GIO Closes Shop: Media Holds All Night Vigil

GIO Closes Shop: Media Holds All Night Vigil
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
May 15, 2012

Summary: The government has undergone a wave of reorganization. The Government Information Office (GIO) will officially close its doors on May 20. Today it invited past GIO directors to a "thank you and farewell party." The "farewell" part is true enough. But as far as the "thank you" part is concerned, where does one begin? Sixty-five years have passed. The GIO has always drawn more brickbats than bouquets. Expressing thanks at a farewell party is just a wee bit hypocritical.

Full Text below:

The government has undergone a wave of reorganization. The Government Information Office (GIO) will officially close its doors on May 20. Today it invited past GIO directors to a "thank you and farewell party." The "farewell" part is true enough. But as far as the "thank you" part is concerned, where does one begin? Sixty-five years have passed. The GIO has always drawn more brickbats than bouquets. Expressing thanks at a farewell party is just a wee bit hypocritical.
Under Chen Shui-bian calls were made for the GIO's abolition. But it is officially closing its doors under Ma Ying-jeou. This decade-long process illustrates the peculiar fate of the GIO. It also tracks the evolution of democracy on Taiwan.

Under martial law the GIO was the iron fist that throttled the free press and free speech. Under democracy martial law was lifted. The iron fist should have been eliminated. The rule of law should have been restored. Such was the megatrend. Yet when Chen Shui-bian came to power he failed to make use of his authority. He failed to reform the GIO. Instead, he made one controversial appointment after another to the post of GIO Chief. These appointees launched inappropriate, extremist attacks on the regime's political enemies. They persecuted private citizens and the media. These practices deepened antagonisms toward the GIO.

When President Ma took office he called for the GIO's dissolution. He called for its functions to be transferred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Culture, among others. He established a position in the Executive Yuan for a single government spokesman. Now, on the day of his second Inauguration, he is completing this reorganization. He intends to ensure that the GIO, which was more powerful than its name suggested, will lower its flag with dignity, He intends to restore the media's right to oversee cultural and publishing realms. Today former GIO Chiefs will meet. They should be glad that the GIO is making a graceful exit. Democratization has taken a step forward. There is not much worth celebrating, It would be inappropriate to make too much of the occasion.

This does not mean we should ignore what the GIO did for 60 years. The GIO was established in 1942, in a troubled time. It took on the important job of explaining national policy, at home and abroad. It sponsored and subsidized films and cultural activities. Many people invested their creativity and effort. On the other hand, the GIO censored the media, speech, and publishing, It adopted a high profile during authoritarian rule. It clung to its bureaucratic nature after the lifting of martial law, For these it was strongly criticized. During democratization and diversification, the GIO served as the government's mouthpiece, even as it oversaw the media and the publishing industry. These roles were clearly contradictory. The GIO's dissolution was inevitable.

The dissolution of the GIO was necessitated not merely by democratization, but also by political clashes that occurred during democratization. The destruction of a free press was not merely the result of the GIO. It was the result of many political forces, all of which were guilty of the same mentality as the GIO. For example, even after martial law was lifted, President Lee Teng-hui abused his power. He spearheaded a take no prisoners "newspaper boycott" during his term of office. This was something the GIO never had the temerity to undertake. The Democratic Progressive Party denounced the White Terror. But when the Chen regime came to power, it repeatedly abused its power conducting searches of newspapers and reporters' private residences. It imposed a Green Terror. It censored TV stations that provided open forums for political debate. It desisted only when Washington intervened. James Soong interfered with the media when he was GIO Chief, Later, when he was a presidential candidate, he asked the GIO to order the television media to provide equal coverage for all candidates. For example, the Green Camp frequently denounced the media as "pro-reunification." It behaved even worse when it was in power than the Taiwan Garrison Command. The public needs to understand these peculiar political developments. They are sadder than any sadness old hands feel at the GIO's closing.

The real concern as the GIO turns off its lights and closes its doors, is the slump the media seems to have fallen into. The quality of tv shows and news shows is abysmal. News is dominated by paparazzi reports, The National Communications Commission has taken over from the GIO. But it clearly cannot control the broadcasting industry. The inadequately funded Ministry of Culture will soon be charged with overseeing the publishing industry and movie industry. These are all worrying developments.

The decline in media quality has nothing to do with the abolition of the GIO. It has to do with cutthroat competition and the rise of the Internet. More importantly, democratization has destroyed many of the values and beliefs once held sacred on Taiwan, In the meantime, society has yet to reach a new consensus. This is why we face mass confusion. The GIO is about to close its doors. This is something the media and the public should ponder. Democracy is not established overnight. It must be constructed one brick at a time. Martial law was lifted 20 years ago. Yet the dialogue between the ruling and opposition parties remains shallow. The same holds true for public opinion. This is democracy backsliding.

The GIO is turning off its lights, The media is holding an all night vigil. The work of guarding democracy on Taiwan now falls upon the shoulders of the best and brightest within the Fifth Estate.

新聞局熄燈 媒體續守無眠夜
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.05.15 03:11 am

過去這波政府組織改造，行政院新聞局將於五二○正式熄燈關門，今天將邀歷任局長舉行「感恩道別」惜別會。「道別」是真的，但「感恩」則不知從何說起；走過六十五個年頭，新聞局的角色向來爭議多過讚譽，在此臨別之際說感恩未免矯情。

在陳水扁手中喊撤，在馬英九手中正式關上大門，這漫長十年的裁撤過程，描述了新聞局奇特的命運軌跡，也標誌了台灣民主政治的演化。

在戒嚴年代扮演媒體及言論箝制怪手的新聞局，到了民主解嚴年代自應放下鐵腕，回歸正常法制及行政管理角色，這是時勢所趨。陳水扁執政時，無法以元首之尊透過體制推動新聞局的實質改革，卻不斷任用爭議人物出任新聞局長，以偏激、失當的言論攻擊對手，騷擾社會視聽。這些作法，在在加深了外界對新聞局的惡感。

馬總統上任後，順勢而為推動新聞局的解構，將相關功能移交外交部、文化部等，僅在行政院設置政府發言人一職。如今，在他第二任就職日完成這項組織改造，至少確保「實大於名」的新聞局有尊嚴地落日降旗，也使台灣文化、出版的行政管理各歸其所。今天歷任新聞局長聚首一堂話當年時，應慶幸新聞局得以優雅謝幕，政治民主化更往前邁出一步；至於沒太多光榮可以回味的過去，恐怕就不宜作太多緬懷或炫耀了。

這樣說，並不表示新聞局一甲子的功能可以一筆抹煞。民國三十六年，在風雨飄搖中成立的新聞局，肩負著向海內外闡明國家政策的重任，包括對外宣傳與國際交流，對電影、文化事業的扶持與補助，其間，許多人投注了智慧與汗水。但從另一面看，新聞局對媒體言論及出版的管制，從威權年代的高姿態施壓，到解嚴後的不改官僚習氣，都使其深受訾議。更關鍵的是，隨著國家民主化、多元化的發展，新聞局作為政府發言麥克風、卻又兼管諸多媒體及出版事業的職能顯得蕪雜及矛盾，它的裁併和解體也就無可避免。

進一步看，新聞局的裁併不只是台灣民主化的一個結果，它也沉澱了民主化過程中複雜的政治碰撞及重組的經驗。對台灣新聞自由的摧殘，與其說是來自「新聞局這個機構」，不如說是來自各種政治勢力間皆有的「新聞局的心態」。例如，解嚴後，李登輝在任內以總統之尊發動鋪天蓋地的「退報運動」，這其實是過去新聞局也不敢為；又如，民進黨聲討白色恐怖，但扁政府也曾數度濫權搜索報社及記者住所，遂行綠色恐怖，更欲查封主持開放論壇的電視台，經美國阻止始罷手。再如，在新聞局長任內曾對媒體橫加干預的宋楚瑜，後來參選總統時，曾要求新聞局下令電視媒體給予他和不同候選人的公平報導。再如，綠營人士動輒亂貼「統派媒體」的標籤，其行徑實較過去的警總更為惡劣。觀察這些浪潮的升降和反覆，社會大眾必然更了解政治的詭譎變化，其況味應遠超乎新聞局老員工嘆關門的離愁了。

真正值得關切的是，就在新聞局燈火將盡之際，台灣媒體的生態和品質似乎也陷入了一個低谷。除了電視節目及新聞品質貧乏、狗仔文化當道，接管了新聞局廣電業務的國家通訊傳播委員會則顯然掌控不了這艘大船，即將接管出版、電影業務的文化部則陷於預算不足的窘境，這些都讓人憂心。

客觀而論，媒體品質的下滑，與新聞局的裁撤其實無關，而與過度競爭與網路興起的衝擊有關。但更關鍵的因素，則是台灣在民主化過程中摧毀了許多原有的價值和信仰，卻遲遲無法凝聚出新的共識，才會出現這種不知何去何從的集體迷惘現象。在新聞局即將打烊之際，這確實值得新聞媒體及社會大眾共同深思：民主不是一蹴可幾，而需要日復一日的錘鍊；台灣在解嚴廿多年之後，朝野對話及社會輿論卻日形淺薄，這其實是民主的反潮。

新聞局要熄燈了，但媒體的不眠之夜仍正漫長，台灣民主政治的守護工作仍有賴各路新聞工作者接力以赴。