The NCC's Cognitive Dissonance

The NCC's Cognitive Dissonance
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 4, 2009

The National Communications Commission (NCC) passed a seven-point amendment changing the directors and supervisors of Chung Tien Television (CTI TV) and the China Television Company (CTV). This provoked intense official and public criticism. Charges and countercharges of "illegal abuse of power" and "immoral behavior" were bandied back and forth. Serious doubts were cast on the NCC's authority. The China Times Group's public image was also damaged.

The main reason the "Twin Chinas Case" has come to this is that a small number of NCC Commissioners acted willfully. They failed to operate within to the law. They exceeded the limits of the law. As a result applicants were disgruntled. They also failed to gain the support of the community. This is the NCC's biggest problem. It wields immense power and has grand ambitions. But it refuses to operate within the law. Consequently its ideals have remained unfulfilled. It can neither advance nor retreat. It has lost its focus.

The China Times Group launched a counter-attack. Through proxies, it published ads lambasting specific Commissioners. Its methods were unorthodox. This led the NCC to criticize its "manner of doing business." But the root of the problem was the NCC's hasty decision-making. It even disparaged new investors, referring to them as "rice dumpling vendors." Why else would the concerned parties launch such a fierce counter-attack? The NCC criticized the China Times Group coverage of the controversy as "irrational and unbalanced." But one reaps what one sows. The NCC cannot escape blame.

Suppose the NCC had allowed the Tu family to simultaneously own the "Three Chinas?" Why does it have a problem with the Tsai family taking them over now? The provisions of the Broadcasting Law have not changed. Can NCC Commissioners make up their own regulations? Can they allow their individual whims to override the law? The NCC feels it must speak out against investors from other industries buying into the media. But even so, it must offer a logical and persuasive case for its position. The NCC exceeded its authority. It insulted new investors. It insulted many people within the media industry. This hardly accords with the NCC's role as a neutral mediator.

The NCC was established over three years ago. Yet it is still referred to by its English acronym. It still lacks a catchy sounding name in Chinese. This suggests it still has not found public acceptance. Ever since the NCC was established, the public has had high expectations. But the NCC has failed to understand its role, and has failed to fulfill its duties. The "Twin Chinas case" is one example. The earlier TVBS case is another. It mishandled the case of provocative video game commercials. The crux of the problem is that although the NCC has enormous power, it lacks managerial experience and expertise. As a result, whenever it draws its sword, it wounds either someone else or itself.

Take the "Twin Chinas case." Only three Commissioners were able to dicate the rulings of the seven member Commission. Clearly its organization contains a number of structural defects. These have led to defective judgments. For an entity that wields such immense power, this is a serious problem. It is rumored that one or two Commissioners obssessed with "media reform" were the cause of its arbitrary decision-making. If so, the NCC must find ways to address the problem of its own biases. The public of course would like to see officials retain their reformist ideals. But the NCC is not a social reform group. It is a government agency. Its Commissioners may harbor reformist ideals. But they must have the patience to change the media and change the laws. They must not resort to arbitrary means outside the system.

Furthermore, if NCC Commissioners focus only on "monitoring the media," they are defining their duties too narrowly. Society and times change. The NCC's management responsibilities in the world of the Internet are now greater than ever. They include coping with rampant telephone fraud, all-pervasive spam, and the appropriate allocation of telecommunications resources and the rational setting of telecommunications fees. These are all huge issues that affect the livelihood of the general public. They have attracted public attention. They require greater effort by NCC Commissioners. The problem of pirate radio stations has remained unresolved for years. The content of many television shows is vulgar or even fraudulent. But the NCC has turned a blind eye to them. So-called media reformers are concerned about "rice dumpling vendors" buying into the television industry. Yet they have absolutely no reaction to the corruption that threatens to indundate them. Doesn't this indicate some cognitive dissonance regarding their job definition?

The NCC treated the new investors in the "Twin Chinas case" as delinquents. It violated the spirit of the law. This led to today's asymmetrical warfare. This is hardly something the public wants to see. We recommend that the two sides return to the table. The China Times Group may seek administrative relief. The NCC should make a stronger case or re-examine the case. Only then can this conflict between the government and the public end in a lawful and reasonable manner.

NCC的不對稱認知引發不對稱戰爭
【聯合報╱社論】
2009.06.04 06:02 am

國家通訊傳播委員會（ＮＣＣ）以七點「附帶決議」通過中天、中視董監事變更案，引發官民猛烈攻防。在你罵我「違法濫權」、我罵你「不道德」的砲火中，ＮＣＣ的權威受到嚴重質疑，中時集團的媒體形象也不無損傷。

「雙中案」之所以演變至此，主要原因在少數ＮＣＣ委員意欲有所作為，卻未能持守依法行政的基本原則。超越法制勉強而為的結果，不僅申請人難以心服，也未能爭取到社會大眾的支持。這恐怕正是ＮＣＣ本身最大的困境：握有偌大的權力，也懷抱大志，卻不知依法行政，終致理想蹈空，進退失據。

就媒體而言，中時集團除多方發動反擊，並以刊登人頭廣告的方式大肆抨擊特定委員，作法殊非尋常，已引致ＮＣＣ對其「經營風格」的批評。但從源頭看，若非ＮＣＣ草率決策，甚至以「賣米?的」之貶抑詞歧視新投資人，當事人怎會採取如此激烈的反擊？ＮＣＣ批中時集團的報導「違反理性衡平」，但惡質引發惡質，ＮＣＣ亦難辭其咎。

試想，如果上次ＮＣＣ核准余家可同時持有「三中」，為何這次蔡家接手就有問題？如果廣電法的規定未變，ＮＣＣ委員憑什麼可以自創規定，將個人意志置於法律之上？就算ＮＣＣ認為有必要對「異業」跨業投資媒體作出表態，也應提出符合外界認知的論述和邏輯，而不是訂出不符常情的附帶規範。何況，ＮＣＣ表態過當，除羞辱了新投資人，更傷及眾多相關媒體工作者的自尊，這又豈符合ＮＣＣ作為管理人應有的中立原則？

成立逾三年的ＮＣＣ，如今還在使用英文縮寫，仍未產生一個全民琅琅上口的本土稱呼，可見其移植而來的概念仍未融入台灣的水土。成立以來，ＮＣＣ承受社會極高的期待，但其角色認知及決策作為有時卻與期待有所落差，除了雙中案，過去的ＴＶＢＳ案，乃至日前的清涼電玩廣告處分案均如此。癥結就在，ＮＣＣ雖握有極大的權力，卻缺乏成熟的管制文化，以致刀一出鞘，不是傷人就是自傷。

以這次的「雙中案」為例，不過是三個委員的堅持，卻能左右七人委員會的決定，可見其內部某種結構性的不對稱，導致其終極決策的不對稱。這對一個握有偌大權力的機構而言，其實是嚴重的問題。若果真如傳言，因一二委員特別執著於「媒體改造」，而造成決策的專斷與失衡，則ＮＣＣ自需設法改善其自身偏倚的問題。外界當然樂意看到官員抱持改革的理想，但ＮＣＣ畢竟不是社會運動團體，而是政府公權力機構；委員的改革理想，必須耐心打造足以改變媒體生態的法律環境，而不是任意訴諸體制外手段。

進一步說，ＮＣＣ委員若只將關注焦點放在「監督媒體」，亦未免太窄化了己身的職責。隨著社會及時代的變遷，ＮＣＣ對於通訊及網路世界的管理職責也越來越重大，包括詐騙電話的猖獗，垃圾郵件的無孔不入，乃至電信資源的合理分配及電信資費的合理化，在在都是影響民生大眾更鉅的議題，也更受民眾關注，值得ＮＣＣ委員多下功夫。何況，地下電台林立的問題多少年懸而未決，遑論許多電視節目內容低俗、充斥偽詐，ＮＣＣ卻視若無睹。所謂媒體改造派的委員若對一位「賣米? 的」商人入主電視耿耿於懷，卻對現實環境中四溢的腥臭腐敗毫無反應，這豈非職務認知太過失衡？

ＮＣＣ將雙中案新投資人當成「虞犯」對待，並不符合依法行政的精神；雙方演成今天的不對稱戰爭，更非外界所樂見。我們建議，雙方不妨回歸體制，中時集團可以尋求行政救濟，ＮＣＣ則補強論述或重新審核。如此，這齣官民衝突大戲，才有可能合法合理地收場。