Centering Human Rights Stories in Taiwan
Taiwanese journalist Hsieh Meng-Yin has made human rights her beat. She tells us how stories on rights issues can be prioritized and draw broader public attention in a cutthroat media environment.
In Taiwan, news stories dealing with basic rights issues, from labor rights to sexual harassment, from the death penalty to transitional justice, generally cross the desks of reporters working on intersecting beats. A labor rights story, for example, will fall to the reporter whose beat is the Ministry of Labor, while a story about the death penalty will fall to the reporter covering the courts.
But Hsieh Meng-Yin (謝孟穎), a former reporter for The Journalist (新新聞), a weekly magazine under Taiwan’s Storm Media (風傳媒), has fashioned a unique role as a journalist specializing in the "human rights beat" (人權線) — a rarity in Taiwan — and she has taken on a broad range of rights-related stories.
Earlier this year, her five-report series, “Will the Chief Justices Abolish the Death Penalty?” (大法官廢死嗎), explored the legacy of capital punishment, which remains in force in Taiwan despite the country’s 2009 incorporation of the UN’s ICCPR, which put it on the “irrevocable path” toward the eradication of the practice. “Showering the Unsheltered Elderly” (洗澡新長照), a story published in The Journalist in February, addressed the problem of the elderly homeless and providing proper facilities for their care. Hsieh’s 2023 report “What's Wrong with Taiwan's Judiciary?" (台灣司法怎麼了?) dealt with miscarriages of justice in Taiwan.
In July, “Showering the Unsheltered Elderly” received the Journalist Impact Award (銀響力新聞獎), an honor created in 2009 by Taiwan’s Hondao Senior Citizens Welfare Foundation in 2009 to encourage stronger reporting on the elderly. “What's Wrong with Taiwan's Judiciary?" earned Hsieh 2023’s Taiwan Innocence Project Award (平冤年度新聞獎). Her death penalty series was nominated for the 2024 Excellent Journalism Awards (卓越新聞獎).
Beyond being award-winning, however, Hsieh’s journalism has also drawn broader public attention, earning the online clicks so valued in a news environment driven — for better or worse — by traffic.
In an interview for International Human Rights Day with Tian Jian (田間), CMP’s Chinese-language publication on journalism and media practice and sustainability, Hsieh shared her experiences as a human rights reporter. No matter where the public stands, and how it feels, about a given issue, she says, there is always a “why” (為什麼) — a key point of interest — that can broaden the public's engagement with human rights topics.
Tian Jian: What are your thoughts on human rights as a journalism beat? Is this an interest you’ve always had?
Hsieh Meng-Yin: When I was doing my studies it never occurred to me to want to be a journalist. It was quite by mistake that I fell into the journalism profession. I think it’s fair to say that, up to now, the concept of a “human rights beat” doesn’t really exist in the media [in Taiwan]. It’s something that sort of developed magically for me when I was with my former employer.
At first, I was a content editor, and I came to recognize that there were certain topics, such as migrant workers or the homeless, gender issues, or transitional justice, that tended not to get a lot of attention [from media or the public]. In many media, they tended not to attract clicks, or media outlets did not prioritize [these topics] — often because they had no clear sense of them.
As I was working as an editor, however, I came to discover this area, and I also wrote a few reports at that time, after which I realized there actually were clicks. Once I started working as a reporter, the editor-in-chief at the publication was so cool. It was rare to find a company like this [that allowed freedom]. On my first day of work [as a reporter], I asked what I was going to do today, and she said, “Just go write what you want to write.” I turned to what I was familiar with as a content editor, and that's how it started to develop [this beat]. Pretty soon my work was dubbed the “human rights beat” by the editor-in-chief — because everything I did was related to human rights issues.
Tian Jian: Would you mind sharing how you got the idea to write about these issues? Was it that you felt the public needed to take these things seriously?
Hsieh: When I was a student, I came across the 318 Sunflower Student Movement in 2014, which really changed many of us as students at National Taiwan University. Originally, we might have been posting on Facebook about food and entertainment or complaining about our professors. But after 318, it was clear that, whether we had taken part directly or not, we were more likely to start engaging with public issues afterward — and that's how I started to be affected by that atmosphere. I slowly became more willing to learn more about it.
Another turning point was the random killing incident involving Cheng Chieh (鄭捷) in 2014 [in which he went on a stabbing spree in the Taipei subway]. Although Cheng was sentenced to death and then quickly executed, the incident left Taiwanese society with a huge, lingering question: “Why?” I later realized that many people harbored this question, “Why” — about this and other horrific murder cases. As this “why” slowly expanded, I think it gradually opened up the interest within society in discussing public issues.
When I was working as an editor, I had several rather outstanding reports. The first was about "cocooners” (繭居族), people who habitually stay at home and don’t like to go out. At that time, we were approached by public broadcaster PTS (公視) about collaborating with them. Our first collaborator was an independent director who was himself a cocooner. He took himself as the subject and filmed a documentary. The traffic was so high it was a bit intimidating, and we realized that the public was really interested.
When I was an editor, I received a book called No Matter Who, I Just Want To Kill (誰都可以，就是想殺人), which documents the stories of several teenagers in Japan who committed random killings. I thought that Taiwanese, whether they were for or against the death penalty, would be curious about the “why” behind this issue, and I thought it was a point on which I could open up the conversation. No one has to take a position, but we can all think about the “why.” As long as there is a question in my mind, it's the beginning of a conversation for me.
As long as there is a question in my mind, it's the beginning of a conversation for me.
Tian Jian: What were the biggest challenges you faced on this beat?
Hsieh: It should be said that the former editor-in-chief of the company where I worked always respected the wishes of interviewees. I've been in situations where I really messed up. There was one case of sexual assault I covered before. The source printed out the court documents for me, put them in a folder, and prepared everything very carefully. The source also shared a great deal with me — going deep into our conversation. But I did something incredibly foolish before I left [the interview]. I forgot to take the package of information with me. The source was probably in quite a sensitive state at that time, and they felt I was not taking them seriously, that I was not giving their story the seriousness it deserved. They questioned my professionalism and wondered whether it was safe to speak with me. Later, something rather serious happened [with the source], and there was no way for me to get in touch. When I raised this with my editor-in-chief, she advised me to just drop the story. This is an important point to bear in mind. You cannot forget to take the materials with you [or neglect small but important details].
One important thing I would urge, in fact, is that journalists don’t go and pursue individual cases on their own. It’s best to make contact through professional organizations. In the past, I’ve interviewed vulnerable people that I found on my own, and then afterward some sources would have an issue with my take on a story, or they might approach me about borrowing money. These things can happen because you’ve established a channel of contact with them privately, and this can become a huge burden.
One obstacle, I think, is that vulnerable people often do not trust journalists. Of course, I have my own way of dealing with this, and there are a lot of approaches — from the clothes I wear to the bags I use, to the food I eat, all of which should make the other party feel more secure.
One of the biggest obstacles is when I put my heart and soul into something and it gets a low number of clicks online. This type of reporting requires a lot more time than journalists are accustomed to spending [on other beats] — where you can be satisfied if two of your daily 13 posts earn a high level of clicks and you're happy. In my case, if I write one story during a week and it doesn’t attract attention, this just kills me.
I don't like the idea of upholding a sense of mission [in my reporting]. I think work should be work. But of course, when people entrust you with a story, you do hope that you can do something. So, for example, seeing a lot of donations to an NGO [after a story], naturally I’ll hope that I can achieve a goal like that, and that kind of thing makes me very happy.
The thing that tends to sadden me more than anything else is if people say they can’t stand reading [something I’ve written]. I remember the writer Lin Yi-han (林奕含) once said that she envied those people who couldn’t bear reading just words — because that meant they hadn’t experienced [pain] themselves.
The part that makes me even more uneasy is that people often seem to treat trauma as a rarity, as though it’s something that separates [those who suffer] from the rest of the world — that it makes you somehow alien. If my sources are talked about in that way, that makes me sad.
Tian Jian: What are your thoughts on the rewards of your work looking back on the years you’ve now spent on this beat?
Hsieh: I personally feel that one point of achievement is that I’ve managed to make this beat work with a reasonable income. Of course, there are many points aside from this. Being a journalist, whatever beat you do, you slowly become immersed in your environment. Sometimes it’s simply going to work and suddenly coming across someone you know, which is a lovely thing — it can be a feeling as simple as that. Or while reporting a story you develop connections with others. Of course, this work requires dealing with sources on an equal footing. For example, I might go for an interview and prepare snacks for [the source’s] children. Seeing them eating so happily is also a kind of reward.
A higher level of self-realization comes if a report I do brings in more donations for the NGO [working on the issue I report about]. Social workers need to be compensated for their work. They are not just volunteers. They cannot sustain themselves only by working unconditionally for the good of society. So if my report draws donations their way, or even if the NGO can develop a new program afterward, or if they are no longer in financial difficulty, then these things are all rewarding.
I feel glad that the world is slowly moving in a positive direction, like on the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity. When I wrote about these issues in the past, some criticized it as abnormal. But these days, if someone were to post an image somewhere like Baoliao Commune (爆料公社) [a Taiwanese app and Facebook group famous for news leaks and gossip] of gay men holding hands and suggest this was abnormal or strange, many people would confront the author of the post and say their [worldview] was strange. So, I feel that the world is slowly moving in the right direction.
Tian Jian: How does your reporting differ from that of your colleagues on issues like these?
Hsieh: The things I write about could all be covered under discrete beats at other media, which in Taiwan typically follow government departments — like labor issues with the Ministry of Labor, or sexual harassment with the Ministry of Health and Welfare, or the Ministry of Education, and so on. But I think it's a shame that many companies in the industry [in Taiwan] only treat these [human rights] stories as by-products of these beats. So for example, I go today and cover the Ministry of Labor, and I happen to run into the case of an occupational injury suffered by a migrant worker, like a broken hand. Or I go and cover the Ministry of Education and come across the case of a sexual assault on campus. According to the way our media industry ordinarily operates in Taiwan, these are by-products, things you just run across as you are reporting your beat.
In fact, if you do this for a while you’ll realize it's not true that Taiwanese people don't have the capacity to think about such things — it's just a question of how you are going to guide them toward an interest in these issues. There are some techniques for dealing with this, such as how you present your headline or the way the text is written. How can you draw readers in? My NGO friends have sometimes been surprised when they see my headlines, thinking they are a bit too provocative. But it’s true that headlines with some sense of tension, or that bring out the “Why” I spoke about earlier, can draw people into topics that they might not otherwise be interested in. And they do get traffic.
For example, I might be taking a stab at an issue people really care about — that people from socially vulnerable groups don’t work even when they are able-bodied [showing clear prejudice]. I’ll tackle this directly in the headline and everyone will be hooked and have to read it. These are tactics you can use.
A number of other media [in Taiwan] like The Reporter (報導者), Mirror Media (鏡傳媒), and Right Plus (多多益善) can also pursue in-depth reporting. I think the biggest problem is not that people are incapable of doing these kinds of stories, but that they simply don’t have the time. The Journalist (新新聞) actually provided me with sufficient time to grapple with these issues. If I had to produce 13 reports today [as some journalists in Taiwan do], how could I possibly pursue something that would be of interest to everyone? You may not even have sufficient time to think of the right headline, and you may not even be able to meet this expectation of 13 stories — so how can you possibly find the time to do something [more in-depth]?
Covering the topic of human rights requires stories that can communicate with people. But if the layout of today's website is stuffed with a bunch of advertisements and a 3,000-word feature article is plopped into the middle of such a layout, do you really think anyone will attempt to read it? I think other media are often limited by the [media] companies themselves — whether it’s the layout, the culture, the labor conditions, or the freedom of development. And that’s why, for them, human rights coverage remains just a by-product.
I think if there was a better environment, or if people worked harder to apply skills and techniques — which would, of course, require some level of compromise on old habits — I think these things could help pave the way for more in-depth coverage in Taiwan.
Tian Jian: How do you report “impartially” on emotive or divisive issues?
Hsieh: I want to know who these people are who keep talking about “impartiality.” I make it a habit to observe public comments and remarks, including the comments people make on my stories. In fact, every time people talk about “impartiality,” they do so with an agenda in their heart — and the real problem, to their mind, is that the journalist has not furthered that agenda.
How do you achieve this so-called news neutrality? I think it depends on the situation. I can only say that I try my best to achieve [neutrality], but of course I have a position. Some people will feel it’s important to actively seek out the opposing party [in a story] as a means of verification. In my experience, the process of verification tends to support your position [with further facts].
I once reported a case of sexual harassment on campus, for example. There was a very well-known professor who had committed sexual harassment for more than two decades. I investigated the case and spoke with the parents involved, inquiring about many details. But I still wanted more verification, because I planned to write about this individual. Eventually, the way I managed to verify the details was through an [internal] report at the school. I didn’t need to make contact with him directly because the report itself had everything, and it was full of nonsense from the teacher. He claimed [in the report] that he had not behaved indecently, but had only been conducting sex education, hoping that [victims] would then understand what it felt like to be touched.
Was I able to verify [the facts] with him in this way? Yes. He was guilty of sexual harassment. His defense of his conduct to the school gave him the space to be heard, and I faithfully reported what he said. But those words only further proved that [the sexual assault] was real. There are some things about which it is quite difficult to reach journalistic impartiality (新聞中立), and I think that in this case it is impossible, because these are the words of the parties directly involved.
Tian Jian: Given the difficulty of many of the topics you deal with in your reporting, how do you maintain your personal equilibrium?
Hsieh: This issue, like the question of pay, is very basic and essential. There is a Japanese drama I’m particularly fond of called “Unnatural” (法醫女王). There’s a line in it about how dwelling on these things is not as good as just going out for yakiniku. I also remember hearing something about labor being a punishment, and that every worker faces hardship — and I found hearing that very therapeutic.
Because of my previous background as an editor, I would also do my own drafts and illustrations. I would finish the whole article before handing it over to the editor-in-chief for publication, which would be a stopping point for me. When the title, section titles, formatting, and images were all set up and I hit the “save” button, I could give it to my editor-in-chief and say: “I'm done with this.” For me, that's a kind of closure, because to me it really is a job.
I think a more important point is that, as a journalist, I can't share the more personal aspects of the cases I report. Fortunately, my close family members are there to listen and let me sort things out. This is an important part of the process for any journalist, because we can’t work entirely in isolation. Of course, what we write will eventually be read by the public, so we need to be able to turn for feedback from people outside our professional bubble — so it’s important to understand what readers will respond to.
Tian Jian: Do you have advice for the media about covering human rights issues, or for journalists interested in this beat?
Hsieh: The first thing is to find a place that allows you to write. This is the most basic thing. I just touched on the ecology of the industry [in Taiwan]. The point of good fortune amid the misfortune is that the media outlets that do think of touching on these topics typically don't treat you too poorly. The prerequisite, however, is that you need to find a way in and convince them [of the beat’s value] — an important part of which, I think, is about traffic. When I first switched from content editing on the lifestyle beat to writing on the human rights beat, one thing [my editors] found convincing was the traffic [my stories had]. I had an ability to draw people into my work. I think it’s a pity that there are so few opportunities for newcomers to the profession.
I still suggest that everyone looking for a job should look first at the pay, and after looking at the pay consider whether it might come along with something you can’t stomach, like excessive overtime. On the other hand, there are sometimes cases where the pay is below your expectations but you can look at the job as an investment that springboards you [to something more fulfilling].
Lastly, assuming that you do come into this beat [of human rights], I think you need to know just about everything. Human rights is a job that involves a high degree of interaction with people, and ordinary people at that. You generally have a very high degree of engagement with people, so you have to know how to talk with all sorts of people. In that sense, it's important to enrich your experience as much as possible and to know as much as you can about as many things as you can.
Tian Jian: You gave a sense of how sensitive sources can be in this line of work. So how do you gain their trust?
Hsieh: The most important thing is always honesty and openness.
Tian Jian: Do you have any safety advice? The safety of your sources as well as your own personal safety.
Hsieh: Sometimes sources are in the habit of giving up far too much in terms of detail — talking about their brothers or sisters, where they live, and what sort of work they do. These sorts of details can be obscured or removed [to protect the source] without compromising the integrity of your story.
As for your personal safety, as I said before, I think it’s important not to go and pursue individual cases on your own. If you make first contact yourself, you are not a social worker, and you don’t necessarily have sufficient expertise to deal with all the situations that could arise [from contact with the source].
RESOURCES
For journalists working on human rights stories, there are a number of free online resources that can be helpful and informative.
The Global Investigative Journalism Network has a section dedicated to human rights coverage, which includes several workbooks and manuals on issues ranging from reporting on refugee stories to dealing with disability issues. For example, GIJN’s “9 Best Practices for Investigating Refugee Issues” introduces journalists first to basic resources on trauma-informed reporting guidelines, including toolboxes and webinars, before moving on to key approaches such as establishing realistic expectations with sources. GIJN’s "Reporting Guide to Investigative Disability Issues" looks at key issues and story topics, sources, and data, as well as case studies and questions of sensitive language. There are also how-to guides on "Indigenous Investigations," investigating war crimes, and more.
The UNDP has also compiled a handbook called “Reporting Business and Human Rights” which is free for download. "Reporting on business and human rights is a challenge, and not for the faint-hearted," the handbook begins, before running through many of the essentials for journalists, communicators, and campaigners.
 | A guest post by
|
Quite an incredible interview with a remarkable, insightful person. So many powerful and moving statements and she exudes such rare wisdom. Wonderful. Thank you