How Accurately Do Foreign Media Reflect Thailand ?

[Ricardo]

One of the things I've become more aware of, since I moved here, is what I perceive as the sometimes-misleading way that overseas newspapers & periodicals report on Thailand.

Not just the classic sex-tourist/Patpong/Pattaya stuff, although there still seem to be many, which just can't work past the stereo-typical image of the 1980s fun-and-frolix ! Which is annoying but can be ignored.

I'm thinking more of the way the past 4 years political/economic-events have been reported, which has born very little relevance, to my own on-the-ground experience. I must admit that, as a result, I now place less reliance than before, on all reporting by the FT or Economist (Sorry, to be honest, I never did really have as much respect for Newsweek or other US-publications).

I never had this feeling previously, when living in the Middle-East, or Europe.

Is it perhaps, that I'm now out-of-touch with the overseas view of Thailand, now that I live here rather than just visit ? How much is it, that they're all just very superficial and out-of-touch, and always were but I didn't notice ? Do any other recent-arrivals have the same experience ?

Or do foreign-media really just not know, or care very much, about what happens here ? !

[Thai at Heart]

One of the things I've become more aware of, since I moved here, is what I perceive as the sometimes-misleading way that overseas newspapers & periodicals report on Thailand.

Not just the classic sex-tourist/Patpong/Pattaya stuff, although there still seem to be many, which just can't work past the stereo-typical image of the 1980s fun-and-frolix ! Which is annoying but can be ignored.

I'm thinking more of the way the past 4 years political/economic-events have been reported, which has born very little relevance, to my own on-the-ground experience. I must admit that, as a result, I now place less reliance than before, on all reporting by the FT or Economist (Sorry, to be honest, I never did really have as much respect for Newsweek or other US-publications).

I never had this feeling previously, when living in the Middle-East, or Europe.

Is it perhaps, that I'm now out-of-touch with the overseas view of Thailand, now that I live here rather than just visit ? How much is it, that they're all just very superficial and out-of-touch, and always were but I didn't notice ? Do any other recent-arrivals have the same experience ?

Or do foreign-media really just not know, or care very much, about what happens here ? !

They are telling it how it is. Politically, it is a circus right now, but just give it time.

[Briggsy]

I feel it is very difficult for foreign journalists to report on countries like Thailand.

Take politics for example. Journos from the English-speaking media always approach politics from a standpoint of political ideology, issues and policy. But what if a whole country had a plethora of political parties, none of whom had any political policies, vision or goals. It is simply too utterly alien for the foreign journalist, particularly political ones, to accept this. But that is how it is. It is a patron-client structured society. All political structures are based around this. It is all cliques, factions, party-swapping, carving up of the budgets and zero policy. All political manifestos are based around the mantra, "I can solve your problems." which translates to the Thai listener as, "I will be an effective patron." So the foreign journalists even if they can find and accept this truth find it very hard to frame their stories, particularly political ones, for a foreign readership.

As regards the consistent image of Thailand as a "hub" of the sex industry, I understand if you live in certain areas away from the (in-)famous red-light areas, you could easily come to believe the whole thing is overstated and hyped. However, separate studies by the UN and Chulalongkorn University professors have provided numerical data to show the extent of the sex industry in Thailand. Don't forget most of it is hidden behind closed doors and for local customers. So for this issue, I don't feel the foreign media image of Thailand is too far-off. What may be incorrect is a presumption that the vast majority have been forced into prostitution against their will. It is possible that journalists from Western countries where women hold a very different position in society might find it very difficult to accept that so many women entered the oldest profession not under duress. Thus a false image is presented portraying the women as being held against their will.

Does this answer your question?

[kat]

I feel it is very difficult for foreign journalists to report on countries like Thailand.

Take politics for example. Journos from the English-speaking media always approach politics from a standpoint of political ideology, issues and policy. But what if a whole country had a plethora of political parties, none of whom had any political policies, vision or goals. It is simply too utterly alien for the foreign journalist, particularly political ones, to accept this. But that is how it is. It is a patron-client structured society. All political structures are based around this. It is all cliques, factions, party-swapping, carving up of the budgets and zero policy. All political manifestos are based around the mantra, "I can solve your problems." which translates to the Thai listener as, "I will be an effective patron." So the foreign journalists even if they can find and accept this truth find it very hard to frame their stories, particularly political ones, for a foreign readership.

As regards the consistent image of Thailand as a "hub" of the sex industry, I understand if you live in certain areas away from the (in-)famous red-light areas, you could easily come to believe the whole thing is overstated and hyped. However, separate studies by the UN and Chulalongkorn University professors have provided numerical data to show the extent of the sex industry in Thailand. Don't forget most of it is hidden behind closed doors and for local customers. So for this issue, I don't feel the foreign media image of Thailand is too far-off. What may be incorrect is a presumption that the vast majority have been forced into prostitution against their will. It is possible that journalists from Western countries where women hold a very different position in society might find it very difficult to accept that so many women entered the oldest profession not under duress. Thus a false image is presented portraying the women as being held against their will.

Does this answer your question?

Briggsy, you are excellent.

[samran]

agree with the economist comment. I read it weekly, and it is a quality paper, but their man/woman in Thailand seems to not have a clue.

As for a left field comment, while the tabloid media is probably not immune, a fair chunk of the Australian media tends to report Thailand in a fair light. Greg Sheridon at the Australian newspaper, and I think Chris Baker (or maybe Chris Alford?) also do well in covering this part of the world. ABC, SBS do a good job, and even the travel press in OZ is quick to focus in the non-seedy aspects of Thailand as the focus of their stories.

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that Thailand is in Australia's back yard, and most Australians who do travel (which is most of us) actually are familar with the place.

As I said in another post perceptions are everything and the sterotype of Thailand in OZ seems to be dying down. When I lived in the UK the common response was "Oh, you live/worked in Thailand (snigger snigger)", wheras in OZ it ranges from "Oh cool, I love the beaches/islands" to matter of fact response "yeah, I go up there for work a bit...there seems to be alot on in that part of the world".

[Dupont]

I feel it is very difficult for foreign journalists to report on countries like Thailand.

Take politics for example. Journos from the English-speaking media always approach politics from a standpoint of political ideology, issues and policy. But what if a whole country had a plethora of political parties, none of whom had any political policies, vision or goals. It is simply too utterly alien for the foreign journalist, particularly political ones, to accept this. But that is how it is. It is a patron-client structured society. All political structures are based around this. It is all cliques, factions, party-swapping, carving up of the budgets and zero policy. All political manifestos are based around the mantra, "I can solve your problems." which translates to the Thai listener as, "I will be an effective patron." So the foreign journalists even if they can find and accept this truth find it very hard to frame their stories, particularly political ones, for a foreign readership.

As regards the consistent image of Thailand as a "hub" of the sex industry, I understand if you live in certain areas away from the (in-)famous red-light areas, you could easily come to believe the whole thing is overstated and hyped. However, separate studies by the UN and Chulalongkorn University professors have provided numerical data to show the extent of the sex industry in Thailand. Don't forget most of it is hidden behind closed doors and for local customers. So for this issue, I don't feel the foreign media image of Thailand is too far-off. What may be incorrect is a presumption that the vast majority have been forced into prostitution against their will. It is possible that journalists from Western countries where women hold a very different position in society might find it very difficult to accept that so many women entered the oldest profession not under duress. Thus a false image is presented portraying the women as being held against their will.

Does this answer your question?

Briggsy, you are excellent.

2nded.

Who gives a flying journo what they think.

[GuestHouse]

There's an old journalism adage that goes along the lines - 'When you get equal numbers of people complimenting a piece of reporting as you do people complaining about your coverage you have got the balance of your reporting right'.

International reporting on Thailand varies from the abysmal to the excellent, much is mediocre. But I find it interesting that people complain about reports that cover some of the very things that bring large numbers of people to Thailand in the first place.

As regards to an individual's view changing in Thailand - that might be because they have a some first hand exposure to the issues, or it might be because they have a little too much exposure to the issues.

And never forget - sometimes its the truth that hurts the most.

[jfchandler]

Speaking as a longtime U.S. newspaper reporter, including lastly from the L.A. Times, there are a couple of bottom lines to understand when it comes to American media coverage of a country like Thailand.

Most American network TV news operations and major newspapers have seen their staffs decimated by cutbacks in the past decade, largely relating to economic downturns and the shift to new media.

So, unless it's a major pedophile or some really uncommon quirky thing, Thailand just doesn't make it onto the U.S. news radar most of the time, especially amid Iraq, the probs with North Korea, and the business sections' focus on larger more industrialized countries like Japan and South Korea.

There are only a couple of U.S. newspapers that maintain any significant network of foreign bureaus anymore (NY Times, Wash Post, and the L.A. Times). So mostly, the American newspapers rely on the Associated Press and either pick their feed up straight or rewrite it in various ways.

So then, when something really big does go down here, you're mostly looking at the papers and TV networks relying on stringers or importing a staffer from a nearby country -- either way, not leading to a situation where there's a great deal of interest or opportunity to put everything in perspective or translate all the pertinent cultural/political differences.

On the other hand, think of things from the opposite perspective. Try picking up a Thai reporter from The Nation and suddenly plunking him/her down in the U.S. all of a sudden to immediately start writing about the current U.S. presidential race. What kind of coverage do you expect you're going to get from that kind move, particularly for the short-term, if you were an American reading it back here in Thailand.

News media everywhere tend to create stereotyped impressions, even in their own backyards. Thailand is a place where... Los Angeles is a place where... etc etc... It's only when you actually live in the place being covered, that you understand the stereotypes exist, but they hardly define the entire society or culture.

Personally, one of the most disheartening things I notice when I read the news coverage these days, about almost anything, is so often what is a TOTAL loss of any real perspective on the subject being covered.

Two simple illustrative examples: The daily stock market article will tell you that the market went up or down yesterday, but probably wont' tell you how it's done for the past week, or even the trend thus far in the year. The daily news article will tell you that some pedophile teacher got arrested and deported, but it pretty unlikely to try to explain how someone who maybe had a prior criminal record elsewhere ended up being permited to teach here (or anywhere else).

I'm not sure why the trend toward loss of perspective has gone that way. Part of it is economics and the loss of staff and commitment to spend the time to do that kind of reporting. Part of it also, I think, is the emergence of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle where everything needs/wants to be rushed out right away and there's less time to put things in perspective.

Part of it too, I think (boy, I'm beginning to sound old here even though I'm not) is a mindset among the younger reporters (and many now are younger because of turnover in the industry) who grew up in the MTV era where everything comes in flashes and everyone is presumed to have a miniscule attention span where there's no time or interest to go any deeper.

Yikes... no wonder I got out of that freakin' profession. Sounds like a mess!!! Back to watching VH1 :-)

[yorkman]

There is another side to this as well.

Have others actually been involved is something that got into the media?. I have on both a local and (once) a national level.

In those cases, where I actually knew the facts of the situation, I could barely recognise what was actually published.

A lot of this seems to come down to the lowest common denominator...... OK lets take the common view, lets publish the facts that suit that angle and get applauded, and for gods sake lets do this first.

There are far too many journalists who IMHO slip and slide along, getting paid by the word or article, and do not care about "journalistic integrity", which is almost an oxymoron in the majority of cases.

It is easy for them to be superficial, or indeed even out of touch. Does it really matter, I say tongue in cheek, what the truth is, as long as it sells?

[Ricardo]

Excellent & thoughtful responses, without exception, thank-you !

I had been afraid of getting flamed, or called an old fart myself, possibly correctly - who knows !

The insights into reporting, from real journalists, were particularly interesting.

[onzestan]

Excellent & thoughtful responses, without exception, thank-you !

I had been afraid of getting flamed, or called an old fart myself, possibly correctly - who knows !

The insights into reporting, from real journalists, were particularly interesting.

Excellent indeed.

And for your original question, might it be that since you're now part of Thai society (however small) you become more defensive.

I know I am.

cheers

onzestan

[Briggsy]

Here's an example of an excellent analytical synopsis of the political situation in Thailand that appeared on the BBC on the 7th Feb. The writer, Jonathan Head, consistently writes, in my opinion, superb, comprehensive, highly articulate pieces about Thailand that do accurately reflect what is happening.

If there is any criticism he has skirted around the massive corruption and immorality, the grubby side, if you like, rather positioning the piece in a political setting focusing on the monarchist vs republican (non-)debate. This is readily understandable for the Western consumer. Politicians who are untouchable and can get away with murder and thieving on a massive scale are unimaginable for the same audience. It is difficult for readers in developed nations to comprehend what really goes on here in terms of the extent to which the elite are free from accountability and above the law.

An excellent piece though from a skilled writer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7229910.stm

[steveromagnino]

Here's an example of an excellent analytical synopsis of the political situation in Thailand that appeared on the BBC on the 7th Feb. The writer, Jonathan Head, consistently writes, in my opinion, superb, comprehensive, highly articulate pieces about Thailand that do accurately reflect what is happening.

If there is any criticism he has skirted around the massive corruption and immorality, the grubby side, if you like, rather positioning the piece in a political setting focusing on the monarchist vs republican (non-)debate. This is readily understandable for the Western consumer. Politicians who are untouchable and can get away with murder and thieving on a massive scale are unimaginable for the same audience. It is difficult for readers in developed nations to comprehend what really goes on here in terms of the extent to which the elite are free from accountability and above the law.

An excellent piece though from a skilled writer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7229910.stm

It is not bad, but......

- 'promising democracy????' give me a break - we haven't had a clean election yet; almost all the politicians elected democratically have been totally self serving and only one incredibly corrupt government has even made it through an entire cycle to be reelected!! Foreign media very quick to gloss over the massive abuses, in fact I doubt any even know about the level of corruption of any of the schemes

- 'this is the government the military and royalists wanted' - hel_l no - this is almost the worst case scenario that the military could come out with

- this constant not finding any proof of corruption against TRT/Thaksin - I an a little unsure how you prove such a thing except in a court of law, and hold up, that's where the Shinawatras are going to be eventually showing up to defend themselves....this ongoing acceptance of the TRT mantra that they did nothing wrong, there is no proof - there is proof but it is innocent until proven guilty

- the network m&&&&&y theory of McCargo - a bit of a work of fiction readily accepted by so many foreigners (and quite a few Thais) - where is the discussion of some of the other players, the PAD etc in all of this - again we hark back to this fabled Bangkok elite as a shadowy organisation; why don't these journos do some digging and start naming family empires that are pro or anti Thaksin? It isn't pro anti royalty, it is pro anti Thaksin, they are not quite the same thing and the writer touches on this point at the end, after getting somewhat confused through the middle IMHO

Not a bad read, but fairly light on detail, this is about the best we usually get from foreign media, most is a few rungs below this, even publications I respect like the Economist who are just off the planet most of the time.

I totally agree with your other comments Briggsy, and I still think there is room for a lot of improvement from this.