A friend asked me this question before
Many people don't seem to understand where the differences lie. Most just think "the media talks nonsense," "terrible media," "reporters are brainless." Let me clarify these differences today and help you understand the current state of media!
First, let's examine the same news story with different headlines
【Society】
A. Teens make "boom boom" sounds in park startling the neighborhood — 8 troublemakers all taken in
B. Trying to show off! 8 teens play with stun guns in park, don't get electrocuted but 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 "boom boom boom," and if you haven't read the full story yet, isn't it easy to be attracted by these words, making you think they were doing something inappropriate... This is called "clickbait headlines," which immediately attracts clicks. TV news, on the other hand, directly writes "stun gun," making it immediately clear at a glance—you'd recognize this involves public danger and violations of social order law.
Another difference is the word choice between "troublemakers" and "teenagers." Online can write "troublemakers" to describe the people involved—like reckless driving troublemakers, spoiled kids, these kinds of labeling terms. TV news uses "teenagers," "delinquents," and other more formal language!
Beyond the headlines, let's also look at the article content (excerpts)
【Online】
After police arrived on the scene, they conducted an identity check on the teens present. When they asked for ID and date of birth, some refused to cooperate, answering "I don't know" to all questions, making the officers on scene frustrated for a moment. "That's fine, no problem, we'll just take you to the police station and let your parents come get you," at which point the troublemakers suddenly "remembered!"
Police gradually notified parents of 9 students to come to the police station and pick up their children, and fined the teen holding the stun gun according to Article 63 of the Social Order Maintenance Law.
【TV】
Eight teens were gathered in the park, and when they saw police coming, they were still chatting and laughing, unaware they'd done something wrong. Police rummaged through a blue backpack and found a banned item—a stun gun. But when police tried to verify the teens' identities, they tried to play dumb.
Teens vs. Police: "(When were you born?) I don't know. Don't mess with me! If you don't know, we'll just take you back and have your parents come get you."
The electrical discharge sound rings out. Stun guns like this are controlled items that require ID registration when purchased. The stun gun these teens had looked like a flashlight and can be purchased online, but it's still lethal. Eight underage boys and girls gathered in the park after school to chat, brought stun guns trying to show off, didn't succeed, and were all taken to the police station.
Online media uses the term "troublemakers" instead of "teenagers," but TV directly says "teenagers" and doesn't use labeling or more subjective language. Additionally, when discussing social order law, TV supplements the content with information about stun gun regulations. Though the segment is short, it connects the regulations to demonstrate the seriousness of the matter. Online media mentions the law but doesn't elaborate as much.
【It's all media—so why are there such big differences?】
Right, why is that? They're both news, so why are TV and online so different?
This brings us to some theory. First, everyone knows about the NCC, right?
NCC National Communications Commission
The scope of business it manages includes telecommunications, broadcasting, and digital convergence. In summary, it manages "electronic media." Things like cable TV, broadcast TV, radio (FM/AM), and telecommunications—but not the internet! This is because "electronic" refers specifically to media that occupies "spectrum" and other public resources.
Why is it public property? Because of "spectrum scarcity theory."
"Spectrum Scarcity Theory" historical overview
In April 1912, the Titanic hit an iceberg in the North Atlantic and sank. The United States began taking wireless radio communication regulation seriously. In August of that year, the U.S. Congress passed the "Radio Act of 1912," 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 of radio waves by a few.
From the spectrum scarcity perspective, broadcast channels are public goods. When opening frequencies for application, one must comprehensively consider the interests of the audience (both listeners and non-listeners), the efficiency of existing broadcast channel allocation, media access rights for disadvantaged groups, and supply and demand factors in the advertising market.
How to best utilize radio frequencies and maximize the realization of public interest and public service, even the ideal of media access rights, is the main consideration for countries allocating and managing radio frequencies. This is especially important as the basis for allocating non-commercial broadcast frequencies.
Precisely because of this, television and electronic media are viewed as "public property" with social responsibility. Therefore, by law, news cannot contain product placement or advertising, and content must be suitable for all ages, classified as "general audience." This is why TV news has pixelation of suspects, blurs during fights and accidents, color changes for blood, and other such regulations.
For lifestyle reports, the same news story requires showing two or more brands, or brand LOGOs must be pixelated. Word choices must be carefully considered because all of this involves public interest. Violations of regulations result in NCC fines. (Of course, TV still has product placement, just done so you don't notice it, like H Ocean Music Festival, S High Suns, C... and so on).
But the internet isn't like this. The internet is a free realm. Heavy users currently fall between ages 15 to 35, though it's not without regulations. Taiwan uses the "Children and Youth Welfare Protection Act" to manage internet content. Platforms like Facebook that people commonly use have started implementing mechanisms to manage graphic content, but it's still in an immature stage because graphic and violent content is still easily accessible.
Children and Youth Welfare Protection Act, Article 46-1 states:
"No one may distribute or transmit content harmful to the physical and mental health of children and youth on the internet without taking explicit and feasible protective measures, or without cooperating with protection mechanisms provided by internet platform providers, such that children and youth can access or view such content."
These simple, short sentences manage internet content. So when negative news involves underage children or teens—like rape or abuse—clothing is colored over, heavily pixelated, and graphic images are pixelated to prevent youth from being exposed to content that might "affect their mental health." Therefore, word choice isn't as scrupulous. Balanced reporting aspects, like regulations, receive less coverage. But this boundary is very much a "gray area."
Online news judges whether a story is "good" based on "click-through rate," and you know the click count immediately. Therefore, much content appears with different headlines, or images are blocked with LOGOs to spark curiosity. Headlines use "misleading" language to trick people. All of this is for clicks. With this standard, over time, regardless of content quality, depth, or professionalism, as long as it gets clicks, it's considered good news. (Of course, more professional media outlets are outside this discussion, like The Reporter and others).
TV news judges daily performance by "viewership rating," using Nielsen as the standard, and you only know the previous day's viewership the next day. But content isn't the priority. Things like "commercial breaks" and "advertising time" all factor into what affects news viewership. Think about your experience watching TV—when ads come on, don't you change the channel? This is the "break" issue. If the ads are long, don't you get impatient?
This is the "time" factor. That's why TV editors have entire walls of small TVs showing competing news channels. Whoever runs ads gets on the news, whoever broadcasts what news determines the broadcast order. As for content quality, some stations are truly scary, while others are genuinely very professional.
This isn't to say who's better or worse, who's more professional or more shallow. It's just to explain that these are two different types of news media with different operations, different audiences, and different regulations—so naturally there will be differences.
As for why online word choice often makes people uncomfortable and produces comments like "this is considered an article?"?
Think about it—you're so tired from work all day, you open Facebook just to laugh and relax. Of course the most-clicked content is trash posts, scoops, and random internet celebrities… It's not that people are brainless or the internet is brainless. The function is simply different. When you turn on TV, naturally you want to catch up on today's major news. I hope this article helps you understand the differences between these two : )
