On a recent holiday to Taiwan, I was struck by the means adopted by some media organisations to compete for a slice of the market. When Next magazine, a Hong Kong scandal weekly, was launched on the island last month, not only has it changed the equilibrium in the magazine market, but it has also aroused fear in politicians and showbiz personalities there. It has taken the Taiwanese people and media by storm and doubtless succeeded in making its presence and strength felt.
What would it be like if we had a no-holds-barred media war here？ I can envisage the eagerness of some, but there would also be others who would oppose it.
The question of how open the media can be is closely related to the maturity of a society.
When a society is not mature enough, a media industry that is too open for the masses to embrace may confuse readers and viewers who are used to a regular diet, in their choice and judgement. An unhealthy trend of some media groups following in the footsteps of the bolder ones may also be created. This can have negative consequences for media organisations struggling to stay afloat, lead to chaos and losses for all competitors.
Taiwan‘s media and publishing industry has been flourishing since the restriction on newspaper licensing was lifted in 1988. With cable television taking off in recent years, rapid growth in the entertainment business and highly intensive political activities, politicians and even the man in the street have become media-savvy and adept at using the media to their advantage. Not having anything to report is the least of the many worries of media organisations.
The Next magazine in Taiwan does not mind being known as the weekly with the most famous or infamous paparazzi, better known as the “doggie teams”。 It even uses an outline of a barking dog as its symbol. Yet the strategy has worked in giving people something different to look forward to - and it has managed to find a niche for itself in an already squeezed Taiwanese media market.
Its launch issue was sold out the day after it hit the streets. It was so proud of itself that two days later, it ran front-page advertisements in all major newspapers telling disappointed readers to get the next issue early. The weekly is truly a phenomenon in Taiwan‘s publishing industry.
The magazine has a masterly grasp of readers‘ sense of curiosity and stands out with its Hong Kong-style sarcasm that is not too mean and its daring and never-bow-to pressure stance. It has no doubt created a stir in Taiwan, but it will take a while to see the effect of the impact.
In comparison, the media war here appears tame and much less intense.
Besides poaching talent from each other and making adjustments to programme schedules, there have not been more aggressive moves. As the competition is between two similar set-ups, viewers may be forgiven for not knowing which Chinese channel they are watching as both are flooded with Taiwanese variety shows. The contest also seems more like a race to purchase Hong Kong drama serials and Taiwanese variety programmes.
Is Next - a magazine that changes the nature of the media industry by trading credibility for a higher readership - a good example？ Of course, views differ due to different stands and interests.
However, it is certainly unthinkable that a weekly magazine alone can change the reading habits of Singaporeans.
The liberalisation of the media means an extra choice, but it may also mean an additional challenge. In terms of standard and experience, Taiwanese readers are no doubt mature and independent. But when Next magazine is selling like hot cakes, other magazines will feel compelled to ape its style. The “doggie teams” also strike terror in the hearts of public figures. Should these phenomena be accepted or rejected？ These are issues that Taiwanese need to ponder.
Our government felt that at the initial stage of the media liberalisation, there was indeed unhealthy competition - with the two media groups giving each other negative coverage. This will not benefit viewers and readers and will also defeat the purpose of introducing competition in the industry.
It takes time for journalists to be convinced that readers are not craving for tit-for-tat negative reports. The launch of Next magazine in Taiwan may have no impact on us, but it offers much food for thought.
To compete, must the credibility of the media be put on the line？ Must we rely on exposing skeletons in the closet in graphic detail to boost sales？ While many are against such practices, what we have before us is a negative example that proves to be a huge success.
The media here should also bear in mind that competition does not mean a need to bad-mouth rivals. During its publicity blitz for its launch, Next magazine did not utter even an offensive word against any Taiwanese media.
Viewers here have reaped the benefits of media liberalisation. At least, people interviewed by the Chinese news channels try hard to speak Mandarin - something hardly seen before competition was introduced.
（The writer is assistant to editor , Local News Desk, Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh）
媒體應(yīng)多開放？
● 蔡深江
我最近去臺(tái)灣度假,對(duì)該地傳媒的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)手段感觸良深。原在香港發(fā)行的《壹周刊》,5月底在臺(tái)灣創(chuàng)刊,不但打亂了臺(tái)灣雜志市場(chǎng)的平衡生態(tài),也引起政治人物和影歌視明星自危的心理,無(wú)論在聲勢(shì)或?qū)嵙?都令臺(tái)灣人民和媒體側(cè)目。
媒體的開放可以是多一個(gè)選擇,也可能是多一重考驗(yàn)。
這樣的媒體肉搏戰(zhàn)如果在新加坡上演,會(huì)是怎樣一種局面,相信會(huì)令一些人期待,卻也是一些人不想看到的情況。
媒體開放的程度和社會(huì)的成熟息息相關(guān)。
在不成熟的社會(huì)狀態(tài)下,媒體開放的程度如果超過(guò)了社會(huì)大眾可以接受的幅度,讀者觀眾的判斷和選擇可能失去準(zhǔn)繩,不但會(huì)出現(xiàn)不健康的跟風(fēng)現(xiàn)象,更可能對(duì)步履蹣跚的媒體事業(yè)產(chǎn)生負(fù)面效果,造成秩序大亂,兩敗俱傷的不幸。
自報(bào)禁在1988年解除后,臺(tái)灣的媒體與出版事業(yè)蓬勃發(fā)展。近幾年有線電視迅速發(fā)展,加上娛樂(lè)事業(yè)和政治活動(dòng)高度密集,無(wú)論是政治人物,或者市井小民,都懂得利用媒體,深諳宣傳花招,媒體幾乎是不愁沒(méi)有報(bào)道題材。
然而,臺(tái)灣的《壹周刊》不介意以狗仔隊(duì)自居,并以狗吠剪影為標(biāo)志,這樣的做法還是足以讓臺(tái)灣媒體耳目一新,成功在飽和的市場(chǎng)另辟蹊徑。
創(chuàng)刊號(hào)在出版隔日就售罄,兩天后各大報(bào)章的頭版就出現(xiàn)“買不到,下期請(qǐng)?jiān)纭钡尿湴翉V告,在臺(tái)灣出版界算是奇跡。
聚合期待和批判的周刊,完全掌握了讀者好奇的心理,以港式尖酸卻不刻薄,大膽而不賣帳的風(fēng)格,在臺(tái)灣引發(fā)旋風(fēng)和效應(yīng),相信要一段時(shí)日才能看出影響的方向。
相比之下,本地所引發(fā)的傳媒戰(zhàn)算是客氣有余,拼勁不足。
除了挖角與調(diào)整播映時(shí)段外,幾乎沒(méi)有太大的動(dòng)作,也在相近的一個(gè)模式底下較勁,華語(yǔ)電視臺(tái)充斥的臺(tái)灣綜藝節(jié)目甚至讓人分不清看的到底是哪一個(gè)頻道。競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)果更像是一場(chǎng)斗買港劇和臺(tái)灣綜藝節(jié)目的比賽。
當(dāng)然,是不是要像《壹周刊》那樣*媒體本質(zhì),以傳媒的信譽(yù)交換讀者的數(shù)目,不同立場(chǎng),不同利益考量,各有不同看法。
然而,單憑一本周刊就幾乎可以*一個(gè)城市的閱讀習(xí)慣,這樣的情形絕對(duì)不可能在新加坡出現(xiàn)。
媒體的開放可以是多一個(gè)選擇,也可能是多一重考驗(yàn)。就閱讀程度和經(jīng)驗(yàn)而言,臺(tái)灣讀者肯定是成熟而且獨(dú)立的,不過(guò),《壹周刊》雜志大賣,其他媒體不得不隨之起舞,公眾人物談“狗”色變的現(xiàn)象,對(duì)臺(tái)灣人民來(lái)說(shuō),接受或者排斥,都是一項(xiàng)考驗(yàn)。
我們的政府也同意在媒體業(yè)開放的最初,的確出現(xiàn)了一些惡性競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。這樣的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)觀眾和讀者不見得有好處,也違背開放的本意。
慢慢的,媒體業(yè)者才會(huì)相信讀者要的不是互相攻擊的負(fù)面報(bào)道?！兑贾芸吩谂_(tái)灣創(chuàng)刊,雖然對(duì)我們毫無(wú)影響,卻提供了一些思考的方向。
媒體競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的手段,是不是必須犧牲媒體的公信力,靠專門揭瘡疤,繪聲繪影來(lái)刺激銷量？有人大力鞭斥,擺在眼前的,卻是負(fù)面的成功例子。
本地媒體也可以見識(shí)到,競(jìng)爭(zhēng)不一定要報(bào)道對(duì)手負(fù)面新聞的手法?！兑贾芸窡狒[上市,沒(méi)有一句得罪其他媒體的言語(yǔ)。
當(dāng)然,本地媒體開放,觀眾也看到了好處。至少,接受華語(yǔ)電視新聞的受訪者都盡可能講華語(yǔ)。競(jìng)爭(zhēng)以前,這樣的畫面少之又少。
What would it be like if we had a no-holds-barred media war here？ I can envisage the eagerness of some, but there would also be others who would oppose it.
The question of how open the media can be is closely related to the maturity of a society.
When a society is not mature enough, a media industry that is too open for the masses to embrace may confuse readers and viewers who are used to a regular diet, in their choice and judgement. An unhealthy trend of some media groups following in the footsteps of the bolder ones may also be created. This can have negative consequences for media organisations struggling to stay afloat, lead to chaos and losses for all competitors.
Taiwan‘s media and publishing industry has been flourishing since the restriction on newspaper licensing was lifted in 1988. With cable television taking off in recent years, rapid growth in the entertainment business and highly intensive political activities, politicians and even the man in the street have become media-savvy and adept at using the media to their advantage. Not having anything to report is the least of the many worries of media organisations.
The Next magazine in Taiwan does not mind being known as the weekly with the most famous or infamous paparazzi, better known as the “doggie teams”。 It even uses an outline of a barking dog as its symbol. Yet the strategy has worked in giving people something different to look forward to - and it has managed to find a niche for itself in an already squeezed Taiwanese media market.
Its launch issue was sold out the day after it hit the streets. It was so proud of itself that two days later, it ran front-page advertisements in all major newspapers telling disappointed readers to get the next issue early. The weekly is truly a phenomenon in Taiwan‘s publishing industry.
The magazine has a masterly grasp of readers‘ sense of curiosity and stands out with its Hong Kong-style sarcasm that is not too mean and its daring and never-bow-to pressure stance. It has no doubt created a stir in Taiwan, but it will take a while to see the effect of the impact.
In comparison, the media war here appears tame and much less intense.
Besides poaching talent from each other and making adjustments to programme schedules, there have not been more aggressive moves. As the competition is between two similar set-ups, viewers may be forgiven for not knowing which Chinese channel they are watching as both are flooded with Taiwanese variety shows. The contest also seems more like a race to purchase Hong Kong drama serials and Taiwanese variety programmes.
Is Next - a magazine that changes the nature of the media industry by trading credibility for a higher readership - a good example？ Of course, views differ due to different stands and interests.
However, it is certainly unthinkable that a weekly magazine alone can change the reading habits of Singaporeans.
The liberalisation of the media means an extra choice, but it may also mean an additional challenge. In terms of standard and experience, Taiwanese readers are no doubt mature and independent. But when Next magazine is selling like hot cakes, other magazines will feel compelled to ape its style. The “doggie teams” also strike terror in the hearts of public figures. Should these phenomena be accepted or rejected？ These are issues that Taiwanese need to ponder.
Our government felt that at the initial stage of the media liberalisation, there was indeed unhealthy competition - with the two media groups giving each other negative coverage. This will not benefit viewers and readers and will also defeat the purpose of introducing competition in the industry.
It takes time for journalists to be convinced that readers are not craving for tit-for-tat negative reports. The launch of Next magazine in Taiwan may have no impact on us, but it offers much food for thought.
To compete, must the credibility of the media be put on the line？ Must we rely on exposing skeletons in the closet in graphic detail to boost sales？ While many are against such practices, what we have before us is a negative example that proves to be a huge success.
The media here should also bear in mind that competition does not mean a need to bad-mouth rivals. During its publicity blitz for its launch, Next magazine did not utter even an offensive word against any Taiwanese media.
Viewers here have reaped the benefits of media liberalisation. At least, people interviewed by the Chinese news channels try hard to speak Mandarin - something hardly seen before competition was introduced.
（The writer is assistant to editor , Local News Desk, Lianhe Zaobao. Translated by Yap Gee Poh）
媒體應(yīng)多開放？
● 蔡深江
我最近去臺(tái)灣度假,對(duì)該地傳媒的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)手段感觸良深。原在香港發(fā)行的《壹周刊》,5月底在臺(tái)灣創(chuàng)刊,不但打亂了臺(tái)灣雜志市場(chǎng)的平衡生態(tài),也引起政治人物和影歌視明星自危的心理,無(wú)論在聲勢(shì)或?qū)嵙?都令臺(tái)灣人民和媒體側(cè)目。
媒體的開放可以是多一個(gè)選擇,也可能是多一重考驗(yàn)。
這樣的媒體肉搏戰(zhàn)如果在新加坡上演,會(huì)是怎樣一種局面,相信會(huì)令一些人期待,卻也是一些人不想看到的情況。
媒體開放的程度和社會(huì)的成熟息息相關(guān)。
在不成熟的社會(huì)狀態(tài)下,媒體開放的程度如果超過(guò)了社會(huì)大眾可以接受的幅度,讀者觀眾的判斷和選擇可能失去準(zhǔn)繩,不但會(huì)出現(xiàn)不健康的跟風(fēng)現(xiàn)象,更可能對(duì)步履蹣跚的媒體事業(yè)產(chǎn)生負(fù)面效果,造成秩序大亂,兩敗俱傷的不幸。
自報(bào)禁在1988年解除后,臺(tái)灣的媒體與出版事業(yè)蓬勃發(fā)展。近幾年有線電視迅速發(fā)展,加上娛樂(lè)事業(yè)和政治活動(dòng)高度密集,無(wú)論是政治人物,或者市井小民,都懂得利用媒體,深諳宣傳花招,媒體幾乎是不愁沒(méi)有報(bào)道題材。
然而,臺(tái)灣的《壹周刊》不介意以狗仔隊(duì)自居,并以狗吠剪影為標(biāo)志,這樣的做法還是足以讓臺(tái)灣媒體耳目一新,成功在飽和的市場(chǎng)另辟蹊徑。
創(chuàng)刊號(hào)在出版隔日就售罄,兩天后各大報(bào)章的頭版就出現(xiàn)“買不到,下期請(qǐng)?jiān)纭钡尿湴翉V告,在臺(tái)灣出版界算是奇跡。
聚合期待和批判的周刊,完全掌握了讀者好奇的心理,以港式尖酸卻不刻薄,大膽而不賣帳的風(fēng)格,在臺(tái)灣引發(fā)旋風(fēng)和效應(yīng),相信要一段時(shí)日才能看出影響的方向。
相比之下,本地所引發(fā)的傳媒戰(zhàn)算是客氣有余,拼勁不足。
除了挖角與調(diào)整播映時(shí)段外,幾乎沒(méi)有太大的動(dòng)作,也在相近的一個(gè)模式底下較勁,華語(yǔ)電視臺(tái)充斥的臺(tái)灣綜藝節(jié)目甚至讓人分不清看的到底是哪一個(gè)頻道。競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的結(jié)果更像是一場(chǎng)斗買港劇和臺(tái)灣綜藝節(jié)目的比賽。
當(dāng)然,是不是要像《壹周刊》那樣*媒體本質(zhì),以傳媒的信譽(yù)交換讀者的數(shù)目,不同立場(chǎng),不同利益考量,各有不同看法。
然而,單憑一本周刊就幾乎可以*一個(gè)城市的閱讀習(xí)慣,這樣的情形絕對(duì)不可能在新加坡出現(xiàn)。
媒體的開放可以是多一個(gè)選擇,也可能是多一重考驗(yàn)。就閱讀程度和經(jīng)驗(yàn)而言,臺(tái)灣讀者肯定是成熟而且獨(dú)立的,不過(guò),《壹周刊》雜志大賣,其他媒體不得不隨之起舞,公眾人物談“狗”色變的現(xiàn)象,對(duì)臺(tái)灣人民來(lái)說(shuō),接受或者排斥,都是一項(xiàng)考驗(yàn)。
我們的政府也同意在媒體業(yè)開放的最初,的確出現(xiàn)了一些惡性競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。這樣的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)觀眾和讀者不見得有好處,也違背開放的本意。
慢慢的,媒體業(yè)者才會(huì)相信讀者要的不是互相攻擊的負(fù)面報(bào)道?！兑贾芸吩谂_(tái)灣創(chuàng)刊,雖然對(duì)我們毫無(wú)影響,卻提供了一些思考的方向。
媒體競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的手段,是不是必須犧牲媒體的公信力,靠專門揭瘡疤,繪聲繪影來(lái)刺激銷量？有人大力鞭斥,擺在眼前的,卻是負(fù)面的成功例子。
本地媒體也可以見識(shí)到,競(jìng)爭(zhēng)不一定要報(bào)道對(duì)手負(fù)面新聞的手法?！兑贾芸窡狒[上市,沒(méi)有一句得罪其他媒體的言語(yǔ)。
當(dāng)然,本地媒體開放,觀眾也看到了好處。至少,接受華語(yǔ)電視新聞的受訪者都盡可能講華語(yǔ)。競(jìng)爭(zhēng)以前,這樣的畫面少之又少。