The photo above, in which Noam Chomsky is holding a placard, is part of a global campaign organized by Taiwanese students against media monopoly in Taiwan. Chomsky's photo has been circulated widely via online social media since early January 2013. However, a number of news outlets recently reported that he was misled by Taiwanese anti-media monopoly activists into supporting the campaign. What has exactly happened? Who misled Chomsky? Chomsky's support for the anti-media monopoly campaign in Taiwan has been reported as being misled by activists. [Public domain photo] In the past few days, a number of mainstream media outlets run by the Want Want China Times Group in Taiwan reported that Chomsky was misled by a young Taiwanese female student, Lin Ting-An. Below is a list of translated headlines: 1. Chomsky: If I knew the campaign is against China, I would not have held the placard [zh] – China Times 04﹣02﹣2013 2. Anti-media monopoly became anti-China campaign, Chomsky was set up [zh] – China Times 29-01-2013 3. Misled to hold the placard, Chomsky: This is serious distortion [zh] – China Times 28-01-2013 In addition to the newspapers, the Citi TV channel, also controlled by Want Want China, ran a one-hour news commentary program on January 29 and 30, 2013 to “clarify” Chomsky's position. The program accused Lin Ting-An, who invited Chomsky to hold the placard, of misleading and using the famous linguist, “the conscience of the U.S”. The commentators in the program also criticized the strategy of the media monopoly movement for singling out pro-China capital, namely Want Want China Times, for its campaign. Below is a short clip of a Citi TV interview with Chomsky: The media reports were triggered by email communications between Macau based media professor Shih-Diing Liu and Chomsky in which Liu explained his understanding of the anti-media monopoly movement in Taiwan on January 27 2013: However, I am unsure if you have realized that this anti-media monopoly movement, with its high level of participation among young people, cannot be understood as a simply a movement seeking freedom of the press and democracy on the island. The participants, speakers, and interveners (including the mainstream media, scholars, and groups who have followed along and appropriated the issue) not only focus on the issue of media resources being monopolized by capitalists but also point toward an enemy. This enemy happens to be the one that the government of your country has been cautiously dealing with. However, in the context of Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait, using the name of “defending Taiwan” to refuse, oppose, and reject all people and matters relating to China and the Chinese government is not an isolated phenomenon, and it needs to be placed in the hegemonic structure led by the United States that you have described so we can fully understand it. The slogan in your hands should also be interpreted in a specific political context. In response to Liu's long email Chomsky wrote a brief reply which was quoted and made public by Liu in his Facebook: Thanks for the interesting comments, which go far beyond anything I know about. I also don’t recall a placard referring to “Chinese manipulation.” What I was shown, and held, didn’t go beyond media monopoly and freedom of press. I hope that interpretations don’t go beyond that. Attached to Chomsky's reply is Liu's rather lengthly interpretation which was picked up by China Times on its January 28 news report and turned into a news and commentary framework among Want Want China Times’ media outlets for use against the anti-media monopoly campaign. Liu interpreted Chomsky's photo as “abduction”: […]如果人家喬姆斯基並不知道此一訴求，你把人家“綁架”來舉個牌子迎合你自己的立場需求，是不是也太不尊重對方了？為什麽不充分告知人家你們真正的反對中國的立場呢？為什麼牌子上，只有”反對媒體壟斷”有英文翻譯呢？你反中國的立場大可以明白表示，讓對方清楚認知考慮後再表態，不需要遮遮掩掩。是否因為怕喬老要是知道了這個立場，未必會表態支持，索性就模糊其辭，就不得而知了。但如果喬老人家根本就不知道你運動所包括的反中訴求，就把人家趕鴨子上架，這樣的做法，未免也太缺乏政治技巧了吧！[…] […]If Chomsky did not know about this demand [anti-China factor], you have “abducted” him by asking him to hold a placard that expressed your own position. Isn't this rather disrespectful? Why didn't you explain clearly your anti-China position to him? Why was the only English translation the slogan “anti-media monopoly”? Why do you have to cover this up and not let him know your anti-China position? Are you afraid that if Chomsky knew the position, he would not have shown his support? That's why the slogan has been blurred? Of course we don't know the real intention.