I read the meta-news from Campaign For Media Reform mailing list: twmedia-l, and get a news on how people in the media (TODAY!) manufacturing content about the Losheng parade.
Prof. J.S.Feng（馮建三教授） had said,
After very active group discussion, Prof. and Chairman of Taiwan Media Observation Foundation (the English name need to be confirmed) Kuan（管中祥教授） had quoted a student (who receive that shooting request directly from that journalist) and showed what was really going on:
今天中午(0416)，朋友打電話告訴我，三立要採訪學生對遊行的看法，於是我給了她學校負責人(世新)的電話。
過不久她又打電話告訴我，三立要的不是主動參與遊行學生的意見，而是希望能找到那些非自願者的意見。(換句話說，可能是一些被老師叫去拍攝影作業…等等的學生) 我只能說這種記者真糟糕，議題設定亂七八糟，真想拆了它！ XD
These kinds of “recontextualization” happened not since this report. Prof. Ti Wei（魏玓教授） had commented about intentionally manipulation & distortion of the report in other news channel（〈沉淪的政黨，沉淪的媒體〉）:
我要點名的就是民視( 當然，類似的問題不只發生在民視) 。在病患和樂生聯盟二度前往官邸抗議的當天，民視的相關新聞，在報導完衝突現場之後，事實上是進行了所謂的脈絡報導。但民視怎麼處理呢？他們說明了樂生院區位於捷運新莊線機廠位址的「事實」( 令人納悶的是，明明是捷運試圖「使用」樂生院址，怎麼反過來說是樂生「位於」捷運廠址？ )、訪問已經搬到新大樓的部分病患 (被選擇在鏡頭前露臉的病患對新大樓十分滿意 )、訪問新莊地區的一個老年市民 (抱怨工程延宕犧牲新莊居民權益 )，然後最後再來一個「面對古蹟保存與公共建設的兩難，值得深思」之類看似客觀理性的結語 (報導中完全沒有訪問樂生聯盟或持異議的其他專家 )。
總的來說，這段報導雖然有「脈絡」，但卻鮮明地建構出「少數抗議者無理取鬧，傷害大多數人利益」的論述。換句話說，民視的問題不僅是聚焦衝突場面，而是有意識地操縱輿論。其居心為何( 在民進黨大位之爭暗潮洶湧之際，為蘇貞昌護航？ )，我們也許暫時難以判斷；但是這樣的手法，跟過去戒嚴時期黨 /政控商營的無線三台，如出一轍。當初，對於任何弱勢和街頭抗議活動 (民進黨前身的「黨外」力量深深參與其中 )，三台用的是同樣的論述建構手法來封殺異議和保護主子。如今，執政之後的民進黨與國民黨之間，以及與民進黨關係密切的媒體跟國民黨媒體之間，差距竟愈來愈小。這個政黨與其媒體，一同沉淪，也一同背叛了弱勢族群。
That’s why people are looking forward to hear from bloggers, Global Voices online and wikipedia for better fact and truth.
But there’re still wonderful journalist and media reporting the truth behind the superficial conflict and confrontation. Prof. L.H. Kuo（郭力昕教授） had mentioned Miss M. C. Hu（胡慕情） of Taiwan Li-Pao（台灣立報） who had discovered the quarry industry is the black hand behinds Losheng’s displacement controversies.
If we take the production of news seriously, we are in strong needs of distinguishing “good” and “bad” practice/product in order not to be brain-washed unconsciously. Those kinds of intentional, errorly contextualization of the social event, obviously directly served the purpose of certain people. Could we call that kind of person “journalist”, and name the product “news”? Maybe they should changed their name into “sales representative” and “advertisement” before any correcting action. I believe that kind of angry fire would be spread out toward the politician and their media-collaborator. A kind of media war would surely happen outside of mainstream media.
Valid XHTML