這則新聞引起台灣輿論的高度關注，因為牽涉到兩岸關係、藝人立場以及「館長」陳之漢和主持天王吳宗憲兩人截然不同的價值觀與個性對比。

事件的起點在於館長近期赴中國大陸舉辦活動，據報導三天內就進帳高達人民幣17萬元，引發網路熱議。對不少人來說，這樣的金額已經相當可觀，但卻被吳宗憲嘲諷「鄉下人沒見過世面」。吳宗憲的語氣頗為不留情面，他強調自己一場直播就能賺上百萬，認為館長把短時間的收入看得太大驚小怪。他甚至批評館長只去過一次大陸，就好像自以為很了解那邊的狀況，這是對中國發展的誇大與誤判。

吳宗憲的回應並非單純的金錢比較，他還以「兒不嫌母醜，狗不嫌家貧」的說法來隱喻，意在表達無論如何台灣都是家，拿兩岸相提並論並沒有意義。他進一步表態自己「是藝人，不碰政治，只散播歡樂散播愛」，但諷刺的是，他的演藝事業其實高度依賴大陸市場。早在2012年，他就公開承認僅靠在大陸的兩支廣告與五十場活動，就進帳人民幣3200萬。他雖然表面上避談政治，但多次言論卻流露出對兩岸合作的期待，例如2016年金鐘獎上那句「合則兩利，分則兩敗」就曾引爆台灣社會的爭論。

然而，館長並不接受這種「兩邊不得罪」的中間態度。在2025年8月7日的直播中，他直接點名批評吳宗憲，認為吳宗憲在大陸發展數十年，卻對兩岸統一毫無實質貢獻，最終只能算是「廢物」。館長強調自己的人生志向就是要改變台灣，他自認與媒體名嘴或政治人物不同，不願意見好就收、討好兩邊。他指出，重點不是來大陸早還是晚，而是是否真心為十四億中國人的共同未來付出。他舉例說，即便只來過大陸一天，若能發揮影響力也比長年無所作為更有價值。

整起事件其實折射出台灣輿論場上兩種典型立場：一種是如吳宗憲般的「務實派」，以娛樂事業為重，避免觸碰政治敏感議題，以兩邊都不得罪的方式維持商業利益；另一種則是如館長般的「直言派」，用強硬甚至激烈的言詞表達對兩岸未來的態度，無懼與人交惡。吳宗憲的立場雖顯得圓滑，但也容易被解讀為「唯利是圖」；館長則以激情直言贏得部分群眾的支持，但其激烈用詞也常招來批評。

因此，這場「館長 vs. 吳宗憲」的交鋒，不只是兩位名人的口水戰，更反映出台灣社會在兩岸議題上深層的矛盾：究竟是該務實經營、模糊處理，還是該直面問題、大聲表態？輿論的分歧，正說明兩岸關係仍然是台灣社會最難解的話題之一。

This news story has drawn significant attention in Taiwan because it touches on cross-strait relations, celebrity stances, and the sharp contrast in values and personalities between “Gym Owner” Chen Chih-han and veteran host Jacky Wu.

The controversy began when Chen’s recent trip to mainland China reportedly earned him 170,000 RMB in just three days, sparking online debate. While many considered this an impressive amount, Jacky Wu mocked Chen, calling him a “country bumpkin who has never seen the world.” Wu argued that the sum was too small to boast about, claiming that he could earn over a million in just one livestream. He further criticized Chen for exaggerating China’s development after only visiting once, suggesting that Chen lacked perspective and maturity.

Wu’s response went beyond a simple comparison of earnings. He used the phrase “a child doesn’t despise their mother, and a dog doesn’t despise its home” to imply that, no matter what, Taiwan is one’s home and shouldn’t be unfavorably compared with China. He insisted that as an entertainer, his role was “to spread joy and love, not politics.” Yet ironically, Wu’s career has long depended heavily on the mainland market. As early as 2012, he openly admitted that just two advertisements and fifty events in China had earned him 32 million RMB. Though he often avoids making direct political statements, his comments over the years have hinted at support for cross-strait cooperation—for instance, his 2016 Golden Bell Awards remark, “When united, both sides benefit; when divided, both lose,” which stirred heated debate in Taiwan.

Chen, however, rejected Wu’s “straddle both sides” approach. In a livestream on August 7, 2025, he directly lashed out at Wu, saying that despite spending decades in China, Wu had made no real contribution to cross-strait unification, making him “a useless person.” Chen emphasized that his own life mission was to change Taiwan and that he was different from media pundits or politicians who merely played it safe to please both sides. For Chen, the key was not how early or late someone went to China, but how much they genuinely contributed to the shared future of the 1.4 billion Chinese people. He argued that even if someone only stayed in China for a single day, their influence could matter—whereas decades of inaction amounted to nothing.

At its core, this clash reflects two archetypal stances within Taiwanese society. On one hand, there is Wu’s “pragmatic camp,” which prioritizes career and business interests, avoids political controversy, and maintains a delicate balance to preserve income from both sides of the strait. On the other hand, there is Chen’s “outspoken camp,” which voices bold, even confrontational opinions about cross-strait issues, unafraid of creating enemies. While Wu’s stance appears pragmatic, it is often criticized as opportunistic; Chen’s fiery remarks resonate with some supporters but also draw accusations of being reckless and overly aggressive.

Thus, the confrontation between Chen Chih-han and Jacky Wu is not merely a personal spat but a microcosm of Taiwan’s deeper divisions over cross-strait relations. Should one handle the issue with pragmatism and ambiguity, or confront it directly with strong declarations? The polarized reactions to this incident underscore how unresolved and sensitive the cross-strait question remains in Taiwanese society.