In presenting an analysis on how media organizations define Taiwan, I argued last month in The Diplomat that major U.S. newspapers employ terminology that reflects the United States’ own complex relationship with Taipei. This is in line with broader findings that noun usage largely depends on where the outlet is based. However, while this work pertains to the relationship between policy and media, one aspect that is not explicitly accounted for is the relationship between media and public opinion – or, in other words, the explanation of why this all matters.
To leave the discussion at this admittedly feels like an academic cliffhanger of sorts. The complex nature of these depictions makes them unique, but what ultimately makes them important are their effects.
To pursue this portion of the analysis, I conducted a roughly 2,000-person survey of adult Americans, supported by the University of Chicago’s CIR Professional Development Fund and run through the Prolific online survey platform. The intent was not to gauge respondents’ views on Taiwan and U.S. Taiwan policy issues in a vacuum – something that others like the Chicago Council on Global Affairs regularly accomplish – but to determine how terminology and context impact said responses.
Survey respondents received a randomized, one-paragraph introduction to Taiwan, differing only in terms of the noun used (country/island/self-governed island/self-governed democracy). Three questions on military aid, diplomatic relations, and economic ties also either included or omitted relevant context on the Taiwan Relations Act, U.S. One China Policy, and trade statistics, respectively.
These findings come with a disclaimer, in that they are a broad summary of more in-depth academic work for public consumption, and many factors should be considered in analyzing self-reported responses. That said, first and foremost, they seem to indicate that good reporting matters – or at the very least, that reporting matters, period. While the primary purpose of my survey is to analyze the effect of terminology and context on public opinion, perhaps the most striking result is the effect of prior familiarity itself. Each Taiwan-related question returned statistically significant results, with greater familiarity typically breeding greater support for Taiwan. For some questions, “yes” responses nearly doubled between those who described themselves as “very unfamiliar” and “very familiar” with Taiwan; for others, like a question on diplomatic relations, the correlation held even when one might suspect greater awareness of the risks associated lends itself to greater caution.
For variations in terminology, one question returned statistically significant results, with others indicating a potential relationship but necessitating further study. The question “Would you describe Taiwan as an ally of the United States?” resulted in minor splits between respondents who saw Taiwan described as a “country” versus an “island,” and between simple and complex terminology. Respondents who had Taiwan defined in straightforward terms were less likely to respond “no,” at 8.5 percent for both compared to 13.3 percent and 10.5 percent for “self-governed island” and “self-governed democracy,” respectively. Yet, while those who saw Taiwan described as an “island” were more likely to respond with uncertainty, recipients of the other definitions were instead were more likely to describe Taiwan as an ally overall.
Other times, the specific nature of the question seemed to matter. In asking whether Taiwan is sovereign, for example, the two self-governed definitions resulted in greater agreement. Similarly, a two-part question asked whether respondents think Taiwan should be allowed to meaningfully participate in the United Nations system, followed by whether it should be allowed to obtain membership status. While usage of the term “island” actually resulted in slightly greater support than “country” usage initially, shifting the goal posts from participation to formal membership decreased relative agreement and increased uncertainty. Without statistical significance, these findings remain speculative, but offer some indication of terminology’s potential impact nonetheless.
Moreover, for the three questions inquiring about U.S. military aid, diplomatic recognition, and economic ties, the inclusion or omission of relevant context had a sizable impact, reaching statistical significance for the first two questions. For economic ties, respondents were more likely to report having an opinion when presented with the facts, as uncertainty decreased by about 7 percent, largely reflected by the 5.5 percent increase in support depicted in the chart below. In asking whether the United States should establish diplomatic relations, describing the One China Policy caused a significant drop in support among respondents. And although it fell short of statistical significance, contextualizing the Taiwan Relations Act increased support for continued U.S. military aid to Taiwan by around 4 points.
To put it simply, these findings help indicate that media choices matter, accompanying the prior evidence that they often reflect countries’ own relations with Taiwan. In theorizing how U.S. newspapers fit into all this, I argue that their extensive use of attempted middle-ground phrasing like self-ruled island or democracy thematically mirrors the complex nature of official U.S. policy on Taiwan.
But journalists are not government officials, nor is an analysis of how things are an endorsement of how things should be. One of the underlying themes is that efforts to define Taiwan objectively or avoid making a determination entirely in theory do not necessarily accomplish this in practice. Essentially, results like these show that any decision should be treated as a conscious, impactful one, even when it is as simple as a common noun or boilerplate description.
To discuss the initial research on media discourse, I interviewed Chris Horton, a Taipei-based journalist, and two additional journalists speaking anonymously. First, it should be noted that all three expressed optimism in the state of media reporting on Taiwan in many respects, praising recent improvements in article framing, quality, and variety in the past five years alone. Amid growing audience interest and more reporters on the ground, Horton concluded, “International coverage of Taiwan has gotten broader, it’s gotten deeper, and it’s gotten better, without a doubt.”
The issue of terminology, however, remains unresolved. Journalists cited strict editorial guidelines as the root cause, and they recalled having or seeing efforts to define Taiwan edited out later on. Horton, while adhering to editorial guidelines, often finds himself quoting his subjects’ perspectives after being told that direct quotes are allowed. Another interviewee likened the practice of successfully sneaking in references to Taiwan as a “country” to “smuggling drugs.”
When it comes to the stringency of current guidelines, understanding the importance of terminology should give reason for pause. Yet, in discussing what progress should look like, thoughts on any one practice remain varied, even among those who share the same general views. Horton asserted that Taiwan is a country, and as a journalist, his ideal depiction would be to simply describe it as such. However, in line with these more recent findings, he added at the time that impactful framing decisions extend beyond this designation in providing accurate context for readers.
Meanwhile, another journalist defended outlets’ practice of referring to Taiwan as a “self-governing island” or “self-ruled democracy.” This journalist considered it frustrating but understandable to avoid staking a claim on statehood given its continued struggle for broader international recognition.
Finally, a third interviewee took a notably different stance, pointing to a couple articles that eschewed noun choices entirely in order to bypass editorial concerns. “In my view,” she said, “Just let Taiwan be Taiwan.”