Facilitating Communications Industry Development: The Real Purpose

Facilitating Communications Industry Development: The Real Purpose
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 19, 2013

Summary: We welcome the five media industry organizations' critique of the absurd "Media Monopoly Prevention and Diversity Guarantee Act" Finally, they have broken their collective silence. Finally, industry leaders are standing on the front lines. They know the media on Taiwan has been reduced to non-competitive small and medium enterprises by over-regulation and populist law-making. They feel the danger in their hearts. They can no longer remain silent. The Ma administration has lost its compass. The legislature has been hijacked by populism. Are these media industry organizations' voices loud enough to be heard? We will have to wait and see.

Full Text below:

The "Media Monopoly Prevention and Diversity Guarantee Act" is a textbook case of "populist law-making." In April of this year, the National Communications Commission (NCC) sought approval of this law in the Legislative Yuan. The Legislative Yuan Transportation Committee and DPP version, differed from the KMT version. Preliminary review of the proposed legislation was rushed through ahead of the recess. Last week, during an emergency session called at the DPP's insistence, it was classified as priority legislation.

The proposed legislation is narrowly focused and highly controversial. The executive and legislative branches remind one of street racers playing a game of "chicken." Scholars in the relevant fields were not consulted while the legislation was being drafted. The views of media professionals in particular, were ignored. The Legislative Yuan sought only to expedite its passage. It merged different versions of the proposed legislation into a grotesque hodgepodge. Yesterday, five major media industry associations, including the China Press Institute, Taiwan Media Watch, the Republic of China Media Self Regulation Association, the Republic of China Broadcasting Association, and the Taipei Newspaper Association issued an unprecedented joint statement. They denounced certain provisions within the "Media Monopoly Prevention and Diversity Guarantee Act." They said these provisions were outside the NCC's legal authority. They consider them a serious violation of freedom of the press. These provisions also violate the basic spirit of Article 11 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech.

Let us summarize their joint declaration, which makes two points. The first point pertains to the print media, to newspapers and magazines. These are not under the jurisdiction of the NCC. Yet the draft legislation included the print media, even though it is not subject to NCC regulation. It treated them as if they were the broadcast media. It demanded that they provide information about their operations to the NCC on an annual basis. It demanded that national dailies establish newsroom conventions. It demanded that print media with a certain level of capitalization appoint outside boards of directors. It demanded that the print media "not engage in unfair competition." Otherwise the NCC would intervene and impose fines. The above demands exceed the NCC's legal authority, and may have had a chilling effect on media freedom. The second point pertains to numerous media regulations. Their definitions are vague. The media cannot understand them. They cannot tell if they are in violation of them. This has a chilling effect on media freedom. The NCC may use these to suppress freedom of the press. Therefore the media is concerned. 

Allow us to sum up the concerns of these five major media industry organizations. In fact, their concerns are merely a small part of a highly controversial media anti-trust law. Think back to the initial deliberations over the proposed legislation. Consider the latest developments in Internet media. One can use to Internet to access all variety of media. One can even publish information on one's own websites. Yet Executive Yuan Political Affairs Committee Member Chang Shan-cheng publicly attacked an alleged "media monopoly" in today's multimedia era. This is clearly a phony issue. Is the "Media Monopoly Prevention and Diversity Ensurance Act" really necessary? Shouldn't the authorities consult experts, instead of dancing to the tune of mob sentiment?

The NCC is the responsible national authority. Those in the know include PFP Legislator Lee Tung-hao and other media scholars. They feel that the primary purpose of the NCC was established at the outset, in the "Basic Communications Law." The NCC's raison d'etre was to "take into account technological convergence, in order to promote the sound development of the communications industry." But ever since the NCC's inception, it has done nothing of the sort. First it launched a "no nit too small to pick" campaign of harassment against the broadcast media. Then it hopped on the media anti-trust bandwagon, all in the name of "safeguarding media diversity and professional autonomy." In reality, its interventions were motivated by the desire to expand its powers, and to clamp down on the print media. On the other hand, confronted with today's Internet technology, accelerated information convergence, and the need for international competitiveness and a voice in the communications industry, the NCC has accomplished nothing. The Control Yuan has failed to correct NCC negligence and omissions. Shouldn't the NCC improve its media management and control, as well as promote industry development?

Take a closer look at how the NCC has approached its two statutory mandates. The NCC has done too much in one area, but nothing in the other. The crux of the problem is common to all executive branch agencies. They have some idea about how to oversee an industry. But they have no idea whatsoever how to encourage an industry or to promote industrial development. The information industry on Taiwan had plentiful high-tech industry support. It should have been able to flex its muscles in the Internet era. Instead, information convergence left it in the dust. It has lagged far behind South Korea. It has even lagged behind the Chinese mainland. Its competitiveness ranking has declined. This is what the Ma government should be worrying about. How can the NCC allow itself to be distracted by other matters, and not think about how to catch up?

In sum, we welcome the five media industry organizations' critique of the absurd "Media Monopoly Prevention and Diversity Guarantee Act" Finally, they have broken their collective silence. Finally, industry leaders are standing on the front lines. They know the media on Taiwan has been reduced to non-competitive small and medium enterprises by over-regulation and populist law-making. They feel the danger in their hearts. They can no longer remain silent. The Ma administration has lost its compass. The legislature has been hijacked by populism. Are these media industry organizations' voices loud enough to be heard? We will have to wait and see.

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2013.06.19
社論－促進通訊傳播產業發展 才是硬道理
本報訊

    　堪稱是「民粹式立法」典範的《媒體壟斷防制與多元維護法》，國家通訊傳播委員會（ＮＣＣ）於今年四月間送請立法院審議後，立法院交通委員會併同民進黨版及國民黨版等不同版本，趕在臨休會前匆匆完成委員會初審，並在上周的立院臨時會中，經由民進黨團的堅持，列為臨時會的優先審議法案。

    　有鑒於此一極具針對性與高度爭議性的重要法案，行政和立法部門竟以近乎飆車的速度，草案研議過程既未博採周諮相關學者，特別是媒體實務界的意見看法，立法院審議階段更是一味求快，把不同版本拼裝成一個四不像的大雜燴。包括中國新聞學會、中華民國新聞媒體自律協會、中華民國廣播事業協會、中華民國廣播同業公會，和台北市報業商業同業公會等五大事業媒體社團，破天荒於昨天發表共同聲明，指陳《媒體壟斷防制與多元維護法》的部分條文內容，逾越ＮＣＣ法定職掌範圍，恐有嚴重侵犯新聞自由之嫌，也違反了憲法第十一條保障言論及出版自由的基本精神。

    　歸納此一「共同聲明」的訴求，重點其實有二。其一是質疑包括報紙和雜誌在內的紙面媒體，原非ＮＣＣ的管轄範圍，但在立法草案中卻把即使沒有參與跨媒體整合的紙媒，也比照廣電媒體，要求每年必須將營運的基本資料送給ＮＣＣ備查，要求全國性日報應訂定新聞編輯室公約，要求紙媒資本額達一定金額應設外部董事，要求紙媒不得有不公平競爭行為，否則ＮＣＣ即可干預並處以罰鍰。凡此ＮＣＣ實已構成違法擴權，並有箝制新聞之嫌。其二是草案不少對媒體規範的條文，定義十分模糊，令媒體無所適從，甚至因怕動輒得咎而將產生寒蟬效應，同時還可能引發ＮＣＣ欲藉此箝制新聞自由之疑慮。

    　綜觀五大新聞專業團體所關注的議題，其實只是具高度爭議性的反媒體壟斷法的一個小環節。事實上回顧此一法案在研議立法之初，針對在今天網路新興媒體發展，透過網路每個人都可以方便地「臨近」各式各樣媒體，甚至還可以透過個人網站主動發布訊息，行政院政務委員張善政即曾公開指出，所謂的「媒體壟斷」處於今天的「全媒體」時代，根本是一個假議題。準此，則所謂反媒體壟斷是否有必要立法，主管機關自應博採周諮，而非隨著民粹起舞。

    　尤有進者，包括親民黨立委李桐豪，以及不少傳媒學者，認為ＮＣＣ做為國家通訊傳播的主管機關，在《通訊傳播基本法》第一條開宗明義設定成立ＮＣＣ的目的，就是要「因應科技匯流，促進通訊傳播健全發展」。然而ＮＣＣ從成立迄今，先是對廣電媒體展開「無微不至」的規範與懲處，繼而又要搭反媒體壟斷的便車，以維護媒體多元和專業自主之名，行擴權干預、箝制紙面媒體之實。而唯獨在面對網路科技日新月異的今天，各國莫不加速資訊匯流的腳步，力爭通訊傳播產業的國際競爭力與話語權的當下，我們的ＮＣＣ在這個方面卻幾乎是交了白卷。我們認為，即使監察委員不提案糾正ＮＣＣ的怠忽職守與不作為，ＮＣＣ在加強管控媒體和促進產業發展之間難道不應該兼籌並顧嗎？

    　進一步探析ＮＣＣ何以對其前述兩大法定任務，會出現如此過度作為和近乎不作為的異象，我們認為，其中的癥結應該在於行政機關的通病，對於如何管理業者相對較為嫻熟，但對於如何輔導業者促進產業發展則相對較為陌生甚至是無能為之。結果就使得台灣的資訊傳播產業，原本被期待在既有的厚實高科技產業支撐下，可以於網路新時代大展拳腳，最後卻落得資訊匯流的進度，不只已遠遠落後南韓，甚至也被中國大陸超越。這種國家競爭力的落居下風，毋寧才是馬政府所應引以為憂，ＮＣＣ又怎能分心旁騖，不思急起直追的對策。

    　總結來看，我們欣見五大新聞專業團體針對內容荒腔走板偏差的《媒體壟斷防制與多元維護法》，終於不再集體失聲。業者站在第一線，痛感台灣媒體經營環境在過度規範下碎裂化為不具競爭力的中小企業，正所謂心所謂危，不能不言，至於能否對迷失方向感的馬政府，以及遭民粹綁架的立法部門，產生振聾發聵的效應，大家就拭目以待吧！