人及4260萬全球讀者在閱讀《衛報》,其對英國民主的貢獻與世界的影響都很大。

除《衛報》模式外,公共報業倡議者更建議,當日趨沒落的紙媒面臨財務或編務危機時,公共化是其理想的轉型選擇,一來可保障媒體勞動者的工作權益,二來也可為新聞媒體的獨立自主留住生機。

近年當台灣紙媒面臨併購或經營不善時,不少新聞傳播學者如馮建三、胡元輝、羅世宏、林麗雲、邱家宜等教授都曾關注過這個議題,也提出具體主張來解決紙媒的困境,例如公共信託、員工持股、大眾認股等,可惜都無實際案例可藉以推動。目前剛好文化部正在研訂公共媒體法,加上教育部長不干預媒體的宣示,這不正是《國語日報》公共化轉型的難得契機?

如果教育部有心解決《國語日報》的困境,當務之急可參考前述建議,勿直接介入董事遴選,並與員工簽訂編輯室公約、保障勞動權益條款。但為長治久安,還是建請教育部參考各國公共報業機制與發展,讓《國語日報》成為台灣第一份公共報紙,以落實不介入媒體的政治承諾,這樣該報的未來才可受期待。


《國語日報》是筆者從念小學就曾投稿,到現在在大學任教都還曾寫稿的報紙,其與台灣教育發展的連結何其深厚,各界實在不應讓它因董事會爭議而陷入困境,請一起思考如何解套吧!



原文連結:蘋果日報陳炳宏:何不讓國語日報公共化

2017年10月10日 星期二

Public media need consolidation

Chen Ping-hung 陳炳宏
Tue, Oct 10, 2017 Taipei Times

Minister of Culture Cheng Li-chiun (鄭麗君) has said that she intends to update the Public Television Act (公共電視法) to make it a “Public Media Act” with a wider scope.
Putting aside whether her vision is achievable, it is worth waiting to see whether she is able to formulate a blueprint that provides a solution to the argument over which is better — small and beautiful or big and powerful — that for so long has dominated the public broadcasting debate.

Every year since its establishment in 1998, the Public Television Service’s (PTS) annual budget has remained frozen at a meager NT$900 million (US$29.63 million).
It might seem prudent to limit expenditure based on the ideal of maintaining a lean and efficient service, but, as the saying goes, even the cleverest chef cannot cook without rice.

Put another way, “small is beautiful” can in reality mean weak and not very beautiful at all.

Compared with the UK’s BBC and Japan’s NHK, which both receive more than NT$200 billion annually, PTS’ NT$900 million pales into insignificance.

What about South Korea, which has a population twice the size of Taiwan? Its public broadcaster, KBS, has an annual budget of more than NT$40 billion — 48 times more than PTS’ budget.

This means that KBS was able to spend NT$50 million per episode on its historical fantasy TV drama The Legend, while PTS could only spend NT$6 million per episode for its period drama A Touch of Green (一把青) and had to drum up private sponsorships.

Most nations place a strong emphasis on so-called soft power. If Taiwan were to pursue a policy of expanding its public broadcasting output, it would not only enrich the domestic cultural scene, but also help promote Taiwan to the world.

The achieve this, the nation could first, increase the production budgets for television programs; second, enhance its media platforms to achieve operational synergies; and third, elevate the public service and cultural duties of public broadcasters.

The reason that size equals strength for a public media organization is simple: The global media industry is in a war of attrition. This is especially true for televisual media, for which a shortage of manpower or capital can be fatal.

The government should put its full weight behind the development of public media and increase budgets to improve their strength and enable them to do more.

This is also an age of group warfare. The nation’s private media companies all provide a full range of platforms, but public broadcasters, although they like to refer to themselves as broadcasting corporations, consist of only three channels: PTS, CTS and Hakka TV, and no radio stations.

The public broadcasters need to expand their scope, provide content across the full spectrum of platforms and build operational synergies to expand.
To increase the footprint of public broadcasting, it is essential that broadcasters operate on more platforms.

In line with Cheng’s statements, the Central News Agency (CNA) and Radio Taiwan International (RTI) should be merged into a corporation that includes television, radio and news.

By drawing upon the strengths of CNA, the new broadcaster would be able to provide a wider perspective to its international news coverage, rather than simply acting as a conduit for powerful global news organizations, whose coverage is often littered with bias.

Additionally, if CNA were able to expand its international coverage to include televisual media, PTS would be able to produce international reports tailored to a Taiwanese audience and no longer have to rely on reports by international news agencies.

Furthermore, if RTI were incorporated into the new broadcaster, it could share the responsibility of providing pro-Taiwan international news with the Overseas Community Affairs Council, which runs the Taiwan Macroview TV channel — something the council has long hoped to achieve.

Merging Taiwan Macroview TV with PTS to produce programs on Taiwanese culture that are broadcast worldwide provides a huge opportunity.

Additionally, why is it that educational programs and traffic reports, which are broadcast by separate state-run radio stations, cannot by provided through public broadcasting? This is a complex issue that requires lengthy consideration.
Lastly, the nation’s various ethnic-minority media should all be provided through public broadcasting.

It is probably too late to turn back the clock with Aboriginal community media, but Hakka media could still be incorporated into a new public broadcaster.
Taiwanese-language TV stations should also all sit under the umbrella of public broadcasting.

It is a constant source of amazement that such a tiny nation has such a huge number of publicly funded media organizations — does it really need so many?

The operating models of the nation’s multifarious public broadcasters are unsustainable. Imagine if they were to be amalgamated into one large and powerful broadcaster tasked with providing a wide output across a variety of platforms, perhaps including a print media division.

Each area of its operations would be tasked with its own mission statement, while the synergies created through amalgamating the fragmented public broadcast media would save considerable public funds — what is not to like?

The history of PTS’ evolution teaches that amending the Public Television Act will be fraught with difficultly, but the fact that Cheng has the political courage to propose a “Public Media Act” is heartening.

Good luck; you will need it.

Chen Ping-hung is a professor at National Taiwan Normal University’s Graduate Institute of Mass Communication.

Translated by Edward Jones

2017年9月30日 星期六

支持大而壯的公廣集團

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

文化部長鄭麗君表示,將研修公共電視法並擴大為公共媒體法。先不論鄭部長此舉是否能成功,但已為長期以來小而美或大而壯的公廣爭議,提出解答且畫出藍圖,很值得期待。

從一九九八年公視成立至今,每年只有九億的預算,雖不見得沒有雄心壯志,但限於經費也是巧婦難為無米之炊,小而美的目標變成弱而未必美。公視九億經費相對於英國BBC、日本NHK動輒超過兩千億台幣的年度預算,實在是小巫見大巫。另與人口約台灣兩倍的韓國相比,KBS每年有四百多億預算(台灣的四十八倍),難怪韓國公視有錢拍每集五千萬的《太王四神記》,但台灣公視拍每集六百萬的《一把青》,還得民間企業出資贊助,九億真的不夠用!

當前全球各國都強調文化實力及文化影響力,如果台灣能透過壯大公廣策略,一來增加影視節目製播經費,二來增加媒體平台以達經營綜效,三來強化公共與文化使命,除扎根在地文化,也能對海外推廣,這樣的壯大才有意義。

公共媒體必須大而壯的理由很簡單,這是個消耗戰的時代,特別是影視製作,人力與財力缺一不可,政府應全面支持公共媒體的發展,從經費上讓它變壯,讓它可以做更多的事。其次,這也是個群體戰的時代,台灣民間媒體集團哪個不是擁有各類媒體平台,但公廣集團雖號稱集團,卻只有公視、華視與客家等三個電視台,連個廣播電台都沒有。因此,公廣規模應該變大,增加媒體平台,強化綜效策略,以擴大影響力。

若要公廣變大,就是要給它更多的媒體平台。如鄭部長所言,也如筆者向來主張的,當下之計應把中央通訊社及中央廣播電台納入,讓公共媒體能真正成為集團,不僅有電視、有廣播,也有通訊社。如此規劃的好處在於,透過中央社能讓公共媒體的國際新聞有更廣的視野,而不只是充斥強權思維的國際通訊社的傳聲筒;其次,如果中央社在海外能提供影音新聞,那麼公視新聞就不再只能播報缺乏台灣觀點的國際新聞。另外,如果讓央廣納入公廣,正可達成當僑委會宣布裁併承擔海外文宣任務的宏觀電視時所期待的,當宏觀電視併入公視後,公共媒體應製播台灣文化的節目,向國際輸出,因此公視不趁此時併入央廣,更待何時呢?說到廣播,筆者也常講,為何談教育、報路況,不能讓公共媒體來做,而要由政府的教育與交通電台來做?但這事複雜許多,也許可從長計議。

最後,所有族群媒體都應該是公共媒體,目前原住民族媒體似乎已無法走回頭路,但客家媒體還是請回頭是岸,納入公廣集團。還有近來強推的台語電視台,都應該成為公廣的一員。筆者實在不懂,小小台灣,為何需要那麼多個公廣媒體集團?在規模與營運上都不切實際,如果能有一個大而壯的公廣集團,下轄各種任務的媒體平台或出版紙媒,各司其職,發揮綜效,但也各有使命,還能節省公帑,這樣不是很好嗎?

從公視發展歷史來看,修公視法向來都是舉步維艱,鄭部長能有此勇氣喊出推公共媒體法,筆者只能說,部長加油!



原文連結:自由時報:支持大而壯的公廣集團(陳炳宏)

2017年9月19日 星期二

Media milking typhoons for profit

Chen Ping-hung 陳炳宏

Tue, Sep 19, 2017 Taipei Times

For a while it looked like Typhoon Talim was going to hit Taiwan, leaving the public concerned about what damage it could do. In the end, it turned away. Some people were actually annoyed about this, as they were robbed of a typhoon day.

Some blamed the Central Weather Bureau for not getting its forecast right. However, one question that was not asked was why the media started reporting the trajectory of the typhoon when it was still several thousand kilometers away, getting the public all worked up for no reason.

Two or three decades ago, the bureau would not start forecasting the trajectory of a typhoon until it was 400km or 500km from the Bashi Channel to the south or the east coast.

At this point, it would remind crews on the seas or residents on the land what they could expect from the coming typhoon, giving people about two or three days to prepare.

Now the media start talking about a typhoon when it is still 4,000km or 5,000km away, typically a whole week, sometimes 10 days, before the typhoon hits, as if the whole point is to whip the public into a frenzy.

This premature, blanket coverage courtesy of the media puts pressure on the authorities to announce a typhoon day, creates concern among the public, obliges farmers to take precautions and sends people scurrying to shops to stock up on provisions.

The upshot is that the coverage puts the whole nation on edge, anticipating the worst.
None of this, of course, is the media’s intention.

What the media seek to achieve most is to orchestrate public trepidation about the coming typhoon and bring it to a crescendo, so that people will spend their time at work online checking and rechecking what the typhoon is doing, before rushing home to watch the weather forecast on TV.

The idea behind the media’s coverage of the typhoon is to maximize click rates and viewing figures, which means advertising revenue, which means more money for them.
Think about it. What other type of news can rile the public into such ecstasies of concern? Typhoon coverage is such a wonderful tool for grabbing people’s constant attention.

After the media discovered this little gem, typhoon stories became their new best friend, and also individual reporters’ most hated enemy.

Every time a typhoon looms, media bosses ask their reporters to seek the danger spots, because that is what makes a good story (read excellent click bait).

There is the television reporter, standing before the lens, microphone in hand, buffeted and drenched, swaying back and forth trying to play up the strength of the typhoon as much as possible.

The way typhoons are reported here in Taiwan has even made it onto CNN, as a light entertainment piece.

So, next time a typhoon is brewing somewhere off in the ocean, do not just sit there wondering whether you will get a day off and complain when you do not.

Perhaps you could turn your mind instead to how the media led you to the conclusion that it might, and think about how we should be approaching the information we are given and how the media should be reporting typhoons.

Chen Ping-hung is a professor at National Taiwan Normal University’s Graduate Institute of Mass Communication.

2017年9月16日 星期六

颱風一個轉彎 甩出媒體怪象

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

這幾天台灣民眾因泰利颱風過門不入再度陷入焦慮中,有人埋怨泰利為何要轉彎,害大家不能放假;有人則遷怒氣象局,責怪颱風預測不準確。可是筆者發現,從沒有人問一個問題,為何媒體要在颱風還在幾千公里遠時,便開始瘋狂報導其動態,讓全民陷入颱風來襲的期待中?

筆者記得二、三十年前,當有颱風來到巴士海峽或台灣東邊海域四、五百公里處時,氣象單位才會開始預測其走向,然後提醒海上船隻或陸上居民該如何注意其影響,這樣民眾大約會有兩三天可以準備防颱。但曾何幾時,近些年的媒體颱風報導都是早在颱風還遠在四、五千公里外,就開始說有颱風形成,然後幾小時就預測一次它的走向,每次颱風總要報上一個禮拜甚至十天,好像非得搞到全民陷入恐慌不可。其實這幾年大家都誤以為,近來颱風特別會轉彎,但實際上不是近來颱風會轉彎,而是媒體根本不用在颱風距臺灣還幾千公里,就開始報導其走向。

話說媒體撲天蓋地的報導颱風新聞會有何影響?一來會不斷升高民眾對放颱風假的期待,二來給地方行政首長要不要宣布放假的壓力,搞得地方首長都快變成氣象專家或通靈術士,三來即是讓民眾生活陷入恐慌,農民開始搶收農作蔬果,民眾搶購生活用品,搞到每個颱風訊息都成為全民心頭上的負擔。

但這些也許都不是媒體報導颱風新聞的本意,媒體最想要的其實是,透過不斷的颱風報導,引發民眾對颱風訊息產生強烈的需求,然後就會在上班時隨時上網查颱風動態,回家後趕緊看電視氣象報導;也就是說媒體提供颱風資訊的背後思維,其實就是點閱率與收視率,講白了,就是廣告效益,就是錢。

大家想想,昇平時期哪有那麼多新聞可以攪動民眾生活,而颱風資訊正是可以用來牽動民眾眼球的最佳工具,因此當媒體發現這個妙方後,颱風新聞便成為媒體的最愛,也變成記者的最恨。

每當有颱風來襲,媒體長官就會暗示加明示,要記者哪裡危險哪裡去,因為好看(就是說收視率啦),所以記者報導颱風會站在掀大浪的岸邊,或吹狂風的街上,還有電視記者曾透露,當報導淹水時,長官還會要求他們蹲低點,讓觀眾誤以為水淹得很高;另外還有某電視台記者在報導颱風時,竟然在鏡頭前面不斷的晃動,以製造強風的假象,因此被美國CNN當作是台灣媒體報導颱風新聞的趣聞來報導。但其實CNN很不上道,根本不懂這些都是台灣媒體吸引民眾關注颱風新聞的法寶(又是收視率),絕不是耍寶!

不能再講太多媒體如何藉由颱風新聞來騙點閱率或收視率的伎倆了!最後筆者想分享的是,幾千公里遠的颱風會怎麼走,真的不是氣象局說了算,請大家就放過氣象局與地方首長,也放過自己吧!不要當有颱風形成時,就在盤算會不會放假,搞得自己每天患得患失,這何苦呢?如果真有不要放過的,那要不要一起來思考民眾該如何正確面對颱風資訊?或是一起來檢討媒體該如何報導颱風新聞呢?



原文連結:聯合報:颱風一個轉彎 甩出媒體怪象(陳炳宏)

2017年9月1日 星期五

媒體有藍綠紅就是多元?

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

2012年9月1日記者節台灣各界發起的「901反媒體壟斷運動」今將屆滿五年,但五年來民眾對媒體日遭壟斷並未提升警覺,反倒有更多反對反媒體壟斷立法的迷思在傳散。難得日前NCC終於提出「媒體壟斷防制與多元維護法」草案,各界應該正視有心財團或個人提出媒體市場早已多元的說法來混淆視聽,並遂行其繼續操控媒體與言論市場之行徑,否則台灣社會終將要因漠視這議題而付出沉痛的代價。首先最常聽到的標準台詞就是,台灣現在什麼媒體都有,哪能壟斷言論?這種說法真是昧於事理,因為不是藍綠紅各類媒體都有就叫多元!民主社會追求的媒體多元,著重在內部的多元,而非僅是外部的多元;簡單說,我們期待一家媒體能提供各種言論意見,讓閱聽眾自由判斷與選擇,而不是所有媒體僅提供單面向言論,然後就說台灣有多元的媒體環境,所以不會有言論壟斷!接著又會說媒體有藍綠紅有何關係,這也是人民選擇的多元啊!但重點是,台灣正是藍綠紅媒體長期各自壟斷言論市場的受害者,有凡事只看顏色的媒體,台灣如何凝聚共識?再從實務面來看,有多少民眾會主動去接觸各種不同言論光譜的媒體?有多少人會看完《中國時報》後,再翻翻《自由時報》?聽聽中天怎麼報後,再看看三立如何講?有人像筆者,如果想從電視新聞瞭解重大時事,會從49台開始轉到58台,比較各台報導立場嗎?這種認定台灣存在不同立場的媒體,就叫多元,就不需反壟法的說法,不僅不懂何謂媒體多元,也真是昧於事實!也許反壟法無法立即解決藍綠紅媒體的問題,但至少可以讓三種顏色不至於只剩一種(多卑微的期待)吧!但筆者同意,反壟法立法目標的錯置是導致各界產生疑慮的主因。反壟法應在積極促進媒體的各式多元(包括內容、文化、消費權益等),而不只是消極管制媒體產權以防壟斷,因此「媒體壟斷防制與多元維護法」應該正名為「媒體多元維護與壟斷防制法」,以杜絕疑慮,並凸顯立法意旨。筆者如此想是因為過去防壟思維都聚焦在市場管制,對任何併購案都審視有無壟斷疑慮,但筆者更期待反壟法不僅在意市場端的多元,更應將消費端的多元當成立法重點,以免落入集中就是不好的迷思。所謂消費端的多元是指,當台灣民眾需要電視服務時,作為媒體消費者的他能同時有無線、有線、直播、MOD(IPTV),甚至OTT等五種以上的電視服務可任他自由選擇,那麼屆時全台灣即便只有一家有線電視系統業者,一家直播電視業者,一家IPTV業者,政府也許都不必太在意,因為只要消費者有五種電視服務的選擇,市場多元的議題焦點即在於管制媒體市場公平競爭的問題,而不在於某類電視服務是否只有一家業者在經營,不是嗎?其餘跨媒體市場多元管制亦同。筆者同意前述只是理念型例證,還有待各界集思廣益,但筆者想分享的是反壟法應該具備「多元維護重於壟斷防制,消費多元重於市場多元」的理念,以落實管制的核心意旨。此外滿多人認為,網路普及已是事實,且網路可自由傳散與取得資訊,哪需要反壟法?另也有人認為,網路已是大眾媒體,反壟法不規範網路,立此法何用?這兩種說法都未免過於簡化網路的問題。一來網路該不該管、該如何管都有待建立共識,但也不應說,一定要把網路納進來才可制訂反壟法吧!該法或許可增列網路平台業者扮演媒體角色的原則性規範,但還是應該制訂反壟法(前已有頗多論述),因為凡事有輕重緩急,且一碼歸一碼啊!最後筆者衷心期待各界在討論反壟法時,千萬不要以台灣媒體現況迷思作為反對的理由,因為如果大家繼續被這種媒體多元的假象所蒙蔽或作為反對該法的藉口,那台灣保證繼續沉淪!


原文連結:蘋果日報:陳炳宏:媒體有藍綠紅就是多元?

2017年8月14日 星期一

公務員是刀俎還是魚肉?

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

日前某報頭版刊登一張台東縣長黃健庭「秀濕背」的照片,凸顯行政院政策要求公務機關中午停電兩小時的荒謬。年改爭議當下,當前公務人員的角色真是尷尬,政府要年改先砍公務員,政府要節電,公務人員就身先士卒先受罪,雖不致受全民讚許,但也鮮少有人為公務員叫屈,所以即便是縣長也只能配合演出濕背秀,聽說還有公務員熱到昏倒。政府推動年改,導致國人誤以為過去公務員都吃香喝辣,因此贊成猛砍公務員權益來彌補過錯。同時媒體過度報導李來希等團體反年改的結果,更讓國人認定公務員都是既得利益者,只會爭權利。殊不知,除這些常曝光的個人外,還有更多的公務員依然選擇認分地工作,但媒體卻未同等對待與報導,甚至視為理所當然,如此一來一往,自認為公務員爭權益的個人或團體,成為傷害公務員形象的最大來源,而媒體的「不平衡」報導也成幫兇。游梅子,台東縣政府資深公務員,也許再過幾年即可申請退休,但單位最近人力緊張,有時下班後會到市區咖啡店坐坐以緩和工作壓力。坐在咖啡店裡,游梅子其實只是位來放鬆的顧客,但她卻努力向來店的遊客介紹這家咖啡店多有特色,此時游梅子彷彿就是店老闆,正賣力在推銷店的產品。在此同時,游梅子也在遊說店老闆加入全國首創的台東縣政府「TTPush」加值服務,民眾只要手機下載TTPush的APP,除可收到縣府相關訊息,及個人申辦各項業務的即時進度報告外,還可透過參與遊戲或活動賺取「台東金幣」,用來折抵停車時數、購物折價或進行公益捐款等。游梅子一方面向顧客介紹這店家的特色,一方面力勸老闆加入TTPush。他強調只要店家加入,顧客進店消費可用金幣折價,只要金幣夠多,甚至全部免費,另外對店家來說,加入TTPush不僅有免費宣傳,所收到的金幣還可定期換取現金,不僅不影響營收,更可能增加收入。原本這只是一段公務員下班後的休閒時間,但游梅子不僅把握機會向台東遊客積極推銷台東特色店家,也不放過機會向台東店家推銷縣府的新服務,力邀店家加入,且當場致電APP設計廠商趕緊與店家聯繫,一副不加入就吃虧的模樣,讓店家不得不接受他的好意,答應與廠商談談。此時游梅子的角色,是向遊客推廣台東特色的在地人,也是向縣民推銷縣政的公務員,多完美的角色扮演。這店家最後有沒有加入TTPush,筆者不得而知,但游梅子的舉動卻讓筆者深受感動。台灣社會有像李來希等公務員,也有像游梅子這樣的公務員,他們同樣關心自己的權益,也關心退休金,但在行動上卻選擇以不同的方式去面對自己的角色。因此當媒體聚焦報導李來希們的同時,是否也應給像游梅子這樣努力扮演好自己角色的公務員一個平衡報導的機會呢?好讓國人多了解其實台灣還有很多的游梅子們!


原文連結:蘋果日報:陳炳宏:公務員是刀俎還是魚肉?