The draft bill of Media Monopolization Prevention and Diversity Preservation was preliminarily approved by the Transportation Committee of the Legislative Yuan on May 30, 2013.
Requiring newspapers to make corrections of false reports upon notice of the persons concerned or offer them reply opportunities were, so claimed some critics, an expansion of power of the National Communications Commission (NCC) and a return of the abolished Publication Act. The fact is, as NCC herein clarifies, that with the draft bill’s enactment, its power shall not increase and neither new punitive measures nor administrative interventions shall be included in the draft bill, since there are no provisions about administrative interventions.
Present laws, such as the Civil Code, set forth similar requirements in the event of media reporting that may infringe upon an individual’s reputation. Furthermore, Justices of the Constitutional Court deem the requirements to be in line with the Constitution. The NCC fulfills the "right of access to the media" stated in the Constitution and reinforces moral right in the draft bill, but does not add new restrictions. The right of the stakeholders to make corrections or reply, as stipulated in the draft bill, is with the aim of protecting the rights of the public.
In this era of digital convergence, information flows freely throughout all media platforms. Media conglomerates might own newspapers and TV or radio stations. In comparison with the broadcasting media though, the press has a stronger influence over the salience of topics on the public agenda. In light of this, another purpose of the bill is to prevent the media including the newsprint industry from infringing upon the rights of the citizens. As a result, the obligation of correction or reply should not be limited to just broadcasters regulated by the Radio and Television Broadcasting Act, the Satellite Broadcasting Act and the Cable Television Act.
The reasoning of the Judicial Yuan Interpretation No. 364 states that the public may demand page space or broadcast time from the mass media. This will serve to promote the truthfulness and fairness of media reports and commentaries by enabling the public their rightful opportunity to express their opinions. That is to say, when an individual's right is infringed upon due to false media reports or commentaries, he or she is entitled to offer a response or request the media to revise their reports or commentaries.
The right to claim compensation and request correction for incorrect reporting is enshrined in the Constitution of The Republic of China. Moreover, the Meteorological Act, the Mental Health Act, the Communicable Disease Control Act and the Crime Victim Protection Act also stipulate that the persons concerned can demand media outlets to correct incorrect or false reports; this applies to both the press and the broadcasting media. It is worth noting that this rule has been in place for a long period of time, and has not led to any chilling effect among the media.
The NCC also directs attention to the fact that the principle of allowing media outlets the opportunity to make corrections and reply exists in developed countries. For instance, in Germany and France, “response to reports” regulations date back to 150 years ago. In addition, according to EU directives, new entrants into the EU are duty-bound to enact and implement “response to reports” rules. Hence, incorporating related rules in the draft bill of Media Monopolization Prevention and Diversity Preservation is consistent with the global trend.
