|
A call for the voice of reason in the
media
By Chiu Hei-yuan 瞿海源
The Chinese government just can’t come to terms with the awarding of the Nobel
Peace Prize to imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波). Liu’s wife was
illegally placed under house arrest so that she could not go to Norway to
collect the prize on his behalf. In addition, as soon as the awarding of the
peace prize to Liu was announced, a storm of indignation broke out in China.
Some people even called for a boycott of Norwegian goods, while others burned
copies of Japanese writer Haruki Murakami’s novel Norwegian Wood.
This is not the first time Chinese in China and abroad have expressed their
anger in public. The same thing happened two years ago when unrest broke out in
Tibet and people and opinion makers in Western countries voiced support for the
Tibetans. The atmosphere at the time was so tense that foreigners in Beijing did
not dare to talk about what was happening in Tibet.
On the evening before last month’s special municipality elections, Chinese
Nationalist Party (KMT) politician Sean Lien (連勝文), the son of former vice
president Lien Chan (連戰), was shot in the face while on the stage at an election
rally. KMT supporters were incensed by the shooting and some KMT legislators and
pro-KMT media pundits accused the opposition pan-green camp, either directly or
by implication, of involvement in the attack. Some even called on people to
avenge the violence with their votes. This mobilized quite a lot of KMT
supporters to go out and vote for the KMT’s candidates.
However, from the time of the shooting up to today, not a shred of evidence has
emerged to show that the attack was politically motivated or that the Democratic
Progressive Party or other pan-green forces were involved in any way. So why did
voters react emotionally to the attack on Lien by voting for pan-blue
candidates?
These incidents that have happened in China and Taiwan are examples of heated
emotions overcoming reason among certain groups of the public. When the incident
in question is connected with international affairs, public indignation can be
channeled into narrow nationalism and take quite extreme forms. A similar effect
is seen when domestic tensions are involved. In the case of the special
municipality elections, a single violent act can easily prompt people to let
emotional, rather than rational, factors dictate how they will vote.
The main factor that stirs up public anger is often provocative reporting and
commentary in the media. Instead of simply recounting the facts, most media
reports are infused with subjective judgments and standpoints. With regard to
commentators, they are in even more of a rush to take a position, exaggerating
the facts in an emotive manner or even making things up to prove their point.
The media’s influence is especially crucial when the facts of the matter are not
clear. While members of the public are unable to judge the situation for
themselves, the media have plenty of scope for exercising their imagination and
even indulging in outright speculation. Commentary shows should be a means of
using reason to dispel overheated emotions, but in fact, most media pundits are
themselves highly emotional and irrational, while various media outlets each
have their own entrenched positions.
No wonder we hear so much empty rhetoric bandied about with scant regard for the
facts.
Heated emotions do not solve problems — in fact they are more likely to make
things worse. Our media and society are in dire need of more space for rational
discussion instead of emotive manipulation.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a research fellow at Academia Sinica’s
Institute of Sociology.
|
