筆者長期關注並評論台灣相關英文報導的品質（或欠缺之處），令人遺憾的是，隨著時間推移，此問題非但未見改善，反而持續惡化。關於台灣的英文內容，錯誤、資訊不精確以及其他問題依舊層出不窮。近期，一些最令人咋舌的案例，竟出現在官方主掌的中央通訊社英文版報導之中。
2026年1月9日，中央社英文版刊登了一篇報導，內容涉及外交部政務次長吳志中近日就台灣-以色列關係所進行的一場專訪。然而，令人費解的是，該報導多次提及這場訪談，卻通篇未說明此專訪是由哪一家媒體所做的。
實際上，該專訪是由《自由時報》所進行，這在網路上可輕易查證。中央社的中文版報導中，亦清楚註明採訪媒體為《自由時報》。那麼，為何中央社未在英文版予以揭露？這是否意味著英文版刻意對外國讀者隱瞞此一資訊？
另一個例子發生在2026年1月6日。中央社英文版刊登了一篇有關電動機車公司睿能創意（Gogoro）拓展越南市場的報導，標題為：〈Gogoro partners with lubricant maker to further penetrate Vietnam〉（Gogoro與潤滑油製造商合作，進一步滲透越南）。
對不少英語母語人士而言，這樣的標題恐怕令人發噱。原因何在？雖然「lubricant」（潤滑油）與 「penetrate」（滲透，在特定語境下具插入之性暗示意味）這兩個詞彙本身並無不妥，但當它們搭配使用時，便帶有明顯的性暗示。在筆者於社群媒體指出此一問題後，中央社隨即將標題修改為：〈Gogoro partners with lubricant maker to expand in Vietnam〉，亦即以「expand」（拓展）取代「penetrate」。
那麼問題來了，此種不恰當的標題，究竟是英語母語的外籍員工刻意為之，試圖開雙關語玩笑？若真為如此，中央社是否對該員進行了懲處？抑或，若該標題係由台灣人撰寫，因不理解其不雅含義而誤用，該員是否會因此被調離原職？外界恐怕永遠無從得知。因為在標題修正後，該報導並未於文末附上任何說明。而一般國際媒體在修訂報導時，通常會加註更正說明，即便僅以「編輯錯誤」或「翻譯錯誤」等官方說法交代。
第三個近期案例，則涉及日本歌手濱崎步。2025年11月7日，日本首相高市早苗就台灣問題發表談話、導致中日關係惡化後，中國當局取消了濱崎步原定於當地舉辦的演唱會。隨後，儘管濱崎步其實早於2025年8月1日與2日在台北小巨蛋舉行過演唱會，部分台灣政界人士仍公開表態，歡迎她再度來台演出。
去年8月，中央社中文版報導指出，濱崎步在台北小巨蛋的兩場演唱會共吸引26000人次入場。根據台北小巨蛋官網資訊，演唱會單場可容納約13000人，因此兩場合計26000人完全合理。然而，中央社英文版卻於2025年12月1日刊登一篇報導，聲稱「約260000人」參加了濱崎步在臺北小巨蛋的兩場演唱會。難道該報導的撰稿人或編輯，真的認為兩場演唱會能容納26萬人嗎？
在筆者於社群媒體指出此一錯誤後，中央社英文版隨即將參與演唱會的人數更正為26000人。但同樣地，報導底部仍未附上任何更正說明。更令人難以置信的是，隸屬於《自由時報》集團的英文媒體《台北時報》，竟然在2025年12月2日的新聞報導，以及12月4日的社論中，重複引用了這個顯然荒謬的「26萬人」數字。顯然，台灣英文媒體的錯誤問題，並非僅限於中央社！
2024年11月1日，資深媒體人胡婉玲出任中央社社長。她是否有確實關注並監督英文版及其他外語版本的內容品質？在野的國民黨與民眾黨又是否善盡監督職責，檢視這些官方掌控媒體的運作情形，包括其對國際讀者所產製的外語內容？
除中央社外，其他製作外語內容的官方媒體尚包括公視、中央廣播電台以及TaiwanPlus。此外，許多政府機關亦會發布外語新聞稿與相關內容，但其正確性幾乎未受任何實質監督。儘管在2025年10月16日，監察院已有三位監委針對TaiwanPlus發布了調查報告，指出文化部應針對TaiwanPlus進行檢討改進。
或許有些讀者會認為，上述錯誤微不足道。然而，筆者認為，台灣社會有必要了解由官方掌控之媒體的實際運作情形，尤其是其針對國際受眾發布具對外宣傳性質的內容。
2026年11月28日，台灣將舉行地方選舉。從現在起至選舉期間，勢必會出現大量以英語及其他外語撰寫的選舉相關內容，以及關於兩岸關係、美台關係、台灣在半導體供應鏈中角色等議題的報導。其中部分外語內容將出自外媒或智庫學者之手。
筆者過去曾於《中國時報》撰文指出，中國大陸針對台灣的資訊作戰，無疑是對台灣國安的重大威脅。然而，關於台灣之失真、具圖利特定政治人物之虞的資訊，無論其源自台灣內部或外部，即便其危害程度不及中國大陸的資訊作戰，仍對台灣國家安全構成威脅。
（作者為美國共和黨海外部前亞太區主席，翻譯：侯馨恬）
What Has Happened to Taiwan’s Central News Agency?
By Ross Darrell Feingold
Former Asia Chairman, Republicans Abroad
X: @RossFeingold
This author often opines about the quality (or lack of quality) in English language writing about Taiwan. Unfortunately, over time, this problem continues to get worse, and English-language content about Taiwan continues to suffer from mistakes, inaccurate information, and other problems.
Recently, some of the most flagrant examples of such problems were published in the government-controlled Central News Agency’s English-language edition.
On January 9, 2026, the Central News Agency’s English-language edition published a report about a recent interview Deputy Foreign Minister François Wu did on the topic of Taiwan’s relations with Israel. Bizarrely, the report repeatedly refers to the interview, but it does not name which media the interview was with.
In fact, the interview was with the Liberty Times, which can easily be located on the Internet. The Central News Agency’s Chinese-language edition report about the interview did note that the interview was with the Liberty Times.
Why did the Central News Agency Chinese-language edition report that François Wu’s interview was with the Liberty Times, but the English-language edition did not? Is this something that the English language edition wants to hide from foreign audiences?
On January 6, 2026, the Central News Agency’s English edition published a report about e-scooter company Gogoro’s efforts to expand in Vietnam. The headline was “Gogoro partners with lubricant maker to further penetrate Vietnam”.
Many native English speakers would laugh at this headline. Why? Although the words “lubricant” and “penetrate” by themselves are innocent, when combined like this, it has a clear sexual meaning.
After this author posted about this on social media, the Central News Agency changed the headline to “Gogoro partners with lubricant maker to expand in Vietnam”. That is, the Central News Agency changed the word “penetrate” to “expand”.
Did a foreign staff member who is a native English speaker intentionally write this inappropriate headline? If so, was this person trying to be funny? Did the Central News Agency discipline this person for writing an inappropriate headline? Alternatively, if the person who wrote the headline is from Taiwan and did not understand why this headline was inappropriate, will this person be switched to a different job?
We will probably never know the answer. After the headline was revised, no explanatory note was added at the bottom of the article. Typically, in international media when a report is revised, an explanatory note is added, even if the note only refers to “an editing error”, a “translation error”, or some other form of bureaucratic speak to explain the revision.
A third recent example of problems at the Central News Agency English-language edition was a report about Japanese musician Hamasaki Ayumi. After Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae’s comments about Taiwan on November 7, 2025 led to a deterioration in China – Japan relations, authorities in China canceled Hamasaki Ayumi’s scheduled concerts there. Subsequently, politicians in Taiwan rushed to publicly welcome her to perform in Taiwan again, even though she performed in Taipei on August 1 and 2, 2025. At the time, the Central News Agency Chinese-language edition reported that 26,000 persons attended Hamasaki Ayumi’s two concerts at the Taipei Arena. According to the Taipei Arena’s website, the capacity for concerts is 13,000, thus, 26,000 for two concerts is certainly possible.
However, on December 1, 2025, the Central News Agency English-language edition published a report that claimed “about 260,000 people attended” Hamasaki Ayumi’s two concerts in August at the Taipei Arena.
Did the writer, or editor, of that report really think 260,000 people attended two concerts?
After this author posted about this mistake on social media, the Central News Agency English language edition revised the article to say 26,000 attended the two concerts.
Again, no note was added to the bottom of the article to explain the revision.
Incredibly, the English-language Taipei Times, part of the Liberty Times media group, repeated the impossible to believe 260,000 attendees number in a news report on December 2, 2025 and in an editorial on December 4, 2025.
Clearly, mistakes in Taiwan’s English-language media are not limited to only the Central News Agency!
On November 1, 2024, veteran media executive Anne Hu became the president of the Central News Agency. Is she watching the English and other foreign language editions carefully? What about the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party and Taiwan People’s Party? Are they fulfilling their role to monitor how state controlled media organizations operate, including the foreign language materials that these media organizations produce for overseas audiences?
In addition to the foreign language content produced by the Central News Agency, other government-controlled media organizations that produce foreign language content include Public Television Service, Radio Taipei International, and TaiwanPlus. Numerous government agencies also issue foreign language press releases and other foreign language content. There is almost no oversight for its accuracy, although a report dated October 16, 2025 issued by three members of the Control Yuan criticized TaiwanPlus and suggested that Ministry of Culture undertake an internal review and make improvements in various aspects of how TaiwanPlus operates.
Perhaps some readers will think the above mistakes are not important.
However, this author believes that the public in Taiwan should be aware how government-controlled media outlets are operated, especially when it comes to the propaganda they publish for international audiences.
On November 28, 2026 Taiwan will hold local elections. From today until the election, there will be a large amount of English and other foreign language materials written about the local election, and other Taiwan topics such as China-Taiwan relations, US-Taiwan relations, and Taiwan’s role in the semiconductor supply chain. Some of the foreign language materials about Taiwan will be written by foreign media and think tank scholars.
As this author previously wrote in the China Times, China’s information operations directed at Taiwan are certainly a danger to Taiwan’s national security. However, inaccurate information about Taiwan, whether it originates in Taiwan or outside Taiwan, and which appears to benefit certain politicians, even if not an equivalent danger to Taiwan’s national security as China’s information operations, is still a danger to Taiwan’s national security.
