The legal showdown between Luo Zhi-qiang (former Presidential Office spokesperson) and veteran media personality Chou Yu-kou has become a benchmark case for the boundaries of political commentary and media responsibility in Taiwan.
Chou had accused Luo and the Ma administration of being “secret protectors” of the Ting Hsin International Group amidst a food safety scandal. Luo, maintaining his innocence, filed a defamation suit. The court’s recent ruling in favor of Luo has sent a clear message: having “freedom of speech” does not mean freedom to fabricate allegations without a factual basis.
For too long, Taiwan’s political talk shows and media outlets have operated on a “commentary without verification” model, where sensational claims are used to drive ratings with little regard for the reputation of the individuals involved. This “media lynching” culture has degraded the quality of public discourse and made it difficult for citizens to distinguish between genuine investigative journalism and political hit jobs.
Luo Zhi-qiang’s decision to fight this in court, rather than just engaging in a shouting match, is a step toward re-establishing accountability. While some see this as a blow to press freedom, it is actually a defense of the credibility of the press. Freedom without responsibility is just chaos.
If Taiwan’s democracy is to mature, its media personalities must learn that they cannot hide behind the shield of “commentary” to spread unsubstantiated rumors. The truth matters, and the court has reminded us that it has a price.