Are Journalists Biased?

[monkfish]

There have been a lot of complaints recently that some large International Media Agencies i.e. CNN, BBC have been

too bias in their reporting during the Red Shirt protests.

Then there is the question as to why they would be bias?

So thought I would make a Poll to see what TV members think and if we agree to the complaints.

Also in my opinion government censorship as been way overkill, what do you think.

[Garry9999]

I think the Reds played in international media better than the government did.

[Ulysses G.]

Poor against rich is easy to sell. Rich guys duping the poor (yellow shirts and red shirts) to suffer and bleed and fight their battles takes a lot more explaining.

[monkfish]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

[Gaccha]

Presumably you raise this issue because of the large number of (middle class) Thais protesting (via the social media of Facebook etc. )against the supposed media bias of the Western press (CNN is particulary targetted).

Certainly the Western TV press is vague in explanations and sensationalist in tone. But of course it is. There barely can be a sentient being left on the planet who expects TV news to answer the question 'why'. If you want this answered then you must read.

As for bias, everyone is biased. There is no such thing as neutral since it presupposes a Truth, that if only we looked hard enough we could all agree upon. If you even raise a topic you are displaying a bias by creating the framework for debate.

What is odd about the furore over the Western press bias is the lack of protest about the astonishingly unreasonable Thai press. The Thai press is intentionally biased. I know from insider sources on a certain channel that when a reporter wanted to show a soldier throwing a grenade she was told they must not show it. The Thai press is mostly owned by the Thai government or Thai military. A quick check on Wikipedia can verify this claim.

What this furore is really about is the fundamentally incompatible viewpoints of the Westerner and the Thai. The Westerner finds coups totally repulsive and unforgivable in all circumstances. The Thai is blase about them because they are so used to them. So when a Westerner says Abhisit is illegitimate he is absolutely right from his viewpoint. It does not matter a jot that Abhisit was elected to parliament and has formed a coalition governemnt. All that matters is the method that started the process to get him to power started in 2006 with a coup. That's it. So the foundational position of the Westerner looks biased to the middle-class yellow-leaning masses.

[monkfish]

Presumably you raise this issue because of the large number of (middle class) Thais protesting (via the social media of Facebook etc. )against the supposed media bias of the Western press (CNN is particulary targetted).

Certainly the Western TV press is vague in explanations and sensationalist in tone. But of course it is. There barely can be a sentient being left on the planet who expects TV news to answer the question 'why'. If you want this answered then you must read.

As for bias, everyone is biased. There is no such thing as neutral since it presupposes a Truth, that if only we looked hard enough we could all agree upon. If you even raise a topic you are displaying a bias by creating the framework for debate.

What is odd about the furore over the Western press bias is the lack of protest about the astonishingly unreasonable Thai press. The Thai press is intentionally biased. I know from insider sources on a certain channel that when a reporter wanted to show a soldier throwing a grenade she was told they must not show it. The Thai press is mostly owned by the Thai government or Thai military. A quick check on Wikipedia can verify this claim.

What this furore is really about is the fundamentally incompatible viewpoints of the Westerner and the Thai. The Westerner finds coups totally repulsive and unforgivable in all circumstances. The Thai is blase about them because they are so used to them. So when a Westerner says Abhisit is illegitimate he is absolutely right from his viewpoint. It does not matter a jot that Abhisit was elected to parliament and has formed a coalition governemnt. All that matters is the method that started the process to get him to power started in 2006 with a coup. That's it. So the foundational position of the Westerner looks biased to the middle-class yellow-leaning masses.

Very true but is it fair to say the foreign media is bias when Thai media is 10x more bias?

[Ulysses G.]

Yes.

[DP25]

It's not possible to categorize the Thai media, as it ranges the entire spectrum and can be any of the three options. It is not monolithic like the big western English sources with parachute "journalists"

[cdnvic]

As this is relevant to the news stories presented, I'm going to take the unusual step of moving it to the news forum.

[monkfish]

It's not possible to categorize the Thai media, as it ranges the entire spectrum and can be any of the three options. It is not monolithic like the big western English sources with parachute "journalists"

Of course there will always be exceptions to the rule but I think in general main stream Thai media has concentrated its efforts against the Red Shirts.

Those that have been sympathetic or simply reported the wrong story without permission have been blocked. e.g. springnews

[chadintheusa]

Considering the actions of the reds and the arson attacks of May 19 it could be argued that the government has not done enough to censor Red media. Red TV and Red radio stations do not simply report news, they advocate violence and criminal acts. Such reckless actions by media show that they are not responsible enough to handle complete freedom of speech and need to be censored.

International media seemed to have bought into red lies without looking into the facts before repeating them. The claims by the BBC and other media that the Democrats government was illegitimate could have been avoided if they had simply researched how they came into power and found that they followed the constitution and the rules that apply to parliamentary democracies in numerous countries. Media that claimed that the protesters were unarmed, or those that labeled armed militants as "civilians" misled their audience to create sensational headlines. They also overstated the goal of democracy in the protests when they were plainly triggered by the asset seizure of Thaksin's billions.

From the footage I have seen of the crackdown and the days leading up to it, there seemed to be dozens if not hundreds of reporters running loose in the streets in what was a very dangerous situation. Whether they were targeted by the reds, or caught in the crossfire they certainly could have been more responsible and cautious. They seemed to think that a helmet and a camera would keep them safe when the bullets and grenades were flying.

[chadintheusa]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

We all know that McDonald's in Silom was attacked so it seems reasonable to treat Grimace as a suspect and should be searched for more explosives. Unfortunately pictures don't speak and they don't tell us the context in which it was taken. What instructions has the purple people eater been given, had she been told to stop? What had Barney been doing further down the alley with the other people who seem to have their hands in the air too? Had the soldiers been attacked in the moments before, did they have reason to fear for their safety? The picture clearly shows that the soldiers didn't shoot the woman, but without any context it isn't clear what exactly this picture is saying.

[KireB]

After what we perceive as biased media in this Red shirt conflict, just let your thoughts go over all the other dozens of global conflicts we read upon yearly.

Those who control the media control the world! Scary thoughts.

[whybother]

The western media has generally avoided showing or talking about armed red shirts.

The English Thai media has probably been biased against the red shirts, but knowing more of the back story, may have had good reason.

I have no idea what the Thai language media has been like.

Given that red TV and radio wasn't actually reporting news, it's no surprise that it was actually censored. The other reports that were censored were generally biased towards the redshirts.

Media in Thailand has been censored or controlled for many years. This needs to change (including LM since even 'he' doesn't even agree with it).

[Tony121]

The al jazeera news channels interview seemed to be the turning point for the int'l press the news presenter made Mr Amsterdam look like a fool.

[Ponbkk]

As I read the latest news much of the foreign press (names named elsewhere) are trying to turn this into the PM's human rights disaster and justify the hatred of the protesters against an evil army opening fire on innocents for democracy (Thaksin's "democracy", that is).

Being a bit CLOSE to situation I am not appreciative that the foreign press are trying to turn this into something that it certainly isn't. But what it isn't would be a better story (as others above have said already), right????

I appreciste the return to order GREATLY.

Irag, Yugoslavia, Iran, Marcos, now Thailand ??? Humphhhh, just a waste of time!

Edited May 23, 2010 by Ponbkk

[mazeltov]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

thank you for the link.

articles by Richard Lloyd Parry are always nice to read.

[gemini81]

BBC sure lost credibility. I know ol' Dan was in the camp and scared, but as a reporter, can't he enter and exit? His expressions showed he tought of them as "victims" reduced to only slingshots and such. No research into the root of the problems were presented. Man, CNN did the same sort of things.

Actually, I though Reuters presented it more unbiased.

In times like this, you'll have propaganda.

[rkidlad]

So just because the BBC and CNN etc made the reds look like the good guys and the government bad, we're asking if journalists are biased? Anyone who is a foreigner here who speaks Thai or can get someone to translate should have asked that question here when they first set eyes on Thai media.

Should we really expect better from western journalism in the main stream? Absolutely not!

I studied media studies at G.C.S.E level. I didn't learn much from it. But I remember that you can't always believe what you read or see on TV. You take from many different sources and form your own opinion. There were many other media forms that allowed us to do that. On youtube I saw many things that made me think one way or the other.

Anyone from the UK must know it's biased. Take the national football team for example; the team perform badly and the media usually pick on someone or someting as a scape goat. Anyone with half a brain forms their own opinion and doesn't jump on the band wagon.

[DP25]

After what we perceive as biased media in this Red shirt conflict, just let your thoughts go over all the other dozens of global conflicts we read upon yearly.

Those who control the media control the world! Scary thoughts.

This is a very important point. As I can see first hand how bad the reporting on Thailand is, it has made me realize it's going to be just as bad in all the dozens of other places around the globe that I do not follow as closely. It is scary indeed.

[invex]

Yes, true for 100%.

Nothing in the farang media that “Red Shirts” were/are payed for by Thaksin for the demonstration(s). In my opinion may be the most important issue.

(Almost) nothing in the farang media about the weapons and violent tactics used by the Reds. Nothing about the Hitlerian speeches by the leaders to brainwash and provoke violence.

(Almost) nothing about all buildings and real estate destroyed by them.

Etc etc.

If this would happen in their own countries, those media would write and comment completely different, I guess the opposite from what they do now.

[whiterussian]

Well done Monkfish, well done Mods. Good idea.

I did notice the US ambassador have a dig at the reds, yet Hilary wore red in her videocast to Thailand...

Guess it all boils down to the military written constitution as the casus belli at the end of the day.

My real interest is watching the USA play off against China here in Thailand. The PLA are scheduled to hold war games annually now, and these are expected to grow, eventually eclipsing the US war games. I dont expect the USA to give up here without a fight... but it does seem inevitable that Thailand should fall into the Sino orbit once again. I presume the chinese elite in BK are the 'white' chinese variety...

Edited May 23, 2010 by whiterussian

[ROBJSThailand]

Throughout this whole sad episode, in my opinion CNN largely, followed by BBC have been totally biased against the Government. Who knows why, but I am sure we all have our suspicions. Absolutely disgusting reporting especially by a certain Mr. Dan Rivers of CNN. Maybe he should be sent to somewhere there is a real 'war' going on where he can sensationalise to his hearts content. I am just totally disgusted at the majority of reporting by the Western media and will do my utmost never to follow any reports from these agencies in future. A waste of time as nothing can be believed from any of them. Sensationalist, biased and totally irresponsible. I for one would like to hear some sort of response from CNN and in particular Dan Rivers to the accusations being hurled at them.

[animatic]

Of course they're biased.

How biased and in which direction varies on editorial slant.

Reporters are often told to find a story that fits content design criteria.

Credibility goes more towards COMPETENCE.... even with slant are the facts right

and the research accurate. In this last several months research was abysmally weak in many cases.

Past stories on file are regurgitated to back an incoming new snippet, problem is the reporters,

were not telling editors that the back file was woefully out of sync and out of date.

And then some reporters are superficial to begin with, or their biased translators are

only giving them partial facts.

Or JUST those that back up their bosses preconceived notions.

Very Thai to taylor the story to their 'bosses' likes and dislikes,

and not change facts as they change, so he doesn't get contradicted.

Boss always right can not make him lose face....

Edited May 23, 2010 by animatic

[PoorSucker]

They had a student poll with Swedish journalists in 1982.

68% voted for VPK (left wing communists party).

We (the working class, yes my father was a Stalinist) always called them the red wine communism.

Never had worked , their wealthy father paid everything.

Drinking red wine and reading marx.

Still today youth wear che T-shirts.

Che would have shot the middle class children on sight.

Why have it become from free speech to one voice in journalisms.

Who got killed by Che orders:

http://cubanology.com/Articles/willtherealche.htm

Edited May 23, 2010 by PoorSucker

[erniebanks]

Truth

You Thais want the TRUTH?

You Can't handal the TRUTH.

20 coups under this clown government.

14th century laws to protect the regime just like is done in North Korea.

Huge press and media censorship like Hitler would be proud of.

[cdnvic]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

We all know that McDonald's in Silom was attacked so it seems reasonable to treat Grimace as a suspect and should be searched for more explosives.

We needed a laugh. Well done.

[Thai at Heart]

Bias of editors and owners of media is far more important than the journalist themselves.

The danger comes when journalists only report what the editor or owner wants to hear. Over time, you aren't a very employed journalist if you continue to go against the views of the editor/owner who has to sell to his readers. Of course blogs change this somewhat, but people do often have an agenda.

All you can do is read as much as you can and weigh it with the knowledge of the potential bias of the owner/editor.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[lannarebirth]

They had a student poll with Swedish journalists in 1982.

68% voted for VPK (left wing communists party).

We (the working class, yes my father was a Stalinist) always called them the red wine communism.

Never had worked , their wealthy father paid everything.

Drinking red wine and reading marx.

Still today youth wear che T-shirts.

Che would have shot the middle class children on sight.

Why have it become from free speech to one voice in journalisms?

Presented most favorably it is White Man's Burden. In the negative it is corporate media which serves a globalist exploitation agenda.

[senti]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

Uhm. You took a really bad example. And what does this picture say, exactly?

That you have (judging by the gear) few guys that you don't <deleted> with, who have been training every day of their professional lives?

And that they don't <deleted> around, and do what they were trained for?