On February 26, 2025, at the invitation of the Organization Without Borders, I attended the “Journalism Trust Initiative” networking event held in Taipei.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) launched the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) in 2019 and called on global media to participate. I have a long history with RSF. As early as 2008, I wrote a lot if English emails with Clothilde Le Coz and Lucie Morillon of RSF, helping them record videos, contact interviewees, and respond to their concerns. At that time, they even invited me to go to Paris, but I was unable to go because I was on China’s exit blacklist.
Currently, RSF has an Asia-Pacific office in Taiwan, headed by Cedric Alviani. I met him at a party at Wuerkaixi’s home and on many other occasions. It is worth mentioning that Wuerkaixi not only serves as the secretary-general of the Legislative Yuan’s Human Rights Promotion Association, but is also an honorary director of Reporters Without Borders. His connection with the organization may be deeper than mine.
Last October, I was also invited to attend the “Seventh Anniversary reception of the Asia-Pacific Office” of RSF, and met Wuerkaixi, who had not made a public appearance for ten months due to a fall down the stairs on the night before the election. He recovered and gave an English speech at the reception.
Taiwan’s Vice Foreign Minister Wu Zhizhong also attended the reception. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, the new Secretary-General of RSF, Thibaut Bruttin, visited Taiwan for the first time since taking office. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Wu Chih-chung accompanied him to pay a visit to President Lai Ching-te on the afternoon of February 16, and hosted a banquet for him at noon on the 17th. The two sides further exchanged views on issues such as the government’s measures to safeguard press freedom, the News Trust Initiative (JTI)’s promotion of credible media certification, and how to deal with false information.
A few months later, I saw that RTI was certified by the News Trust Initiative. When I saw Cheryl Lai share this news on Facebook, I realized that she was the chairman of Radio Taiwan International. I didn’t even remember when I added her as a Facebook friend.
JTI CEO Benjamin Sabbah visited Taiwan this time, and RSF held the “JTI CEO Benjamin Sabbah’s Visit to Taiwan Exchange Evening”. There were many people interacting with him at the scene. At the end of the party, I took a photo with him and said that I would write an article to talk about my views on the “Journalism Trust Initiative”.
I am skeptical about this “Journalism Trust Initiative”.
Unlike Luo Shihong, Qiu Jiayi and other scholars with a background in journalism and communication whom I met tonight, I do not interpret news and media from an academic framework. Although many people criticize Trump, Roger Stone, Elon Musk, Guo Wengui, Peng Wenzheng, Fu Kunqi, Huang Kuo-chang and others for their flamboyant and controversial words, they are still able to gain the trust of a large number of supporters. They have put into practice the famous saying of Queen Elizabeth II: “I have to be seen to be believed.” They have earned the trust of their supporters not because of their scholarship, character, accountability, fact-checking or the Journalism Trust Initiative. Rather, it is because their statements provide “emotional value” and “identity recognition” that they simply gain the trust of existing supporters and become a source of credible statements.
In contrast, even though traditional media have more rigorous news standards, they are at a disadvantage in the competition for dopamine and attention because they lack interaction and personalized narratives and “emotional value.” Therefore, simply relying on “trust certification” to evaluate the influence of news media may not truly solve the problem of news credibility. The emotionally charged self-media and their audiences no longer trust traditional media because their attention has been snatched away.
The development of digital technology and the Internet has given ordinary people the ability to run media and the opportunity to be seen. The challenge that traditional media faces in the digital age does not come from competition in news quality, but from competition for attention. Traditional media provides cold news, while social media and instant media provide hot news and allow for interaction. If digital media slightly adjust their business strategies, lower their ethical requirements, and provide exaggerated, loose, emotional, and fictional content, they may gain greater advantages.
Tonight I encountered Cofacts, Watchout, and Taiwan Fact-Checking Center, all of which I am relatively familiar with. I think their media environment in Taiwan is of average quality. It not only improves the average intelligence level of Taiwan’s media, but also actively combats fake news while being interactive. However, no one from RTI, which is certified by the Journalism Trust Initiative, attended the event, so I have no way of knowing what the RTI’s views were. But this may just prove the difference between “cold media” and “hot media” – private self-media operates around the clock all year round to strive for any exposure opportunity, while official media such as Radio Taiwan INTL only works 8 hours a day. Therefore, I believe that RTI’s certification of the “Journalism Trust Initiative” is of limited significance. It cannot shorten the distance between RTI and the public, does not help improve interactivity, and makes it even more difficult to establish a reader community like self-media. In other words, it is difficult to win back readers.
As for how news media can gain more trust, I think it should be more localized. News from a distant foreign land carries a sense of distance, making it difficult to interact with; whereas local news is closely related to individuals and makes it easier to establish emotional connections. If we can uphold certain ethical principles and values, we will have the opportunity to operate a local news platform that can gain trust, provide a discussion space for local public affairs, increase citizen participation, and improve local governance. This is consistent with the statement that All politics is local, as well as the statement on RSF’ business card that it is a “NGOs advocating for the right to information”
media organizations do need to establish their own credibility, but the credibility of news and media does not rely on the trust endorsement of external organizations. I think there may even be news that does not require trust. For example, when an individual or organization reports an event related to themselves, their statements can be directly used as evidence in court. In this case, such news itself has legal validity, does not require additional trust, and is difficult to be denied by others. In this case, the news content is the evidence, and its credibility does not come from certification by some third-party authority.
Third-party authoritative organizations can also be slandered in the eyes of emotionally charged people. For example, the Taiwan Fact-Checking Center will also be discredited by Taiwan’s “extreme Taiwan factions” who only choose “facts” that are beneficial to them. As mentioned earlier, those radical internet celebrities can deny the credibility of traditional media and gain support from their fans simply by saying “fake news.”
In fact, the credibility of news should not come from the review of a single authoritative organization, but from multiple public discussions and transparency mechanisms. Readers, professional journalists, citizen groups and even academic institutions can evaluate and challenge news content, forming a decentralized “community review” mechanism. Such a mechanism is more flexible than certification by a single agency and is more in line with the diversity of the media environment.
Therefore, if news can be based on rigorous facts and evidence like academic papers and can withstand public scrutiny, then the news itself will have sufficient credibility and no longer need to rely on institutions or authoritative organizations for endorsement or certification.
To sum up, I still have reservations about the necessity and feasibility of the “News Trust Initiative”. I believe that the credibility of news should come from the verifiability of its content and multi-party scrutiny, rather than the endorsement of a single institution. Moreover, the credibility of news in the minds of the public, like the formation of public opinion, will not be a stable and unchanging state, but a dynamic process.
In other words, just as serious photos are more attractive, serious news can indeed affect more people than emotional content over a longer time scale. No matter what, news media organizations still need to write history seriously, and they must do this with or without external certification.
I believe that “direct democracy” and “indirect democracy” can coexist without conflicting with each other. Each has its own scope of application and advantages. Similarly, “directly trusted media” that focuses on local news and “indirectly trusted media” that focuses on international reporting can complement and coexist to meet news needs at different levels. “Directly trusted local media” provides instant, specific and verifiable local information, allowing the public to participate in person and directly confirm it; while “indirectly trusted traditional media” brings transnational perspectives and in-depth analysis through professional news organizations and journalist networks, helping readers understand the more macro pulse of the world.
When discussing the credibility of news media, we must acknowledge a reality: news media itself is not a transcendent existence. Different media organizations often form their own principles and positions based on their historical background, cultural context or market positioning. Some media emphasize investigative reporting, some focus on breaking news, and some are good at commentary. In addition, media outlets’ financial sources vary widely: some rely on a subscription model, others on advertising sponsorship, and still others receive funding from governments or non-governmental organizations. These factors inevitably affect news selection, reporting angles, and even the media’s definition of “what is credible news.”
While the media’s stance and financial model do affect the content of their reports, the credibility of news should be based on transparency, fact-checking and open discussion, rather than relying on certification from a specific organization. It is possible to try to promote external reviews and certification, but whether the credibility of the news will be accepted by the public is another matter. The radical Internet celebrities mentioned above do not need “external certification” at all.
I believe that media organizations do need to establish their own credibility, but the credibility of news and media does not rely on the trust endorsement of external organizations. I think there may even be news that does not require trust. For example, when an individual or organization reports an event related to themselves, their statements can be directly used as evidence in court. In this case, such news itself has legal validity, does not require additional trust, and is difficult to be denied by others. In this case, the news content is the evidence, and its credibility does not come from certification by some third-party authority.
Third-party authoritative organizations can also be slandered in the eyes of emotionally charged people. For example, the Taiwan Fact-Checking Center will also be discredited by Taiwan’s “extreme Taiwan factions” who only choose “facts” that are beneficial to them. As mentioned earlier, those radical internet celebrities can deny the credibility of traditional media and gain support from their fans simply by saying “fake news.”
In fact, the credibility of news should not come from the review of a single authoritative organization, but from multiple public discussions and transparency mechanisms. Readers, professional journalists, citizen groups and even academic institutions can evaluate and challenge news content, forming a decentralized “community review” mechanism. Such a mechanism is more flexible than certification by a single agency and is more in line with the diversity of the media environment.
Therefore, if news can be based on rigorous facts and evidence like academic papers and can withstand public scrutiny, then the news itself will have sufficient credibility and no longer need to rely on institutions or authoritative organizations for endorsement or certification.
To sum up, I still have reservations about the necessity and feasibility of the “News Trust Initiative”. I believe that the credibility of news should come from the verifiability of its content and multi-party scrutiny, rather than the endorsement of a single institution. Moreover, the credibility of news in the minds of the public, like the formation of public opinion, will not be a stable and unchanging state, but a dynamic process.
In other words, just as serious photos are more attractive, serious news can indeed affect more people than emotional content over a longer time scale. No matter what, news media organizations still need to write history seriously, and they must do this with or without external certification.