2018年4月12日 星期四

笨蛋!黨政軍條款不是問題癥結

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

近幾年《廣電法》刪除黨政軍條款的修法已不知幾進幾出立法院,雖藍綠早有共識,藍綠政權亦已再次輪替,但還是無法通過,問題癥結不在如何投資,也不在投資比例,而在於此項修法不僅違反民主理念,更凸顯主政者私心,因此刪不得啊!

暫且不論無線電波全民共有的原理,黨政軍不應介入媒體經營是民主政治基本理念,真有人不能了解「被監督者不能擁有監督者」的簡單道理嗎?若理應被監督的政府可以擁有監督它的媒體,這還算是民主國家嗎?

2003年修《廣電法》時,不知是綠太權謀,還是藍太笨?當時只增加第5-1條限制黨政軍條款,但第5條政府設立媒體的條文1個字都沒刪!第5-1條規定「政府、政黨、其捐助成立之財團法人及其受託人不得直接、間接投資民營廣播、電視事業」;但第5條明定「政府為特定目的,以政府名義所設立者,為公營廣播、電視事業」,亦即增列第5-1條限制黨政軍投資民營媒體,與第5條政府可設立公營媒體毫不相干。

但這兩項條款並列存在著基本邏輯互相矛盾的誤繆!修法後,政府只是不能投資民營媒體,但只要有特定目的,還是可設立公營媒體,剛在去年6月開播的講客廣播電台正是客委會依此條申設。也就是說,目前即便刪除第5-1條,政府還是可依第5條擁有媒體,因此只要不刪第5條,修黨政軍條款都只是假議題,只是藍綠一起演場戲罷了!因此若只刪除第5-1條,卻保留第5條讓政府可以100%擁有廣電媒體,這修法有意義嗎?這是大家所追求的黨政軍退出媒體嗎?

速刪廣電法第5條
這幾年黨政軍條款喊修,越發讓筆者覺得台灣是個理盲的社會,立法院更是。各黨派私心縱容第5條繼續存在,總盤算著等搶到執政權,就可繼續控制廣電媒體,加上產業界推波助瀾,根本無人正視黨政軍條款的問題癥結,不管哪黨主政,都只想修第5-1條討好財團,但不動第5條私心自肥,合理嗎?建議應刪除第5條,否則黨政軍條款通過15年,客委會還是可設立講客廣播電台,客家電視台也前途未卜。因此急需刪的是第5條,不是第5-1條!否則保留此條文,現在政府可以成立講客廣播電台,接著就可以「為特定目的」成立婦女電視台、老人電視台等,這像話嗎?

在刪除第5條後,央廣、警廣等7個政府廣播電台,可設計落日條款或採其他模式調整屬性,這需集思廣益,也非做不可。筆者常開玩笑說,教育電台同仁很可憐,2016年5月政權輪替當天一起床,對108課綱的立場馬上要從贊成變反對,因為老闆(執政黨及教育部長)都換人了。

最後,《廣電法》應保留實踐民主理念的第5-1條,只要修訂相關子法及辦法規範持股模式及投資比例,不實質控制或介入經營即可,同樣可達到修法的意旨。當年《廣電法》規定外資不得投資無線廣電媒體即是如此解套的,現在為何不能這樣做?過去主張黨政軍退出廣電媒體者,也從未說過連一股都不行,因為重點應該在於不得實質控制、不得介入經營,以及明白揭露投資啊!

原文連結:蘋果日報:笨蛋!黨政軍條款不是問題癥結

2018年2月1日 星期四

救華視,救得了台灣電視?

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授

近日公廣集團董事施振榮提議讓華視民營化,以解決華視的經營困境!施董事的主張,也許只是思考如何讓華視擺脫經營困境,但其實更高層次的問題是,華視困境真的只是民營或公營嗎?解決華視困境的目的何在?如果公廣董事只是想救華視,那麼作為關心公廣發展的筆者不禁想問,華視民營化救得了華視嗎?即便救得了華視,會不會害了公廣?還有,救了華視就能救台灣的電視嗎?

更具體追問,台灣還有缺民營電視台嗎?讓華視民營化就能在競爭激烈的商業電視市場存活嗎?未來會不會讓公廣集團更有志難伸呢?其實賣掉華視很容易,但其間利弊得失,不能只想著如何解決華視的問題,卻不去思考公共電視媒體的整體發展策略!主其事者不把台灣公共電視,甚至影視產業的發展放在心上,只想著要解決華視的問題,那就真的小鼻子小眼睛了!更何況民營化真是華視的救命良方嗎?會不會只是把華視往惡質商業電視市場的火坑推,讓它自生自滅?還敢奢望華視賺錢給公視啊?

根據國家通訊傳播委員會(NCC)統計資料顯示,目前台灣電視台已超過300台,其中只有公視、華視、原視等屬於公共電視媒體,其餘都是民營台,兩者數量差異何其大?因此現在台灣商業電視台還不夠多嗎?多一台民營化的華視,對觀眾及市場有影響嗎?其次華視民營化是否能存活尚在未知之天,如果民營化還要先繳回無線電波的話,那主張華視民營化會不會像當年建議華視公共化要自負盈虧一樣,真變成終結華視的終極殺手?

如果政府能編列預算,買回民股加附負擔,使華視真正公共化,讓公視與華視各自發展,打造有兒少台、國際台,新聞台、甚至電影台或紀錄片台的公共電視平台,這有何不好?目前電視經營都得要多平台才有競爭力,為何要讓華視民營化,而削弱公廣的競爭力呢? 

再說,台灣公共電視發育不良,恐怕不是公共媒體制度有問題。試想,英國BBC、日本NHK每年有1800-2000億元台幣的經費,即便鄰近的韓國都有450億元台幣,但台灣公視每年只有9億元,真是巧婦難為無米之炊,如何能小而美?這是公視經費設計的問題。其次,公視成立以來,政黨的手從未離開過公視,各執政黨從不願放過公視。雖然近日有華視總經理遭撤換的爭議,但不要忘了,國民黨主政時公視也有撤換董事長的紛擾,各政黨的黑手沾惹公視,這能歸責公視嗎?

武斷認為公共電視不適合台灣,或堅持公視應小而美的主張,已證明都是錯誤的思維!公視歷來都是小而不美,但大家只會指責公視,從不願面對公視不能美的原因?各界應正視公視設計的問題,而不該一味指責公視的不是,或者認定公共媒體制度有問題,而不去思考整體影視產業發展的大戰略!

妄想公視能小而美,華視能自負盈虧,都已被證明是烏托邦,建議各界應該思考,如何讓華視與公視各自努力,打造大而壯的公共廣電平台,讓台灣擁有不問藍綠,只問黑白的公廣集團,為台灣影視產業扮演帶頭衝的火車頭,拼拼看台灣能否超越韓流,或再造亞洲新台流?


2018年1月22日 星期一

華視困境與民股何干

陳炳宏/台灣師範大學大眾傳播研究所教授,曾任華視監察人

華視董事會撤換總經理餘波盪漾,搞到各界迄今議論紛紛,近日主管機關文化部終於出面發表聲明,首先表明基於公司治理及媒體自主原則,華視人事聘任尊重董事會決議;其次指出將重新思考公共媒體角色,修正《公共電視法》為公共媒體法;最後提及華視定位問題,強調因華視留有若干民股,造成長期以來公私定位不明的治理困境,未來將朝民股買回方式規劃,以期重新定位華視。

文化部聲明說,華視總經理解任紛爭,只能尊重無法介入似可理解,另修訂公共媒體法亦是個正確方向,唯獨認為華視問題來自留民股導致的治理困境,就顯得實在不了解華視作為公廣成員的真正困境所在!華視長期困境來自於,主政的藍綠兩黨都無視華視作為公共媒體的經費需求!

2003年黨政軍退出廣電媒體的設計理想,原是要用賣掉台視的錢,去買回華視的民股,結果兩黨早已再次輪替執政迄今,不僅民股還是沒買回,更重要的是兩黨依然無視於華視作為公廣成員的基本需求。根據筆者了解,當年推動華視加入公廣,有人希望華視經營能仿效韓國MBC公共電視台,以廣告收入來自負盈虧。但這樣的思維其實是無視於台韓兩國電視市場有著極大差異,硬要華視學MBC實在強人所難,結果正是這種完全不懂電視市場運作的建議害死了華視。

原因在於,韓國無線電視與有線電視市場的收視率比大約7:3(或說6:4),亦即多數韓國民眾是觀賞無線電視的,即無線電視廣告收入遠多於衛星電視。但反觀台灣,無線電視頂多只有兩成的收視比率,那如何叫華視去學習MBC自負盈虧呢?也就是說,MBC因收視率而獲得大量的廣告分配,但華視卻沒有這樣幸運,這未必是華視本身營運的問題,應該是受累於台灣電視市場競爭的現實,結果現在大家都怪華視營運有問題,連民股都被拖下水,但民股未買回怎會是華視困境的來源呢?

當然民股該買回天經地義,因為這是民進黨政府在第一次執政時的承諾,結果輪到國民黨也沒好到哪裡去,繼續不執行!現在民進黨再次執政,是該為過去的錯誤向國人及華視道歉,然後趕緊補破網!

建議文化部作為公廣主管機關,應立即調整其影視預算,增加華視製播優質影視節目之經費補助,強化其在收視及內容市場的競爭力,因為華視不僅須肩負公廣責任,又須在商業電視市場奮戰,理論上比公視更需要製播經費當後援;其次應盡速設法編列附負擔經費給華視,以免華視光有公廣職分而無能盡責之金援;另外修訂公共媒體法亦為當務之急。

最後說到華視治理困境,這次紛爭各界好像都沒關注到一件事,亦即不管公視或華視,理應是兩台總經理最佳得力助手的副總經理,目前有哪一位副總經理是真正由兩位總經理所挑選而任命的?如果總經理的左右手都是由董事會或董事長來任命及掌控,那總經理不當得窩囊才怪?但如果出包就怪總經理辦事不力,這叫總經理情何以堪?因此建議文化部即便說尊重董事會,但作為主管機關,是否該檢視兩台董事會是否把手伸進經營團隊,讓總經理有志難伸?


原文連結蘋果日報陳炳宏:華視困境與民股何干

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.