Written by Chiaoning Su.
Image credit: Donald Trump Signs The Pledge by Michael Vadon / Flickr, license: CC BY-SA 2.0.
2024 has been described as the “year of elections,” with approximately 64 elections taking place or scheduled worldwide. While Taiwan’s presidential election in January marks the start of this pivotal year, it is the U.S. presidential election in November that captures global attention—both for its far-reaching implications and the drama and controversy surrounding its candidates. From Kamala Harris’s unexpected and unprecedented replacement of Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee to the widespread portrayal of Donald Trump’s potential second term as a major global threat, reporting on the U.S. election presents a significant challenge. Journalists both in the United States and abroad must navigate political theatrics, pervasive disinformation, and rising populism, all while upholding objectivity, fairness, and balance.
The controversy of Taiwan Plus U.S. election coverage
In Taiwan, coverage of the U.S. election goes beyond geopolitical and economic considerations, highlighting issues of press freedom, as exemplified by the TaiwanPlus incident.
TaiwanPlus is an English-language video platform dedicated to sharing Taiwanese stories and perspectives with a global audience. Initially managed by the Central News Agency (CNA) and later by the Public Television Service (PTS), TaiwanPlus, as a government-funded initiative, has faced persistent scrutiny regarding its newsroom independence. Critics often perceive it as a platform primarily serving as a vehicle for soft power, aligning with prevailing government narratives.
On November 6, controversy arose following a piece-to-camera report produced by Louise Watt of TaiwanPlus, which discussed the election results. In her remark, she stated:
“This was always going to be a historic election. The U.S. was either going to vote for its first female president or its first convicted felon. Well, America looks like it has chosen the felon. Donald Trump earlier here in West Palm Beach, Florida, claimed victory, thanking the American people for making him the 47th president.”
TaiwanPlus was not the first media outlet to refer to Trump as a “convicted felon” in its report. International public broadcasters known for their emphasis on neutral and objective language, including the BBC (UK), CBC (Canada), ABC (Australia), and PBS (USA), all used similar phrasing in their coverage. When Trump was convicted in May 2024, the Associated Press headline read, “Guilty: Trump becomes first former U.S. president convicted of felony crimes.” Even Fox News, one of Trump’s most ardent supporters, used the term “felony” in some of its related news reports, highlighting that the term is legally used to define a crime based on its severity.
Nevertheless, several Kuomintang (KMT) legislators swiftly criticized the use of the term in this story, citing it as evidence of political bias at the station and alleging that the reporting reflected the journalist’s personal political beliefs. They argued that such language was counterproductive and could potentially harm Taiwan’s national interests. Even the Chief Secretary of the National Communications Commission (NCC) expressed concern, noting that coverage like this could complicate the evolving dynamics of U.S.-Taiwan relations in the post-election period.
Initially, TaiwanPlus referenced coverage from other international media to support its claim that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is involved in several lawsuits and has been convicted in some cases. The platform argued that, based on these facts, its news coverage was both accurate and journalistically sound. However, in response to growing pressure, TaiwanPlus later removed the story and re-uploaded a revised version with the remarks omitted, stating that the original coverage had oversimplified the U.S. presidential election. An internal investigation was launched, and the board of directors agreed to the voluntary disciplinary action requested by TaiwanPlus CEO Michael Yu to shoulder full responsibility for the incident. Furthermore, additional training and updated international news production guidelines will be implemented to ensure improved practices moving forward.
The handling of the situation sent shockwaves through the international media community. Earlier this year, Taiwan celebrated its rise to 27th place out of 180 in the latest World Press Freedom Index, moving up eight positions. However, this incident has tarnished Taiwan’s image as a defender of journalistic freedom and prompted Reporters Without Borders, an international NGO that monitors and advocates for press freedom, to condemn it as a “rare and worrying act of censorship by the government.” The Taiwan Foreign Correspondents’ Club also issued a statement in solidarity with Louise Watt, calling on the Lai administration to safeguard the freedom of the press, a fundamental pillar of the nation’s democracy. Other media practitioners either questioned TaiwanPlus’s credibility as an independent, “without fear or favour” news outlet or expressed concern about the Taiwanese government’s perceived need to censor a critical fact to preserve favourable relations with the newly elected U.S. president.
Takeaways from the Taiwan Plus incident
Equating TaiwanPlus to China’s CGTN and dismissing it as a mere government mouthpiece based on a single incident is not only excessive but also unjustly undermines the efforts of the professional journalists involved. In fact, earlier this month, TaiwanPlus won the Best News/Current Affairs Program award at the Asian Academy Creative Awards for its “Broken News” documentary. Given Taiwan’s position as a nation significantly impacted by the global spread of disinformation, this documentary has garnered significant international attention, offering valuable insights for the world to learn from Taiwan’s experience in combating the weaponization of dis/misinformation.
Nevertheless, this incident presents a valuable opportunity for TaiwanPlus to examine its journalistic practices and crisis management procedures thoroughly. Ed Moon, the story’s supervising editor, explained that Watt’s report underwent rigorous review and verification and should be regarded as a qualified and principled piece of reporting. If this is indeed the case, TaiwanPlus should have steadfastly defended its fact-based coverage. When confronted with criticism, TaiwanPlus should have proactively provided a more comprehensive explanation of the true meaning and context of the term rather than yielding to public pressure by removing the controversial content, which inadvertently exacerbated the controversy.
This incident further highlights a critical structural flaw within Taiwan’s public broadcasting system, including TaiwanPlus. While media entities within this system enjoy a degree of operational independence, the lack of a robust firewall makes them susceptible to undue influence from the government or other domestic political actors. As a result, when controversies arise, the Legislative Yuan or other government agencies can easily exert pressure to interfere with newsroom decisions and undermine journalistic autonomy. As Voice of America correspondent William Yang noted, the concept of “disciplinary warning” (記過) is a practice typically associated with government-controlled organizations. Yet, it has occurred at an institution that has long claimed to be a “public media outlet.” Isn’t this a glaring contradiction?
The inherent value of public media within democratic societies stems from their relative independence from government or corporate influence. By transforming public media into a “diplomatic tool,” Taiwan risks undermining the very principles upon which their significance rests. Such a transformation not only compromises the independence of these media outlets but also jeopardizes Taiwan’s international reputation as a champion of media freedom.
Furthermore, the success of platforms like TaiwanPlus, entrusted with conveying Taiwan’s narrative to the global stage, hinges critically upon the preservation of editorial independence. Only through this independence can TaiwanPlus authentically represent diverse perspectives, maintain accountability to the public, and ultimately fulfil its mission of effectively and accurately communicating Taiwan’s story to the world.
Chiaoning Su is an associate professor in Communication, Journalism, and Public Relations at Oakland University. She also serves as the Barry M. Klein Centre for Culture and Globalization director. Her research focuses on two distinct yet interconnected research lines: journalism of crisis and journalism in crisis. While the first line examines the representation and production of crisis news, the second focuses on journalism in public life during an era of waning democracy. Her work has been published in Media, Culture and Society, International Journal of Communication, Asian Journal of Communication, Taiwan Journal of Democracy, and Communication Review.
This article was published as part of a special issue on ‘US Election: Implications for Taiwan’.
Taiwan Insight 