The participants (in order of the number of strokes in their Chinese surnames):

Wang Li-hsing (The publisher and editor-in-chief of Global View Monthly)

Li Ching-an (The host of CTS's evening news)

Ma Kai (a researcher at the Chung Hua Institution for Economic Research)

Ma Yi-kung (Professor of Landscape Architecture at Tunghai University and editor-in-chief of Nature magazine)

Chang Mao-kuei (An assistant researcher at the Institute of Ethnology of the Academia Sinica)

Fu Pei-jung (Professor of Philosophy at National Taiwan University)

Chen Hao (The assistant editor-in-chief of the China Times Express)

Feng Hsiao-Lung (The assistant director of the news department of the Broadcasting Corporation of China)

Hsu Chia-shih: (Professor of Journalism at National Chengchi University, who was separately interviewed because of scheduling conflicts)

Host: Sinorama Editor-in-Chief Lu Huey-fen

Date: November 13, 1991, from 2:00 p.m. to5:00 p.m.

Place: The third conference hall of the Government Information Office

Lu Huey-fen: Let me welcome everyone who is participating in this seminar. The topic we are going to be discussing today is "Scholars and the Media." These two have an interesting relationship--a bit like a grudge between two lovers whose source is not easily described. And recently this relationship has grown even more ambiguous.

From whether to accept or refuse to be interviewed to arranging the final form of an article, the two sides will have a number of differences of opinion. For example, some scholars complain that a reporter will interview them for an hour or two, and the result is that only a sentence or two will be printed. Furthermore, some descriptions of fact will actually be taken from the scholar and will not be acknowledged. It gets to the point where some scholars feel that they should write the article themselves and refuse to be interviewed.

Actually, such examples are not found only in Taiwan. Even in the United States, which declares itself to uphold freedom of the press, this also happens. Three years ago, during the Iran-Iraq War, CBS reporter Dan Rather interviewed then Vice President George Bush. Because he said, "Mr. Vice President, you are hiding something" and later called him a hypocrite, Bush later refused to let him attend White House press conferences. This kind of pressure seems unreasonable, but on the other hand, during the Gulf War, the U.S. government's control of the press won the approval of many people--including broadcast scholars.

Clearing up the Gray Areas

While these examples may seem to be dissimilar, they have one point in common: the interviewer and the interviewee both want to protect themselves. And this matter does not just affect the interviewer and the interviewed but may as well affect the general public's right to know, and it is for this reason that we have put on today's discussion.

There are two reasons we have focused on scholars being interviewed: first, because most scholars are opinion leaders who thus have particularly numerous opportunities for being interviewed and encounter this problem more often, and second, because scholars most often speak out not for personal benefit but out of social responsibility and from a standpoint that is relatively more expert and objective. Hence, shouldering responsibility for the affairs of the world, scholars have much less reason than most people to refuse to be interviewed and are much more concerned than most people about how the results of the interview will appear. Today we have invited some scholars who are highly visible in the media along with some leaders in the news field to come discuss these problems.

I think that much about errors and misleading reports in the media is clear cut--black and white--but there are still some situations where there is a gray area caused by the difference in conceptions held by the two sides. I hope we will focus on this area today.

Pity the Poor Interviewee?

Fu Pei-jung: As far as the media are concerned, my personal opinion is that we cannot overlook that the various members of the media all come with pre-determined standpoints. So the first thing the media ought to do are make their standpoints clear, and from that standpoint seek out scholars and establish consulting groups and research groups. For fast breaking news, if scholars outside of the consulting group offer opinions, the media ought to state clearly the rights and obligations of both parties. In truth, scholars are quite pitiable. They are in a completely passive position. They don't know when they will be interviewed, and when they are, they are simultaneously happy and fearful--happy for a chance to speak and fearful that what they are saying will be distorted. Hence they should look over drafts of articles before publication.

Lu Huey-fen: Professor Fu, you just said that scholars are "pitiable," that they are both happy and fearful when being interviewed. How do you feel when being interviewed?

Fu Pei-jung: Because philosophy is not a popular subject, when I meet people outside of the field, as soon as they hear that I studied philosophy I get asked: "Can you tell fortunes?" Hence, when other people ask me for my opinion, my manner betrays my excitement. At first I always feel greatly honored, but after I reveal what I truly think, I find that the reporters are just trying to present various points of view, and are not truly interviewing me. But those who truly research thought hate representative sampling of opinions, because it's the same as making everyone's opinion of equal weight. When all the opinions are listed, there are those for and those against, and in truth it's as if you hadn't said anything. Hence, people who research thought in the end become unwilling to speak.

Ma Yi-kung: From my experience on both sides, I know that many people are unwilling or rarely willing to be interviewed.

As far as I am concerned, for basically professional matters, especially those related to news events, I am very willing. But for those about one's personal life, such as talking about the "the single nobility" because I am single, I always refuse because gossip--rather than professional interviewing--is the norm for this kind of topic.

Asking Scholars for a Briefing?!

And there is another kind of medium that I fear--mostly they are magazines--the ones that want me to give them a brief report. For example, I often get this question: "Please talk about the past, present and future of the environmental movement in Taiwan." Their base of knowledge is too shallow, and being interviewed by them is especially hard work.

The media and experts have very different approaches. Professor Fu wants to be given center stage, whereas the media just wants one or two sentences. The expert wants some point to be clearly explained, whereas the media wants news and the more sensational the better. For example, a professor in the Academia Sinica is researching biological control, but in the newspapers he becomes the "roach nemesis." Communication is needed to bridge this gap. I think if the job of communication is done well--even with just a few words--scholars will be more accepting.

I believe that only through in-depth reports will the readers' level of knowledge be raised. I have constantly held that the readers can accept not only nouns like "roach nemesis" but also knowledge of "biological control."

From the standpoint of social obligation, I completely agree with scholars being interviewed. But scholars also need self-discipline. It is not as if they can talk about every topic. Topics can basically be divided into two general categories: (1) matters of moral principle such as unity with the mainland vs. independence or whether or not a nuclear power plant should be built, about which everyone can speak; and (2) scientific and special topics, about which not everyone can speak. I don't agree that scholars should be able to read a story before publication because this is a form of pre-examination. I think most of you here are against screening of cartoons. Looking over an article before publication is screening a reporter's work. That wouldn't be fair to the media.

If one wants to compensate for the appearance of mistakes, the best way to do that is to professionalize the media and not send out someone with no knowledge who gets it wrong--such as using the Chinese character for "oxygen" instead of "nutrition" in the compound that means "eutrophication.." But this is a small error. For a really big error, you could make ten times as much compensation but it still wouldn't be enough.

Complicated Love-Hate Relationship

Chang Mao-kuei: In regard to the relation-ship between the media and scholars, Editor-in-Chief Lu said that it is one of "love" whereas I hold that it is a more complicated relationship of love-hate. As far as a scholar or his field of study is concerned, being able to get media exposure or affirmation is basically a kind of extension of himself, allowing his thoughts and concepts to be expanded into new realms--and it is so very seductive.

But from another point of view, the media are a kind of hegemon. Only when mass society has less interaction within itself does the media need to produce mass thought. Hence media control represents a kind of common hegemony. As far as a scholar is concerned, if he wants his words to be influential, to be able to change society, then he needs to struggle for this hegemony. To put it more simply, one can use the published word to establish one's status. As a result, there are many scholars who--though despising the media--still fight for their hegemony.

Where does this hate, this opposition come from? Because scholars obtain this power, they become public persons. Hence they become very concerned about how they are presented. Besides caring about the text, they also care greatly about their appearance in photographs, as I am sure many photographers have come to learn. Furthermore, in the world of scholarship, scholars are relatively free and they don't like people telling them what to do. But the media are a kind of hegemon; it does not make it easy for one to create a personal space for oneself. There is this fundamental conflict between the two.

Another possible conflict arises when scholars themselves become a subject of news reports, such as in protesting military involvement in politics or in participating in social movements. From being a disinterested third party, scholars become players themselves and they often complain that the reports are not fair. I feel that these kinds of situations cause the greatest problems and the greatest number of distortions.

Working for the Good of Society

Wang Li-hsing: Today the whole difficulty can be summed up in three points: one is the problem of the roles of media and scholars; the second is what is the true character of news; and the third is the problem of professionalization.

I believe that the problems arising between the two may be largely a result of a lack of communication. Scholars don't know much about how the media goes about making reports, and the media don't let the scholars know clearly that they are going to publish an interview or that they just want to talk about one topic and only want some opinions from scholars for a part of the article. Hence many scholars spend an hour or two trying to explain many decades of research by starting from ABC. The fact of the matter is that both groups work for society. The scholars are helping media to perform a public service. If both have this common understanding, it won't be easy for these problems to arise.

This happens also because scholars are used to being thorough and prudent, using words extremely precisely, whereas the media is expert in the function of broadcasting. The languages they speak are perhaps different, and it is from here that misunderstandings can arise.

The second point is the problem of the basic character of news. Most news is seeking after news events, and questions often arise from the news events themselves. Take for example the Gulf War. It is very possible that the reporters would just ask questions about the war, whereas scholars would want to talk about the reasons and ramifications of the war. If the reporters just report part of an interview, it could be misleading.

The third point is the problem of professionalization. Journalism education in Taiwan is basically an extension of American journalism education. Being objective, fair and having specialized abilities are all emphasized. Basically, the interviewee assumes the reporters have professional ability and that they understand what the interviewee said. But the problem in Taiwan is that whereas some reporters are very good, others are not. As a result of reporters' errors of judgment, what was said that was important becomes unimportant and what was unimportant becomes important. This is perhaps a problem that media should consider by itself.

Shouldering Responsibility for the Affairs of the World

Lu Huey-fen: Professor Fu mentioned that magazines should form consulting groups that match their own standpoints. How do you feel about that? Does it conflict with objectivity and fairness in reporting?

Wang Li-hsing: People who studied journalism like us are less likely to agree with predetermined standpoints. Because the media is a public instrument, it should be objective, fair and detached. Of course, the media can only try their best to be as objective as possible.

Ma Yi-kung: I believe that Professor Fu was not speaking of political standpoints such as the "KMT" and the "DPP," but rather that Nature magazine should publish from the standpoint of conservation. We simply won't publish articles in favor of building nuclear power plants. We won't say that because we want to be balanced we are going to let Tai Power make its case. This is different from the previously mentioned standpoint of moral principles.

Fu Pei-jung: In the news media, the standpoint of the owner becomes the standpoint of the paper. The person the boss asks to become editor-in-chief is the person he believes is best able to implement his standpoint. One can be objective in theory only. In fact no one is objective.

Lu Huey-fen: Mr. Chang just pointed out that most of the problems occur when scholars become the topic of news themselves. Is it because when they are involved, they themselves cannot be objective or fair? Or is it because the normal treatment accorded to scholars in the media is better than how most people are treated?

Chang Mao-kuei: This involves the problem of standpoint. For example, Professor Fu mentioned the problem of thought. He hopes the media will just choose one kind of thought. In the midst of much activity, scholars hope that they will be given the greatest amount of space for a report, that only then is it fair. But from the media's perspective, it may want to talk about something else--such as political pressure, the media organization's own special orientation or the economic implications. There is no way to completely meet the scholar's expectations. It cannot be denied that part of the problem is scholars' inflated estimation of their own importance.

Ma Kai: I find most fascinating the importance scholars are given in Taiwan. Take the topic of this discussion: "Scholars and Reporters." It would probably be very difficult to find such a topic abroad. And elsewhere you rarely see the media spending so much time continually introducing scholars' points of view as you do in Taiwan. That scholars are so emphasized in Taiwan is connected to the special emphasis given in Chinese culture to "scholars having a responsibility for the whole world." Under the influence of Chinese culture, scholars' concern and hopes for society as well as his duty to try to change society exceed other groups. As for the phenomenon of scholars' opinions appearing in the media, I feel the scholars play a passive and not a leading role. Hence, scholars requesting the media to report scholars' viewpoints is like someone wanting to act as a general in other people's war. They have gone to the wrong battlefield.

"Word from on High"

Lu Huey-fen: Professor Ma has pointed out that scholars are given special emphasis in Taiwan, that this is related to the Chinese concept of scholars having a responsibility for the affairs of the world. Are there any other origins for it--such as the situation of the development of media here?

Ma Kai: Early on there were reasons for scholars to receive such emphasis. Back then the government structure was relatively stiff, and no one was bold enough to voice his own opinion. Only a small number of scholars with that "responsibility for the world" were brave enough to break the taboo and speak up. This had an impact on how most people think of intellectuals. In recent years, as Taiwan's social environment has grown ever more complicated, it has caused many people to be stupefied about the present and the future, groping for some kind of "word form on high" in these matters. Thus, they have relatively higher expectations for scholars.

Chang Mao-kuei: I agree with Professor Ma's point about the problem of looking for "the word from on high." In this period of rapid social transformation in Taiwan, particularly in the 80's, social change has occurred at a faster pace than cultural change. Lacking credibility, the media has sought the word of professionals to serve as "word from on high." This is a major reason scholars have been so popular.

Chen Hao: I ought to pay a fee because I have learned so much today--I've heard a lot that I haven't heard before. I want to start with reviewing my own experiences. Frankly speaking, my problems are much fewer than the scholars sitting here. Since the ban on new newspapers was lifted and I started working as a columnist and then later when I worked at a faster-paced evening paper, what I have experienced is very different from what scholars have. Truthfully speaking, I miss the interaction with scholars that journalists had before the ban on new newspapers was lifted. At that time, newspapers had a lot of space, and it was possible to have deep and long public discussions. And now the pace of newspapers has become extremely fast and its operating methods have been obviously transformed. All the major papers give little space to scholarly commentary. This has been replaced with opinion-oriented news, such as when a reporter asks many scholars for their opinions.

Help Us Dr. Superman

I frequently feel guilty. Does the press have to abuse scholars and go to them about every matter? Sometimes the scholarly community will complain that scholars ought to spend most of their time in pursuing scholarship and not in the media. Of course the press should accept responsibility for this situation, but in many cases the media needs to seek out a third voice, someone who will speak more fairly. Particularly after the ban on new newspapers was lifted, the media has been greatly criticized for providing too much commentary in the newspapers. But to ask reporters not to make commentary would to the contrary result in great problems. I very much want to create a computer, "Dr. Superman," that will at any time--say five minutes before deadline--provide commentary that is creative and appropriate to be published. But in reality there is a serious imbalance between supply and demand.

Feng Hsiao-lung: Radio news is characterized by its speed, brevity, and high quantity that is continually being broadcast out. Furthermore, as much as possible, it tries to prevent reporters from stating their own subjective opinions through voices. Basically, radio, especially networks that specialize in news, rely highly on scholars.

The time factor is more immediate in radio than it is in the newspapers. As soon as something breaks, it is expected to be broadcasted as news in a few minutes. But this also creates difficulties. If we suddenly call and tell a scholar that we want an interview, it may be difficult for him to immediately give a thorough, well thought-out response. And because radio seeks brevity in news, if there is a ten-minute interview that is cut into one minute, there is the problem of the main point being lost.

Moreover, in broadcasting there is also the problem of telephone taping. Because broadcasting requires sound, it often confronts a dilemma. Should one tell the person being interviewed that he is being taped? As soon as they hear they are being taped, many scholars say they want to prepare for a moment or want to write out what they want to say or else they speak with limited effectiveness for three minutes whereas they could have spoken for 30 minutes with great confidence. The result may not be very good.

Reflection, Condensation or Distortion

Li Ching-an: Scholars and the media have what is basically a "positive" relationship of "good will." This point should be affirmed. Television is like a mirror in front of the scholar's face which gives him exposure to the viewing public. And it is very possible that this mirror is not a normal flat mirror but rather a "condensing lens," condensing what is essential about you and then transmitting it out, and it's not one of those distortive mirrors that make you look fat or thin. As to how this mirror reflects scholars' opinions, the media must take a large share of the responsibility. And the scholars still have the right to choose whether or not they want to appear in front of this mirror. At any time they can refuse.

Why do the media seek out the scholars? Why are scholars so visible in Taiwan's media? There are a few reasons. In the normal political operation of a democracy, a lot of what goes on is under the table. The party in power can not talk about it, and the media does not only want to publish the opposition party's criticism. When this kind of situation arises, there is a need for scholars to play a balancing role.

In particular, such media as television will want people to appear live. If the government officials are not available, there is a large space that the appearance of scholars can fill.

Hsu Chia-shih: (a professor of journalism at National Chengchi University, who was separately interviewed): In Taiwan the main opinion makers are the government, the political parties, political groups, and scholars. This is different from what one finds abroad, where the opinion makers are mostly the special interest and pressure groups.

In Taiwan, forming opinion has become part of scholars' work, and the market of ideas is their stage.

Some newspapers seek out scholars who hold positions similar to the paper's. Papers with different positions seek out different groups. Hence, our "celebrity scholars" are divided into two camps, at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Special Space for Scholars in the Media

Perhaps the great number of scholars in the opinion market is related to this culture's respect for the learned. Chinese intellectuals have to be virtuous, to have distinguished achievements and to leave worthy writings to posterity. And comparatively speaking, other groups in Taiwan--such as business, religious and agricultural groups--are more guarded about what they say. While they may have different organizations, they do not have lobbies like you find in the West, using the media to promote their positions. Thus sometimes scholars also speak on behalf of these groups. In this capacity they are not representing a field of scholarship but rather a third party.

Chinese intellectuals do not just speak up; they are also entering politics. And it is interesting that our media is providing space for scholarly groups, starting special columns for scholars. Examples are the "Cheng She" column in The Independence Morning Post and the "National Policy Center" column in the Liberty Times. To put it another way, scholars have their own space in the media. This has its traditions. In the early history of newspapers there were papers published by scholars, and there was also a period when papers would pay money for scholarly publications. For example, the United Daily News used to put out the China Tribune. Those scholars did not completely see eye to eye with the owner of newspaper, but the paper supported the publication nonetheless, though the owner of newspaper may have had hidden objectives.

Confrontation and Coexistence

Lu Huey-fen: Next, I would like to ask you about this problem: While everyone is against preset standpoints, this is really quite difficult to achieve. Most media with certain standpoints still interview certain scholars. I wonder what kinds of attitudes scholars hold when being interviewed.

Chang Mao-kuei: I just mentioned that scholars hope to have relatively broad, free space in which to create themselves, whereas the media hopes that they will do it in the narrow confines of a nutshell. Basically the relationship starts with "opposition." Even if everyone says that the relationship on both sides is friendly and positive, both the media and scholars ought to be aware of this problem.

I believe that there are two parts to these fixed standpoints: one is the way that the newspaper looks at politics, the economy and society. Another is from the reporter's own special interests and inclinations. From my standpoint, I want to know what is the major content of this topic. Only when I know can I be treated fairly. Otherwise, I am put at risk, and if it is put unpleasantly it will be said that I am being "toyed with."

Ma Kai: I have been stirred to think after hearing the true feelings of both sides. On the one side, scholars are willing to spend time and great effort to do service to society. But the media is quite obviously "talking business," to the point that they are quite willing to turn the painstaking search for truth of the scholars into something with market value. I think that if this turns into real confrontation in the future, then we'll really have problems. If this kind of opposition continues, scholars will become disappointed with the media. Perhaps it's not a love-hate relationship, but rather a matter of not willing to be used. In the end, the media will only be able to seek out that special cadre of scholar experts whom they have created themselves.

The Future Will Still Need Scholars' Opinions:

Lu Huey-fen: The last question in the future what role will scholars play in the media?

Li Ching-an: If such causes as the just mentioned "under-the-table" actions grow ever fewer, scholars will have increasingly less exposure. In the United States, for example, there are channels of communication between the press and the State Department and White House at every level, and it is clear when what is said is off record. The channels between the media and government officials are very good, and under such conditions the media is relatively less likely to seek out academics.

And if the media can directly seek out the party concerned and the party concerned is willing to be published, the frequency of their seeking out scholars will be reduced.

Ma Kai: If in the future this society can get on the right track, and there is less protest, disorder and phenomena that are hard to understand, then the government's abilities will continually rise, and the political operations and the economy will proceed forward smoothly. At the same time, scholars will give up the ideal of "being responsible for the world." At that time, the relationship between the media and scholars will be the same as it is in Western countries. But this set of conditions I don't think can be attained in the near future.

Chang Mao-kuei: This society is on a path to greater diversity. Scholars can of course still be one of the many voices--because society needs the creation of new culture and symbols and needs to bring about new knowledge. But their relative importance will decrease.

[Picture Caption]

In order to bring light to the relationship between scholars and the media, Sinorama held a roundtable discussion so that the two groups could offer their opinions.

Fu Pei-jung: When all of the opinions are listed together, it's as if you hadn't said anything.

Ma Yi-kung: Looking at an article before publication is equal to screening a reporter's work. It's not fair to the media.

Chang Mao-kuei: Scholars don't like to be told what to do. But the media is a kind of hegemony, and it doesn't allow for the creating of personal space.

Wang Li-hsing: The media and scholars are both working for the public good. If both sides have this common understanding, it will be less likely that problems will arise.

Ma Kai: That the opinions of scholars are so emphasized in Taiwan is related to the concept in traditional Chinese culture that intellectuals have responsibility for the affairs of the world.

Chen Hao: I want to design a computer, called Dr. Superman, that can at any time--say five minutes before deadline--provide appropriate commentary for publication.

Feng Hsiao-lung: When many scholars hear they are going to be taped, they end up speaking for only three minutes whereas they could have spoken confidently for 30.

Li Ching-an: Television is like lens or mirror in front of the face, but it's not a normal mirror and not one of those ones that distorts one's appearance, but rather a lens that is able to condense light so that it appears in its essence.

Hsu Chia-shih: The main opinion makers in Taiwan are government officials, political parties, other political organizations and scholars, which are different from the special interest and pressure groups that one finds abroad.

Fu Pei-jung: When all of the opinions are listed together, it's as if you hadn't said anything.

In order to bring light to the relationship between scholars and the media, Sinorama held a roundtable discussion so that the two groups could offer their opinions.

Ma Yi-kung: Looking at an article before publication is equal to screening a reporter's work. It's not fair to the media.

Chang Mao-kuei: Scholars don't like to be told what to do. But the media is a kind of hegemony, and it doesn't allow for the creating of personal space.

Wang Li-hsing: The media and scholars are both working for the public good. If both sides have this common understanding, it will be less likely that problems will arise.

Ma Kai: That the opinions of scholars are so emphasized in Taiwan is related to the concept in traditional Chinese culture that intellectuals have responsibility for the affairs of the world.

Chen Hao: I want to design a computer, called Dr. Superman, that can at any time--say five minutes before deadline--provide appropriate commentary for publication.