49 MARTINDALE CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE dia outlets was established, paving the way for future circulation of pro-unification propaganda and a means for censorship. Censorship—journalists and media outlets Media privatization creates fertile ground for censorship, particularly for journalists working for outlets with pro-CCP ownership. Some journalists may be in favor of pro-unification and the CCP agenda and rhetoric, but the way that much of this information is distributed has been traced to illegal and propaganda-related methods. The role of journalists as impartial actors in Taiwan’s independent media then comes into question. Not all journalists may face censorship, but those who work with media outlets whose content involves politics or who have ties to the mainland can be susceptible. A prominent reason journalists may be subjected to censorship is money paid by Chinese entities to media outlets in exchange for editorial control, essentially telling them what to say. Scholars have pointed to policies like the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) between China and Taiwan that enable censorship connected to financial incentives. By providing opportunities for Taiwanese investors and entrepreneurs to make business deals with China, the ECFA created a structure for China’s reunification agenda, ultimately resulting in media censorship—as exemplified in Tsai’s case. According to Huang (2017), the ECFA “required both sides to open up their service industries such as tourism, printing, print advertising services, computer and Internet service, finance, and retail services” (p. 35). This opening of services not only bolstered pro-unification messaging but also compromised pro-independence media outlets seeking market expansion in China. As media businesses sought to deepen ties with China, they entertained censorship requests; critiques of the Chinese government fell. Diminished criticism and acceptance of censorship undermine media pluralism and threaten media independence. An example of media self-censorship for economic gain along these lines is SET, a pro-Taiwan television channel that hosted a show called Big Talk News, known for criticizing Beijing’s government. Seeking to establish markets for their dramas in China, SET put a halt to the talk show (Huang, 2017). SET later brought it back in the wake of unexpected financial losses that came with the show ending. The significance of the action by the channel lies in how censorship, in the quest for opening Chinese markets, temporarily took away an important source of information for Taiwanese citizens that was not influenced by China’s agenda (Huang, 2023). A vibrant element of Taiwan’s pluralistic media, SET nonetheless appeared willing to cede its position as an outlet that contributed to the media diversity necessary to enhance democracy. SET is just one example of a media company succumbing to censorship, with journalists reporting multiple similar scenarios of corporate financial interests driving content suppression. Related pressures also provoke self-censorship among journalists. The combination of pro-unification media ownership, like Tsai’s acquisition of China Times Media Group, and economic policies like ECFA has fostered an environment where censorship and self-censorship thrive. Journalists whose goal is to inform the public through factual reporting are now at risk of not being able to do so because of the business interests of media companies with close ties to China. For journalists assigned to political beats at these outlets, the daily reality of censorship directly impedes their ability to support democratic processes. Propaganda and illegal content Beyond censorship in Taiwan’s media, pro-unification outlets have engaged in illegal practices by accepting paid advertorials from the Chinese government—often containing propaganda—and publishing illegal embedded advertisements. Propaganda is defined as “deliberately biased or misleading information to promote a political cause or point of view” (Office of American Spaces, n.d). Advertorials are ads that take on the look of editorial articles but are actually just another form of advertisement. Embedded advertisements are subtle promotions of ads. Both forms of ads share a common element: illegal actions by China and its affiliated Taiwanese media outlets interfering with Taiwan’s democratic institutions. Examples of the illegal actions can be found in The China Times and United Daily News, which accept embedded ads sponsored and/or affiliated with China governmental promoters of tourism and investment in China (Huang, 2023). With the promotional content of the ads, it may seem that the topics are not an issue; but the fact that the ads were illegal because they come from Chinese entities signals their propaganda efforts. For advertorials, the content is not clearly marked as coming from the Chinese state, but illegal publishing is exposed thanks to whistleblowing by anonymous journalists who have worked for these outlets (Datt & Huang, 2022). The question remains: What can be done about China infringing on Taiwan’s press freedom and its goals of censorship and promoting CCP political pro-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTA0OTQ5OA==