方恩格專欄》外媒製造假新聞 誰從中得利？

圖爲2023年10月16日，華府智庫「美國企業研究院」（AEI）由院長杜爾（Robert Doar)率領訪問團，赴總統府拜會蔡英文總統。（總統府提供）

曾閱讀筆者評論、或在臺灣聽過筆者於電臺或電視節目發言的讀者，應該知道筆者長期關注外國記者與學者在撰寫有關臺灣的英文報導時，經常出現的錯誤。

舉例來說，2018年，筆者在《中國時報》專欄中揭露《臺北時報》英文報導中一項錯誤的指控。該報稱，中國將投入新臺幣350億元（超過10億美元）來干預當年地方選舉。這則假新聞後來還被一些外國學者在報告中引用。我們是如何確認該訊息不實的呢？我們向內政部警政署與法務部調查局查詢該筆新臺幣350億元的情報來源。這兩個機關的回覆皆表示，他們沒有相關情報，並指出《臺北時報》的報導純屬臆測。

近期，位於華盛頓特區的智庫「美國企業研究院」（American Enterprise Institute，簡稱 AEI）發表了一份有關臺灣發展的報告。這份報告再次提醒我們，外國學者在撰寫有關臺灣的內容時，經常出現錯誤。

首先，該報告提及臺灣政府最近針對部分臺灣藝人在中國社羣平臺上所發言論進行調查，是否違反《兩岸人民關係條例》第33-1條第1項的規定。該條文禁止與中國的「政黨、軍事、行政、具政治性機構、團體或涉及對臺政治工作、影響國家安全或利益之機關、團體爲任何形式之合作行爲。」

這些藝人最終僅被警告，並未遭受任何處罰。然而，美國企業研究院的報告卻聲稱，這些藝人中有3人「被發現擁有中國國籍」，並引用《自由時報》爲消息來源。但《自由時報》的報導並未表示這3名藝人「擁有中國國籍」。該報導實際內容是：3人被發現擁有雙重國籍，其中一人是中華民國與加拿大的雙重國籍，另兩人的第二國籍未被明確指出。報導中使用的是「雙重國籍」這個詞，而在臺灣語境中，這個詞通常用來描述同時擁有中華民國與「其他國家」（例如美國、加拿大等）國籍的人，而不是非法持有中國與臺灣身分的人。舉例來說，中央社最近一篇報導中，用「雙重身分」來形容那些非法持有中國與臺灣身分證件的人。

另一項重大錯誤是，美國企業研究院報告稱：「賴清德總統推動將國防預算在2050年前，提高至GDP的5％以上。」但事實上，賴總統在2024年8月22日於X社羣平臺上以英文發文表示：「我們的目標是到2030年達到GDP的5％」，這項聲明被彭博社、路透社等國際媒體報導，也在當天被多家臺灣媒體廣泛報導。每個人都有可能犯小錯誤，包括筆者。但這份來自美國企業研究院的報告有10位作者。難道這10位作者中沒有一位能在發表前察覺錯誤並加以修正嗎？

最後，該報告還提到，前臺北市長、臺灣民衆黨前主席柯文哲近期獲准交保的消息。報告寫道：「柯文哲與民衆黨主張自己無罪，並指責執政的民進黨對其進行政治迫害，儘管柯的起訴發生在由最大反對黨國民黨所執政的臺北市。」這段話完全暴露出對臺灣司法體系的無知。在臺灣，地方縣市政府並不掌控檢察體系。臺灣的檢察官隸屬於中央政府法務部所屬的檢察機關。民衆黨指控由民進黨主導的中央政府迫害柯文哲，而美國企業研究院卻錯誤地寫成是國民黨籍市長控制的檢察官起訴柯文哲。

即便美國企業研究所日後修正此錯誤，已有許多人讀過該報告並因此對臺灣政治情勢產生錯誤認知。那麼，這類關於臺灣的外媒或外國學者錯誤評論，究竟是誰從中受益？美國企業研究院並未公開其金主名單，因此無法得知臺灣政府目前是否仍是贊助者。然而，在2013年曾有一份捐款名單意外曝光，其中就包含臺灣政府。那麼，臺灣政府如今是否仍爲該智庫的金主呢？

不論臺灣政府是否仍贊助美國企業研究所，「駐美代表處」（TECRO）難道不應該負責與華府智庫、學者維持關係、閱讀他們發表與臺灣相關的文章，並在發現錯誤時主動聯繫並予以更正嗎？

臺灣之所以常成爲國際新聞焦點，原因包括：兩岸關係持續惡化、國防預算不斷增加，以及臺灣半導體產業在快速發展的人工智慧領域中扮演關鍵角色。此外，明年11月臺灣將舉行地方選舉，14個月後的2028年1月則將進行總統與立法委員選舉。因此，未來仍會有大量來自外國媒體與學者的相關報導。遺憾的是，這些報導中仍將充斥着錯誤，甚至是假新聞。這些錯誤究竟對誰有利？

（作者爲美國共和黨前亞太區主任）

Inaccurate Reports About Taiwan Again; Who Benefits?

By Ross Darrell Feingold

Former Asia Chairman, Republicans Abroad

X: @RossFeingold

Readers and audiences in Taiwan who have read this author’s previous commentaries, or seen this author on the radio or television in Taiwan, will be aware of his concerns about the frequent mistakes that foreign journalists and foreign scholars make when writing about Taiwan in English.

For example, in a previous column in The China Times, this author exposed a false claim made in an English language report in the Taipei Times in 2018 that China would spend NT$35 billion (over US$1 billion) to subvert that year’s local elections. This fake news was subsequently repeated in reports authored by foreign scholars.

How did we determine that was false? We asked both the Ministry of the Interior National Police Administration, and the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau, about the NT$35 billion dollar amount that the Taipei Times reported. The reply from these two agencies was that they have no such intelligence, and that the Taipei Times report is speculation.

Recently, the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington DC, published a report about developments in Taiwan. This report is another reminder about how often foreign scholars write incorrect things about Taiwan.

First, the America Enterprise Institute report discusses the recent investigation by authorities in Taiwan into the social media posts by celebrities from Taiwan who maintain social media accounts on social media platforms in China, and whether the celebrities violated Article 33-1, Paragraph 1, of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area that prohibits cooperation with China’s "political parties, the military, the administration or of any political nature, or which are involved in any political work against Taiwan or affect national security or interests."

The celebrities were issued a warning, but no penalties were imposed.

The American Enterprise Institute report states that three of the celebrities “were found to hold PRC citizenship”. The American Enterprise Institute cites as its source for this claim a report in the Liberty Times.

However, the Liberty Times report does not say three of the celebrities were found to hold Chinese citizenship.

What the Liberty Times article says, is that the three of the celebrities were found to have dual citizenship, with one of those three being a dual citizen of Taiwan and Canada. The article does not say what the second citizenship is of the two other celebrities. However, the phrase used in the Liberty Times article, “雙重國籍” (dual nationality) is typically used to describe a holder of Taiwan and a foreign nationality but is typically not used to describe someone who illegally holds China and Taiwan nationality. For example, a recent article in Taiwan’s Central News Agency used the term “雙重身分” (dual identity) to describe someone who illegally holds China and Taiwan identification documents.

The next significant error in the American Enterprise Institute report is that “President William Lai Ching-te has pushed to raise Taiwan’s defense budget past five percent of its GDP by 2050”.

In fact, on August 22, President Lai posted in English on his X social media account that “we are also aiming to achieve 5% of GDP by 2030”. This was reported in international English media such as Bloomberg and Reuters, as well as many others. Of course, it was also reported in major Taiwan media on that day as well.

Everyone makes minor mistakes, including this author. However, the American Enterprise Institute report has the names of 10 authors. Surely one of those ten authors should have noticed the mistake before the article was published?

Finally, the American Enterprise Institute report discusses the recent release on bail of former Taipei City Mayor, and former Taiwan People’s Party Chairman, Ko Wen-je. The American Enterprise Institute writes that “Ko and the TPP have argued that he is innocent and blamed the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of persecuting him, even though Ko’s prosecution is occurring while Taipei is governed by the KMT, the DPP’s chief opposition”.

This paragraph reveals a complete lack of knowledge about Taiwan’s judicial system. City and county governments in Taiwan do not control prosecutors. Prosecutors in Taiwan work for an agency within the central government’s Ministry of Justice.

The Taiwan People’s Party accuses the Democratic Progressive Party led central government of a persecuting Ko, but the American Enterprise Institute has incorrectly written that Ko is being prosecuted by prosecutors controlled by a mayor from the Kuomintang.

Even if the American Enterprise Institute corrects this mistake, many people would have already read this report, and have an incorrect understanding about the political situation in Taiwan.

Who benefits from these kinds of mistakes in foreign commentaries about Taiwan?

The American Enterprise Institute does not make public the names of its donors, so there is now way to know whether the Taiwan government is currently a donor. However, in 2013 a list of donors accidentally became public, and included the government of Taiwan.

Is the Taiwan government still a donor to the American Enterprise Institute?

Regardless of whether the Taiwan government is a donor to the American Enterprise Institute, isn’t it the responsibility of Taiwan’s diplomats at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office to maintain relations with think tanks and scholars in Washington DC, to read the publications about Taiwan that think tanks publish, and, if there are errors, to contact the think tank and correct those errors?

Taiwan is often in the international news for several reasons. This includes the continued worsening in relations between Taiwan and China, the increases in Taiwan’s defense budget, and the role of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry in the rapidly growing artificial intelligence industry. In addition, next year, Taiwan will hold local elections in November, and 14 months afterwards, in January 2028, Taiwan will hold the presidential and Legislative Yuan election.

Taiwan will continue to be a topic that foreign media and scholars write about.

Unfortunately, many of these materials will have errors, or even fake news. Who benefits from this?

In this author’s opinion, it certainly does not make Taiwan safer when foreign media or scholars make these mistakes, regardless of what their motivations might be.