◎ Li Zhongxian
Shen Fuxiong and Zhao Shaokang quarreled over Wang Weizhong's visit to Shen Boyang, and the more they watched, the more interesting they became. Shen Fuxiong said that this was an "unequal competition" and that Wang Weizhong might have become Shen Boyang's "innocent helper" inexplicably. When Zhao Shaokang heard this, he immediately objected: There are only a few candidates for mayor of Taipei, how could the media not invite them? You can't deny access just because someone is very good at operations, otherwise, "Then what kind of media do you call it? Just shut down!"
Shen Fuxiong quickly explained that he was not saying that he could not visit, but "you have to be careful when he comes." Zhao Shaokang's answer is even better: If others know how to operate, you can also operate. What can Lanying do if he doesn't operate? After listening to the whole paragraph, I suddenly felt that the two people were not arguing about Wang Weizhong at all, but about one word: "support". What Shen Fuxiong is thinking is: Do you know how to "help"? What Zhao Shaokang was thinking about was: How long would he need to be "supported"?
Professor Li Zhongzhi talked about a very interesting role confusion. Zhao Shaokang obviously regarded Wang Weizhong as a "media celebrity": Since he is in the media, of course he should invite important candidates. Shen Fuxiong may not be thinking about this at all: You are obviously a variety show star, why are you pretending to be a media star now? Of course, Shen Fuxiong did not say this. This was his interpretation.
But traditional politics has been around for a long time, and everyone has an unpublished instruction manual in their mind: who is our friend and who is the enemy, when to attack and when to defend, what balls can be fed, and what balls will hit one's feet if fed, they probably know it well. As a result, a variety show star suddenly became serious about media, inviting political figures to have a good chat, and let them speak in full. After the speech was completed, the content was brought back to the Internet world to be re-edited, disseminated, and reproduced. From Shen Fuxiong's perspective, I probably want to ask: Brother, do you know what you just did?
After the revolution in information technology, the boundary between variety show fans and media fans has long since disappeared. There used to be a very important concept in communication science called gatekeeper. Newspaper editors-in-chief, reporters, TV stations, and hosts are all gatekeepers. They decide who can enter and what matters are worthy of becoming news; later there is agenda-setting: the media may not decide what you think, but it can very much affect what you are thinking about today; coupled with framing: the same thing, how to put the title, which photo to choose, and which 30 seconds to cut into the video, may eventually turn into a completely different story.
This set of things used to be very important to politicians, because there were only a few doors, and if a few gatekeepers took care of them, many things would be easy to handle. In other words: very supportive. Press releases can be supported, staff can be supported, party machines can be supported, friendly media can be supported, hosts can be supported, and finally even editors can be supported. Pick the best one from 10 sentences and cut it into 40 seconds for half an hour. If 40 seconds doesn't look good, change it to a photo of a wiser person. Holding him up once is called camaraderie, holding him up twice is called team spirit, and holding him up all the time can be called organizational skills. But if everyone falls down as soon as they let go, then we have to start to wonder: Are we selecting a coach or doing rehabilitation?
After the information technology revolution, there are suddenly too many doors to guard. YouTube is the door, Podcasts are the door, Facebook, Threads, TikTok, and live streaming are all doors. If a variety show star sits down and talks to politicians for two hours, he is a media star; if an Internet celebrity interviews politicians with his mobile phone, he is also a media star; even if a passerby takes a photo and leaves it online for 10 seconds, and suddenly millions of people see it, he also has a media function at that moment. Therefore, Zhao Shaokang's sentence "Otherwise the media will be closed", which addresses a very interesting question: now it is not whether the door should be closed, but that we no longer know where the door is. In the past, if you defended a few TV stations and newspapers, you could defend most of the media world; now you can defend against one Wang Weizhong, but how can you defend against 10,000 mobile phones?
This is not a phenomenon unique to Taiwan. The 1960 television debate between Kennedy and Nixon is a classic example of the last wave of media revolution. Nixon's political experience did not disappear suddenly, but after the advent of television, politicians gradually had to test their expressions, voices, images and camera sense in addition to whether they could answer questions. As the media changes, the test subjects for political ability also change.
In the age of social media, Armin Laschet, the candidate for chancellor of the German CDU/CSU, was photographed laughing from behind in a serious situation during the 2021 floods. The footage of just a few seconds was widely circulated on the Internet. No matter how big the political party machine is behind him, no one can help him in those few seconds. It was television in 1960, social media in 2021, and generative AI in 2026. In the past, your best friend who made a mistake was called time, and everyone would forget about it in a few days; now AI can retrieve what you said five years ago and line it up with what you said today. At this time, I don’t even have time to help you.
So I can actually understand Shen Fuxiong's anxiety. What he is familiar with is a political world that can still be "supported": he knows which door to guard, knows which host to be careful about, and knows in what situations not to make his opponents too comfortable. If your opponent is good at fighting, don't hand him the knife casually. But what Zhao Shaokang saw was another reality: if others know how to operate, you can also operate. The problem is that the information technology revolution is even more cruel than Zhao Shaokang said. If Wang Weizhong doesn’t interview, someone else will. If TV doesn’t broadcast it, YouTube will broadcast it. If YouTube doesn’t exist, podcasts will talk about it. If you don’t accept all of them, passers-by’s cell phones will still take pictures. In the past, politicians only had to deal with a few gatekeepers, but now there are so many gatekeepers that there are no gatekeepers at all. Where once you could choose where to appear, now politicians can be in the media at almost any time.
Only then did I truly understand the phrase "A Dou who cannot be helped." I used to think that the key point was Adou, but now I realize that the really exciting thing is the word "help" in the front. Liu Chan in history is of course not as simple as in the novel. Historians can slowly discuss whether he was a "idiot" during his 40 years in power. However, "Adou who cannot be helped" is not a historical judgment, but a cultural metaphor: No matter how powerful the people next to him are, if the person being helped cannot stand still, there will be a day when everyone can no longer support him. Liu Chan had Zhuge Liang in front of him, and a whole Shu Han bureaucracy behind him. In the end, Shu Han still perished. After he surrendered, he was named An Le Gong, leaving behind the story that everyone knows: "I don't want to miss Shu anymore." The really interesting thing about Adou's fate is not whether he is stupid or not, but that he has really been supported for a long time.
Today, if a politician cannot accept a long interview, he must be supported; if there is no interview outline, he must be supported; if he is questioned on the spot, he must be supported; if he meets someone with strong argumentative ability, he must be supported; if he runs into different stratospheres, he must be supported; finally, even when his opponent appears on a variety show, people start to get nervous: "Why didn't you help me?" Then things will be really interesting.
The most cruel political effect of the information technology revolution may not be that it makes politicians stupid, but that it makes mediocrity increasingly difficult to hide. In the past, a mediocre mayor was backed by the city government team, staff, propaganda, political parties and friendly media. One person's shortcomings can be hidden in the abilities of a group of people; now, after sitting in the podcast for two hours, there is no briefing, no staff handing out notes, and what is left in the end is my own knowledge, judgment, reaction and language. Staff can write answers for you, but cannot lend you their brains; political parties can set the stage for you, but cannot stand on it for you.
Shen Fuxiong asked: How to help? Zhao Shaokang's answer is: If others know how to operate, you can also operate. The information technology revolution asks the third, more difficult question: How long are you prepared to support?
From television and social media to today’s AI, every media revolution has made politicians take more courses and made it more difficult to “support” them. Thinking of this, I think Adou is very suitable to describe this era: Zhuge Liang can run the country for Adou, but he cannot be on the podcast for Adou; the staff can prepare 100 questions for the coach, but they cannot grow a head for the coach; the political party can help a person go very far, but it cannot support him forever.
Adou has been supported for at least 40 years, and finally there is still a happy man to be. In modern democratic politics, if everyone really lets go of their hands one day, they will know:
Is the one we have been supporting all these years a coach or an Adou?
If you want to go higher, use your legs! Don't let others lift you up, don't sit on other people's backs and heads. ~"Thus Spoke Zarathustra" Nietzsche
(The author is a information security scholar. This article only represents the author’s personal opinions and has nothing to do with the teaching institution.)
