A friend asked me this before
Many people don't seem to understand the differences. Most just think "the media talks nonsense," "terrible media," "reporters have no brains." Today, I'd like to explain the differences and clarify the current state of the media!
First, let's examine the same news story through its headlines
【Society】
A. Teenagers make "bang bang" loud noises in park, startling the neighborhood — 8 brats all taken back
B. Trying to show off! 8 teenagers play with electric batons in park, didn't get shocked but did break the law
Which one is TV news? Which one is online news?
Isn't it obvious?
The top one is online, the bottom one is TV!?
The difference is that online news uses "bang bang bang"—if you had to guess before reading, wouldn't you be attracted to this phrase and think they were doing something inappropriate? This is what we call "clickbait headlines" that immediately trick readers into clicking, while TV directly writes "electric baton" so you know right away what it's about—it's obviously a public safety and social order issue.
Another difference is the wording between "brats" and "teenagers." Online can use "brats" to describe the accused, like "street racing brats," "trust fund kids," "fatties"—these are stigmatizing labels. Meanwhile, TV uses more formal terms like "teenagers" or "thugs"!
Besides headlines, let's look at the body text too (partial excerpts)
【Online】
When police arrived on scene, they questioned the teenagers. When asking for ID, birthdate, and other information, some wouldn't cooperate, answering "don't know" to every question, which frustrated the officers on scene. "Don't know? No problem, we'll just take you to the police station and have your parents pick you up," and only then did the brats "suddenly remember!"
Police contacted the parents of 9 students at the police station to pick up their children, and cited violations under Article 63 of the Social Order Maintenance Act against the teenager possessing an electric baton.
【TV】
Eight teenagers gathered in the park, and when they saw police coming, they were laughing and joking around, not realizing they'd caused trouble. Police searched through a blue backpack and found a prohibited item—an electric baton. But when police questioned the teenagers about their identities, they tried to play dumb.
Teenager vs. Police: "(When were you born) Don't know. Don't mess with me! If you don't know, we'll just take you back! We'll call your parents to pick you up."
The electric shock sound goes off. Electric batons like this are regulated items that require ID registration when purchased. The electric baton these teenagers had looked like a flashlight and can be purchased online, but it's also a lethal weapon. Eight underage boys and girls sat in the park after school, thought they could show off with an electric baton, didn't succeed, and all got taken to the police station.
Online media used the term "brats" instead of "teenagers" in the body text, but TV directly says "teenagers" and avoids stigmatizing or overly subjective language. Regarding the Social Order Maintenance Act section, TV supplemented it with information about the regulations controlling electric batons. Although it's brief, it connects the law to highlight the seriousness of the issue, while online news just mentions the law.
【Clearly they're both media, so why are there such differences?】
Right, why is that? Both are news, so why are TV and online different?
Let's bring in some theory. First, everyone knows about NCC, right?
NCC National Communications Commission
The scope of services it manages includes telecommunications, broadcasting, and digital convergence. In summary, it manages "electronic media." Cable TV, broadcast TV, radio (FM/AM), telecommunications—but notably NOT the internet! Because "electronic" refers to media that occupies public resources like "spectrum."
Why public resources? Because of the "spectrum scarcity theory."
"Spectrum Scarcity Theory" Historical Overview
In April 1912, the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank in the North Atlantic. The United States began taking wireless communication regulation seriously. That same August, the U.S. Congress passed the "1912 Radio Act," which emphasized that radio waves are a scarce resource to be shared by all people and should be managed and allocated by the government to prevent monopolization by a few.
From the spectrum scarcity perspective, broadcast channels are public goods. When opening up frequencies for application, comprehensive consideration should be given to audience interests (both listeners and non-listeners), existing broadcast channel usage allocation efficiency, media access rights for disadvantaged groups, and advertising market supply and demand.
How to best use radio wave frequencies and maximize public interest and public service, and even realize the ideal of media access rights, is the main consideration for all countries in allocating and managing radio frequencies; this is especially important as a basis for allocating non-commercial broadcast frequencies.
Because of this, television and electronic media are treated as "public property" with social responsibility. Therefore, news legally cannot include product placement or advertising, and must provide content suitable for all age groups—"general audience" rated. This is why TV news pixelates suspects' faces, blurs fight and accident scenes, changes blood color, and so on.
In lifestyle reporting, for the same news story, there must be two or more brands, or brand logos must be pixelated. Word choice must be carefully considered, as these all relate to public interest. Violations of these rules result in NCC fines. (Of course, TV still has product placement—they just hide it well, like X Wave Music Festival, X Sheng Music, C X and so on.)
But the internet is different. The internet is a free realm. Current heavy users fall between ages 15-35, but that's not to say it's unregulated. Taiwan uses the "Children and Youth Welfare Act" to manage online content. Facebook, which everyone uses, has begun implementing mechanisms for managing graphic content, but this is still in an immature stage since bloody and violent content is still easily accessible.
Children and Youth Welfare Act, Article 46-1 states:
"No person shall distribute or transmit content harmful to the physical or mental health of children and youth on the internet, or fail to implement clear and feasible protective measures or cooperate with internet platform providers' protective mechanisms, allowing children and youth to access or view such content."
Just these few brief lines manage online content. Therefore, when negative news involving underage children or youth—such as rape or abuse—is reported, clothing becomes discolored with heavy pixelation, and graphic images are pixelated to prevent youth from accessing content that might "affect their physical or mental health." As a result, the choice of words isn't as meticulous, and balanced reporting elements like regulations are done less thoroughly. However, this boundary exists in a "gray area."
Online news judges whether a news report is "good" by "click rates," and you can know the click count immediately. Therefore, many outlets re-run the same story with different headlines, or block logos with images to increase curiosity. Headlines use "misleading" language to trick readers—all for clicks. Because of this standard, over time, regardless of content quality, depth, or professionalism, as long as there are clicks, it's considered good news. (Of course, more professional media outlets aren't included in this discussion, like The Reporter.)
TV news judges daily performance by "viewership ratings" measured by Nielsen, and you only know the previous day's ratings the next day. But content isn't the priority. "Commercial breaks" and "ad time" are factors affecting news viewership. Think about your TV-watching experience—don't you change the channel when an ad comes on? That's called "breaking" the audience. If the commercial is long, don't you get impatient?
That's the issue of "time." Therefore, ON TV editors have many small screens in front showing other news channels. Whoever has shorter ads gets into the news; whoever broadcasts what news determines the news broadcast order. As for content quality, some stations are really scary, while others are genuinely high-quality.
I'm not trying to say who's better or worse, who's more professional or more superficial. I just want to explain that these are two different types of news media with different operations, different audiences, different regulations—so of course there are differences.
As for why online wording often makes people uncomfortable? Why comments like "this barely counts as an article" appear?
Think about it—after a tiring workday, you open Facebook just wanting to laugh and relax. Of course the highly-clicked posts are frivolous content, breaking news, random internet celebrities. It's not that everyone is brainless, or the internet is brainless. The function is simply different. When you turn on the TV, you naturally want to catch up on today's important news. Hopefully this explains the differences between the two! :)
