Are Journalists Biased?

[whybother]

The Poll missed important questions?

Overall, did International observers get to hear all sides of the arguments and stories. Yes

Overall, did Thais get to see and hear all sides of the Issues. No

The poll results proves that. My Thai friend, who works for Thai Air says she only learns the whole story when she is in London and Germany.

REMEMBER the Government shut down 200 websites and BLOGS before you purvey the spew that your particular truth was not presented.

Both the reds and yellows are run by Nabobs who own private jets, but on this one Issue, freedom of the press a yellow embaresses themsleves by crying poor little boy. The yellow propoganda writers don't have anyone in jail, like the red propoganda writers do!

If the poll results prove that, then they didn't miss any questions did they!!

[phutoie2]

As a Brit, I was embaressed by the lack of in-depth analysis provided by the BBC. I now wonder how I have been duped in other world events.

You should listen a bit more carefully then!.

Listening to events through BBCi player there was plenty of good information and analysis.

Radio 4's Today & 'The World Tonight' programmes, Radio 5 Live and even BBC Radio 2 - Jeremy Vine, all covered.

As a Brit too I am proud of the BBC.

I do miss Johnathon though, he was spot on - at times!

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Clue: "Bias" is not the same as "Opinion"

Here is an excellent new article that you would never read in any Thai publication.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/238161

Former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was thought to be a populist demagogue. Actually, he was the high-water mark for Thai democracy.

[Splatter]

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.

Mate. A wise post.

Not too many have been exposed to media studies at school.

And many take the mick out of such subjects.

You are right to say that we should not expect better from journalists.

They arrive, do their stock photos of happy locals with their face paint, young troops looking all young, etc.

Then they wander up and down the street where "it is happening" "where it happened" in their polo shirts and flak jackets.

Jeeesh.

Spare me the up to date / breaking news / "Look at me... I am here... live... getting shot" / Send us your photos and tweets if you are there.

Give me the analysis and understanding.

And if it takes 30 minutes more to get that I can wait.

Unfortunately, real time expectations and phone in referendums on American Pop Idol has much to answer for.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Splatter

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, but not the ones that you imply.

The first thing that I notice is that the trooper on the left is inexperienced and ill-trained. Holding his rifle by the magazine is a definite no-no, the butt of his rifle is up around his ear, he seems to have wrapped the fore-grip in duct tape because they get hot and in doing so has blocked the ventilation holes (doh!) and giving a colour contrast which makes him more visible, and has taped 2 magazines together, a silly idea for many reasons.

On closer look it appears that the tape on both the rifle and the magazine is a single strip used for some kind of marking. Black areas of the stock can be seen both top and bottom, ditto for the magazine and there appears to be only one magazine.

So, why the markings? is it possible that some of the rifles are used for a different purpose, i.e., their ammunition is not the same? The clear markings may be a warning not to use this rifle in life threatening situations.

OzMick makes more sense. The soldiers would change magazines for different ammo - not change rifles.

[Ulysses G.]

Clue: "Bias" is not the same as "Opinion"

Here is an excellent new article that you would never read in any Thai publication.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/238161

Former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was thought to be a populist demagogue. Actually, he was the high-water mark for Thai democracy.

I agree with much of the article, but if he was the one that ordered the reds to turn down the peace deal, and burn down the city, he should be...

[mauGR1]

Clue: "Bias" is not the same as "Opinion"

Here is an excellent new article that you would never read in any Thai publication.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/238161

Former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was thought to be a populist demagogue. Actually, he was the high-water mark for Thai democracy.

I have to say that i have rarely seen something so biased as this "article"

Edited May 24, 2010 by mauGR1

[mauGR1]

Clue: "Bias" is not the same as "Opinion"

Here is an excellent new article that you would never read in any Thai publication.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/238161

Former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was thought to be a populist demagogue. Actually, he was the high-water mark for Thai democracy.

I have to say that i have rarely seen something so biased as this "article"

Sorry, double post

Edited May 24, 2010 by mauGR1

[richard10365]

I'm of the opinion that news organizations, whether it be tv or print, should report the facts and not their opinions. I think freedom of speech in regards to the media, should be adjusted to allow for some kind of government oversight.

Most people don't have their own opinion. They have the opinion of their favorite news show. Foir example, CNN and Fox news controls the opinions of most Americans.

[whybother]

Clue: "Bias" is not the same as "Opinion"

Here is an excellent new article that you would never read in any Thai publication.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/238161

Former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was thought to be a populist demagogue. Actually, he was the high-water mark for Thai democracy.

Images from Bangkok show a burgeoning war zone: lines of soldiers firing on packed crowds

Biased? Where are those images?

[richieudon]

All media is biased

I think reading Thaivisa and taking in peoples news who live in and around where things were happening is probably the best source of news..

[nikster]

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

I don't even think that. It just made for a better story. Everyone loves a good underdog. Everyone can get behind poor farmers occupying the glitziest district of BKK.

The news want to sell a story, the better the story the more they sell. They're biased towards telling a compelling tale that's not too complicated, and fits in a 3 minute segment of the evening news. That's all they did, hence the red's success with the international media.

The stuff I saw when things were actually getting really bad in BKK were pretty unbiased. . I found them surprisingly pro-government, actually. They did mention Thaksin, and they did mention that "protesters" shot back at the army. Which pretty much implied that the reds were definitely not the good guys anymore. The Thai finance minister was on CNN and explained in perfect English the complexity of the situation, and did an amazing job selling to the media what I believe is as close to the truth as you are going to get from any politician. Of course it was biased, but it was not stupid, he was just arguing the case for the government rather than making up outrageous lies.

[nikster]

All media is biased

I think reading Thaivisa and taking in peoples news who live in and around where things were happening is probably the best source of news..

Yes, as long as you are aware of those users who never posted before, and suddenly come out extremely on one or the other side. Especially those who signed up for an account in the last few months. There's definitely some spin doctoring going on, and this forum is not excluded. I think it's a huge compliment to the importance of ThaiVisa that both parties apparently hire paid lobbyists to post their spin in the forums. And I am also fine with it as long as everyone is aware of it. Hence this post

[ratcatcher]

Clue: "Bias" is not the same as "Opinion"

Here is an excellent new article that you would never read in any Thai publication.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/238161

Former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra was thought to be a populist demagogue. Actually, he was the high-water mark for Thai democracy.

Winnie, one of the indicators of a high watermark whether it be in a bathtub or on an ocean beach, is the residual scum that accompanies that high water.

Thaksin definitely left his mark.

[quiksilva]

Clue: "Bias" is not the same as "Opinion"

Of course its not the same, but opinions can be misinformed and ridden with fallacies (nope no vote rigging here). They can also choose not to mention pertinent facts. The one's stating their opinions can be biased too, which comes across in their articles, as the quoted one did.

Thaksin's shoot to kill order in the war on drugs, and his role in the Tak Bai massacre, are glibly glossed over in this article, in fact they were not mentioned at all, only briefly saying he was no saint, as if to make us all realise that nobody is perfect. But if that's this author's opinion of what should constitute a "high water mark" for democracy, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief that this NY based freelance reporter is not in a position of power!

Although the fact that he once advised the UN is a worry.. although given that article I wouldnt be surprised to learn that he advised the UN on how best to handle Darfur.

Edited May 24, 2010 by quiksilva

[rogerdee123]

I think the one of the main causes of media inconsistency reporting in this case is in the many varied definitions of "democracy". Some from the west equate "democracy" with the mechanics of elections. But there can be a perfect election and the resulting Govt ends up being undemocratic and even destructive for society and the democratic process itself. For instance when one of the system's "checks and balances" (the justice branch for instance) is subverted by an elected Govt or whatever, it's no longer a democratic Govt regardless of whether the leader was elected or not.

The "democracy has been subverted card" (for lack of a better term) was played very effectively with the international media by the Red Shirts, even though this was a very shallow argument in the context and realities of politics in Thailand. We have heard endless phrases like "democracy was stolen by the coup" and "The present Govt was not democratically elected" etc etc .... While CNN and BBC probably have excellent analysts, most of these reporters have little background in Thai history and society and are incapable of analyzing the situation on the ground. Some of them probably even see the situation in Thailand as similar to Burma/Myanmar and other similar places. Because it is rare in most developing countries to find a situation where the military is facing off against "protesters" and the military is right.

Having experienced several coup's and their aftermath in Thailand and read about most of the others, I believe that most of these coup's were wrong and set the country back. These disasters were usually the ones led by power hungry megalomaniacs. However I must say that a couple of them were welcome and perhaps even necessary to set the political process straight again. Kind of like pushing the "reset" button.

But the idea that a coup d'etat may be constructive for the political process is difficult for most westerners to get their head around, particularly the ones who define democracy with the technicalities of elections only and pay little attention to the subsequent subversion of democracy by the so-called "democratically elected" leader.

In every so-called democratic country, the reality of political power is much broader than the popular notions. In the US and UK for instance, big business is a huge powerful force (and maybe even an institution) and in some other countries religion and religious institutions are similarly powerful, and any of these extra-democratic forces can change the course of an election or indeed change the course of (or subvert) policy of an elected Govt, i.e. a similar effect as a military coup. But these societal powers and influences are rarely taught to school children when they learn about the political process and the institutional checks and balances in a political system.

In Thailand the military is a huge "shadow power" behind the Thai political process. Big business is playing an increasingly important role in Thailand and maybe it will eclipse the military one of these days if it hasn't already. Although this may mean that Thai democracy moves closer to the US and UK version ... will it mean that democracy in Thailand is taking a step forward?

The local and international media also have extremely powerful roles in the political process and they are vulnerable to these "shadow powers" such as business & corporate interests, the military, religious institutions, and others. WE can see this daily in their news reporting and analysis.

Was CNN and BBC and many other international media biased in favor of the red shirts. Yes I think so.

Is the Thai media (generally) biased in favor of the Govt. Yes I think so.

The truth is out there .... somewhere.

[animatic]

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.

HUH?20 coups, 20-30 different governments or more.

14th centrury, when all the laws are since 1932 + or - ?

There is some press censorship, too much no douts,

but nothing like Germany circa 1939.

If ti was as bad as you say your post would be gone already.

bias –noun

1.an oblique or diagonal line of direction, esp. across a woven fabric.

2. a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.

3. Statistics. a systematic as opposed to a random distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure.

4.Lawn Bowling.

a. a slight bulge or greater weight on one side of the ball or bowl.

b.the curved course made by such a ball when rolled.

5.Electronics. the application of a steady voltage or current to an active device, as a diode or transistor, to produce a desired mode of operation.

6.a high-frequency alternating current applied to the recording head of a tape recorder during recording in order to reduce distortion.

–adjective

7.cut, set, folded, etc., diagonally: This material requires a bias cut.

–adverb

8. in a diagonal manner; obliquely; slantingly: to cut material bias.

–verb (used with object)

9. to cause partiality or favoritism in (a person); influence, esp. unfairly: a tearful plea designed to bias the jury.

10. Electronics. to apply a steady voltage or current to (the input of an active device).

opinion –noun

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second Medical opinion.

4. Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.

5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

Edited May 24, 2010 by animatic

[monkeycircus]

i understand why people now disregard the entire redshirt protests as being nothing but a sham for Thaksin and a violent agenda. after all, history is written by the victors. you should remember that this government operates an open policy of censorship and media control. websites are blocked, youtube clips are removed, movies in the cinema are edited, etc etc etc. this government is control of an army (or vice versa) that deals with burmese refugees by dragging them out to sea and abandoning (murdering) them. Yes some of the redshirts have behaved like animals. yes criminals have taken advantage of the anarchy to commit crimes. but the government had 2 months to orgnaise that crackdown. 2 months. the list of casualties is ridiculous. the army tactics were poor. they were heavy handed and innocent people were killed. their tactics incited more violence, protestors were ready and willing to die for their cause (or 1000 baht a day thaksin handout, whichever you think is more likely). and now after the dust is settling, the red shirts are getting the blame for everything, including shooting themselves, shooting journalists, and shooting member of the public.

i think as always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and i dont see anyone in this situation coming out with any honor.

someone has to stop Thaksin though, that much is clear

[landofthefree]

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.

In this picture I see one unarmed civilian woman being made to put her hands up by not 1 but 2 soldiers who are pointing their guns at her. It's not exactly rocket science to work out what is going on.

[jcsmith]

The foreign media isn't the one being censored.

[hammered]

No media is set up to be neutral. All media is bias. All media is propaganda

[misterjag]

Based on the poll result so far, it's good to see that most of us agree there's too much Thai government censorship and the Thai media is largely biased toward the government.

I don't agree that the international media are biased toward the Red Shirts. I think they're just painting the picture fairly. Nonetheless, the international media serve the useful purpose of providing a counterweight to Thailand's government-dominated media.

[JusMe]

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.

Put her in a burkha and a majority of American viewers would be encouraging the soldiers simply to "Shoot! Shoot!"

[A_Traveller]

On the local media being biased towards the government, it might be helpful to note that the reality is closer to Thai media biased to whomsoever is in power at the time.

The loss of ITV was a real step backwards for the media here as well.

Regards

[misterjag]

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?

Your survey results reveals your own bias - more respondents consider foreign press to be biased.

@Gaccha - "So when a Westerner says Abhisit is illegitimate he is absolutely right from his viewpoint." A westerner should be more educated in the workings of democracy and understand the process which made this govt legitimate. It is exactly this naive view of the coup and it's aftermath that was peddled to the thai masses to produce the redshirt movement...

If the Labour Party in G.B. was banned by a court for election fraud (which wouldn't happen as there's no possible justification for banning an entire political party short of it being a particular threat to democracy), there's no way the remaining M.P.s would be permitted to form a government without a new election. This disenfranchises a big chunk of the electorate. A government formed in this fashion is a perversion of democracy.

[jcbangkok]

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.

In this picture I see one unarmed civilian woman being made to put her hands up by not 1 but 2 soldiers who are pointing their guns at her. It's not exactly rocket science to work out what is going on.

You don't see all the other criminals behind her? How about the 3rd soldier's gun to the left? How about the 4th soldier in the back? Did you also see these lawbreakers are under no threat by these soldiers (unless they pull out a concealed weapon) as they are trained and we can clearly see the one soldier's finger is not on the trigger of the gun? Can you also see what happened before this picture was taken or what these criminals were doing?

Why shouldn't lawful authorities protect themselves and conduct themselves properly when dealing with criminals and potentially armed suspects????? Bombs going off, grenades, snipers... and so on. How do they know this individual who was part of an armed and violent group is not a threat until this person, who has refused multiple orders of lawful authorities, is patted down???? I watched one women on TV claim she WANTED to die, during this unrest, for Thaksin.

What the hel_l does her being a women have to do with her being a threat or not??? If it was some dirty tattooed shirtless long hair violent "looking" man, would the picture look better? Any cop who believes they can judge somebody by their cloths, race, gender or their general "look" is not going to last long. What exactly does a murder look like? Or better yet, what does a mass murder look like .. see below.

Both the above men ordered the killings of multiple people. One is responsible for the deaths of thousands.

Edited May 24, 2010 by jcbangkok

[clausewitz]

Hi

I had my post yesterday deleted because it linked to the other Daily newspaper here in Bangkok that cannot be mentioned.

Anyway in this artcile - which may not be spoken of directly - the writer ,who cannot be named on Thaivisa becuase of writing in this particular newspaper, mentioned that foreign diplomats were now calling our revered PM as Comical Abhi.

[A_Traveller]

^ Just to note that the reason for non linking to the publication is the action by the publication which effectively makes it a legal risk for Thai Visa to link or otherwise use the publication's output. Since there is no 'fair use' doctrine in Thai law, Thai Visa took the decision to insist that no links was the best and safest legal policy.

Regards

[whybother]

If the Labour Party in G.B. was banned by a court for election fraud (which wouldn't happen as there's no possible justification for banning an entire political party short of it being a particular threat to democracy), there's no way the remaining M.P.s would be permitted to form a government without a new election. This disenfranchises a big chunk of the electorate. A government formed in this fashion is a perversion of democracy.

1) This is Thailand. Not the UK. Laws are different. Just because it doesn't happen in the UK, doesn't mean it couldn't happen. It does happen in Thailand.

2) In Thailand, there are laws that say if the executives of a party were involved in electoral fraud then the party is disbanded and the executives (not all MPs, just executives) are banned.

3) There are by-elections to replace all banned MPs (except those on the party list that are banned - in PPP case, 5 MPs).

4) Every voter is currently represented by an MP in parliament.

5) The PPP could have called elections knowing they were going to be banned. The PTP (ex-PPP) were still in government (with a care-taker PM) after the disbanding of the PPP. I believe they also could have dissolved parliament and called elections. But they decided to go for a parliamentary vote for a new PM (as they did with Samak to Somchai).

6) Since the PM (Somchai) was banned and no election was called by PPP/PTP, the MPs need to elect a new PM. (similar to a PM stepping down, and a new PM being elected, which is a common occurence in parliamentary systems).

7) After a new PM is elected by the MPs, there is often a reshuffle of ministry positions.

8) Given this was an MP from a different party being elected, due to the shifting allegiances of several MPs, it new government was formed.

It isn't a perversion of democracy. It is legitimate. The processes and steps are misunderstood by many, which makes it very easy for people to represent it as a perversion.

[Ulysses G.]

Put her in a burkha and a majority of American viewers would be encouraging the soldiers simply to "Shoot! Shoot!"

Most Americans would think it was a potato sack. You must be refering to the French.