Are Journalists Biased?

[rabo]

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.

Of 315 people who voted, 108 said the Thai press was fairly balanced in their reporting vs. only 60 who though the international media was fair.

Among those that perceived bias, if 50% say something is biased left and 50% say it's biased right then there is no measurable bias. Out of the 315 people who voted, 76 more people said the Thai media was biased towards the government while 183 more people said the international media was biased towards the red.

The international media was seen as far more biased than the Thai media by the mostly Western TV voters.

[Orion76]

infact what i saw happening, and this was mainly from social networking reports, not cnn, was a massive amount of footage showing the army doing some pretty dreadful, or at the very least dreadfully irresponsible soldiering....slowly the government spin machine started telling us what we were seeing was wrong.

im not sympathetic in any direction, i think killing is wrong plain and simple, but now the government spin has kicked in so much that apparently everyone assumes that the red shirts were shooting(targetting) journalists! really? on what evidence or basis...the only targetting of journalists i can rememeber was that canadian guy, by the army. and the bodies in the temple, they were reds, shot by reds. and all the reds had massive amounts of heavy weapons....and yet only 1 army causlaty vs 60 reds...the spin is making me dizzy. of course, the thai government was as good as gold during this conflict, CNN and BBC are the bad guys...of yeah, and Amnesty.

Setting the Channel 3 building on fire while it is filled with journalists is a pretty targeted attempt at murdering journalists IMO.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Orion76

[jcbangkok]

Why would authorities target reporters? What would they gain? In fact they lost a lot when it was even suggested they might be responsible.

However, the reds have clearly targeted the media on numerous occasions and showed their outrage for the media in the final days of their violence.

We don't have all the fact but I think at this point that anybody who believes the government targeted reporters doesn't use facts or logic to arrive at their opinions.

[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.

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.

You lost me with the third soldiers gun but I've just noticed a spaceship landing in the backround so we now know she is obviously an alien

[OzMick]

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.

your reading of the poll results is faulty, probably due to your own bias.

the thai media result is split fairly evenly between govt bias and fair reporting - in other words the bias was not particularly heavy, at least according to this poll.

the international media bias was overwhelmingly judged to be red biased, whether you agree or not.

[jcbangkok]

You lost me with the third soldiers gun but I've just noticed a spaceship landing in the backround so we now know she is obviously an alien

Do you think the soldier on the left has a gun barrel for a nose?

[OzMick]

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.

Only the party executive were banned, the party MPs moved to their ready-prepared new party PTP, and most if not all are represented in the new parliament, and did try to form a new govt. the problem was that their coalition partners lost faith in them and formed a new coalition with the democrats. By the way, the democrats asked for a new election, but PTP thought they had it in the bag and refused. No big chunk of the electorate were disenfranchised, and the only perversion is your lack of knowledge of recent thai history.

[HANYUHAN]

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

I think its understandable that the international and even local media gets a fair bit wrong from time to time. It's such a bewildering and complex situation between red and yellow, and white, and pink...etc and goes back for donkey's years, and things happen so fast; and they do have the job of making the news interesting so people will actually like them and watch listen read or hear etc. Some of the experts on the BBC were good but others, goodness me, it was as if they hadn't been here for decades and just picked up snippets to suit arcane Euro-centric views. I dont think we can expect any 'news service' to be all that accurate on a regular basis, especially when things are evolving and changing so fast. I'd expect there would even be some difficulty in accurately reporting the news of Ancient Rome, even if read straight from stone tablets. China News was very good...both CCTV and Phoenix...simply because they had lots of analysts on the ground in bangkok, simply because Thailand is very important to China and China has a long standing interest in 'urban pacification' anyway. A news item lasted about 5-8 minutes with panels of experts and analysts, looking into the past, then projecting outcomes etc. they got within 24 hours of pinpointing the CBD full dispersal about 5 days before it happened.

[Orion76]

With regards to censorship:

You wouldn't be allowed to broadcast this kind of hate speech in any civilized country.

With regards to local media bias:

Thailand is under a state of emergency and during a SOE restoring law and order has a higher priority than freedom of speech.

Propaganda is a weapon. If the army has this weapon in its arsenal and they can use it to their advantage, then from a purely strategic point of view it would be ridiculous for them not to use it.

Likewise they would be stupid if they'd allow the opposing side to use the media for propaganda purposes, they might as well give them some tanks to make sure it's a fair fight.

So yeah, I believe the Thai media was biased towards the government, and if this bias prevented a small scale rebellion from escalating into a full blown civil war then I'm all for it.

[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.

your reading of the poll results is faulty, probably due to your own bias.

the thai media result is split fairly evenly between govt bias and fair reporting - in other words the bias was not particularly heavy, at least according to this poll...

I'm factoring in the conservative, pro-government bias of most of Thai Visa Forum's readership, but it does strike me as rather strange that most Thais agree that their media is too heavily censored, but many government supporters think it's un-biased. How can a heavily censored media be un-biased? Beats me. Edited May 24, 2010 by misterjag

[Skywalker69]

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

If the international media could understand Thai, listening to the hate speeches from the sceens, the may got the real picture!

[misterjag]

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

If the international media could understand Thai, listening to the hate speeches from the sceens, the may got the real picture!

Aren't you using a rather broad definition for hate speech? Unpleasant truths don't constitute hate speech.

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion or sexual orientation.

[whybother]

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

If the international media could understand Thai, listening to the hate speeches from the sceens, the may got the real picture!

Aren't you using a rather broad definition for hate speech? Unpleasant truths don't constitute hate speech.

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion or sexual orientation.

By your Wiki definition, they weren't "hate speeches" because they weren't against a "protected" group, but everything else fits.

And their speeches certainly weren't just "unpleasant truths"!

Edited May 24, 2010 by whybother

[whybother]

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.

your reading of the poll results is faulty, probably due to your own bias.

the thai media result is split fairly evenly between govt bias and fair reporting - in other words the bias was not particularly heavy, at least according to this poll...

I'm factoring in the conservative, pro-government bias of most of Thai Visa Forum's readership, but it does strike me as rather strange that most Thais agree that their media is too heavily censored, but many government supporters think it's un-biased. How can a heavily censored media be un-biased? Beats me.

Maybe it's because it was the incredible biased red media that was censored, bringing it back to a more balanced view.

[Orion76]

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

If the international media could understand Thai, listening to the hate speeches from the sceens, the may got the real picture!

Aren't you using a rather broad definition for hate speech? Unpleasant truths don't constitute hate speech.

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion or sexual orientation.

This is what the red leaders were saying on stage and on PTV:

If you've got an axe, use your axes or hoes or shovels. You are totally allowed to kill these robbers - it's completely legal.

Not only should these soldiers die, the current government and army commanders must die as well.

If you see soldiers coming your way, I urge you to simply run them over with your vehicle, After all it's only against the traffic law, so just go ahead and run into them.

Please explain to me how this is an unpleasant truth?

And if it is not "Hate Speech" then what do you call it?

[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.

your reading of the poll results is faulty, probably due to your own bias.

the thai media result is split fairly evenly between govt bias and fair reporting - in other words the bias was not particularly heavy, at least according to this poll...

I'm factoring in the conservative, pro-government bias of most of Thai Visa Forum's readership, but it does strike me as rather strange that most Thais agree that their media is too heavily censored, but many government supporters think it's un-biased. How can a heavily censored media be un-biased? Beats me.

Maybe it's because it was the incredible biased red media that was censored, bringing it back to a more balanced view.

Do you trust the government to tell you the truth?

[Asa]

All free Thai TV channels under Gov are obviously overdone taking side. TNN has out perform them all. CNN and BBC report the event from the western viewpoint, that's all. Don't blame them like Andrew Somebody did this morning in BP.

[misterjag]

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

If the international media could understand Thai, listening to the hate speeches from the sceens, the may got the real picture!

Aren't you using a rather broad definition for hate speech? Unpleasant truths don't constitute hate speech.

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion or sexual orientation.

By your Wiki definition, they weren't "hate speeches" because they weren't against a "protected" group, but everything else fits.

And their speeches certainly weren't just "unpleasant truths"!

Were the speakers advocating the violent overthrow of the government?

[whybother]

Maybe it's because it was the incredible biased red media that was censored, bringing it back to a more balanced view.

Do you trust the government to tell you the truth?

I trust that a number of sources will give me a balanced view of what's happening. I don't trust the government just because they say it, but because it matches other independent sources of information.

[misterjag]

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

If the international media could understand Thai, listening to the hate speeches from the sceens, the may got the real picture!

Aren't you using a rather broad definition for hate speech? Unpleasant truths don't constitute hate speech.

Here's Wikipedia's definition:

Hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion or sexual orientation.

This is what the red leaders were saying on stage and on PTV:

If you've got an axe, use your axes or hoes or shovels. You are totally allowed to kill these robbers - it's completely legal.

Not only should these soldiers die, the current government and army commanders must die as well.

If you see soldiers coming your way, I urge you to simply run them over with your vehicle, After all it's only against the traffic law, so just go ahead and run into them...

There's no need to shout. Which Red Shirt leader(s) said this?

[Orion76]

There's no need to shout. Which Red Shirt leader(s) said this?

See for yourself:

Edited May 24, 2010 by Orion76

[whybother]

Were the speakers advocating the violent overthrow of the government?

Yes. Their main demand was for the government to step down. And they were using violence to get that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=F2vRhaHRzuo

Edited May 24, 2010 by whybother

[chadintheusa]

All free Thai TV channels under Gov are obviously overdone taking side. TNN has out perform them all. CNN and BBC report the event from the western viewpoint, that's all. Don't blame them like Andrew Somebody did this morning in BP.

The problem with the western media is that they decided that they story they wanted to tell was about "poor ignorant farmers seeking democracy". They had to ignore a lot of facts to sell this story. Maybe it wasn't as appealing as the real story of "Thai government allows protests despite violence and danger for general public". They had to ignore many violent acts by reds to cast them as peaceful protesters. They didn't notice that the reds have had their preferred parties in power for the at least 10 of the last 15 years. Western media tends to select the angle they want and report stories that support it. The American press is really bad for that. Around 2007 they decided that "America elects Black Man" was a great story and the media went about making sure it happened.

[gemini81]

All free Thai TV channels under Gov are obviously overdone taking side. TNN has out perform them all. CNN and BBC report the event from the western viewpoint, that's all. Don't blame them like Andrew Somebody did this morning in BP.

But, free TV did back up their viewpoint with footage, research and thorough explanation, regardless of one's opinions. Did you check out sky or reuters?....not real biased...haha, but then again, that's subjective!

[clausewitz]

From Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/world/is-it-ok-to-sh...00521-w1ur.html

'Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?'

May 22, 2010

The sniper and his comrade are like two surgeons operating with great precision. Ahead of the bunker, Rama IV Road, normally a major arterial road, is empty. The soldiers are becoming agitated by the return gunfire and exploding M79s, and send back a rain of bullets at the Red Shirts.

There is a lull in the fire, and in a twist of reality, one of the soldiers yells across the road to an officer in an adjacent bunker: ''Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?''

I am mortified. There is a pause before the answer is screamed back from the adjacent bunker: ''No''.

I crane my head around a cement wall that adjoins the bunker and I can see foreign photojournalists in the distance. I call a colleague on my mobile phone and ask where she is. It is close to where the sniper is aiming. I say quietly: ''I am with army snipers and I think you are in their sights, get the f--- out of there, move to the side. I would go down the side street now, they are going to shoot!''

His finger squeezes again - it is excruciatingly slow - and his deadly payload is delivered again but she has moved out of the line of fire.

[misterjag]

There's no need to shout. Which Red Shirt leader(s) said this?

See for yourself:

Is it difficult to identify Red Shirt leaders that advocate violent overthrow of the government? If you have audio and video tapes of them speaking, identifying them should be a relatively trivial matter. Perhaps the problem is, the big shots aren't dumb enough to say things in public that would earn them extended prison sentences.

[gemini81]

All free Thai TV channels under Gov are obviously overdone taking side. TNN has out perform them all. CNN and BBC report the event from the western viewpoint, that's all. Don't blame them like Andrew Somebody did this morning in BP.

The problem with the western media is that they decided that they story they wanted to tell was about "poor ignorant farmers seeking democracy". They had to ignore a lot of facts to sell this story. Maybe it wasn't as appealing as the real story of "Thai government allows protests despite violence and danger for general public". They had to ignore many violent acts by reds to cast them as peaceful protesters. They didn't notice that the reds have had their preferred parties in power for the at least 10 of the last 15 years. Western media tends to select the angle they want and report stories that support it. The American press is really bad for that. Around 2007 they decided that "America elects Black Man" was a great story and the media went about making sure it happened.

Indeed, man. The sales pitch was "vote for someone that makes you feel good" ...."change, change, change" WITHOUT stating what exact changes!!!!!!!!!!!

not "best man for the job." thats what I thought people would value, best man for the job. I guess not.

In terms of Thaksin, "oh, he's our friend, he's good to us." I suppose it shows how naive the general public is, or easily swayed.

[wayfarer108]

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.

Exactly. For some reason the international media never 'gets' Thailand anyway. Not sure why but it's really noticeable to anyone born here or anyone who has lived here a long time.

[clausewitz]

Japanese TV such as NHK has been providing commentary on the drama - and political commenators on it are openly calling for Abhisit (comical abhi) to resign and that elections must be held as soon as possible.

[hammered]

All free Thai TV channels under Gov are obviously overdone taking side. TNN has out perform them all. CNN and BBC report the event from the western viewpoint, that's all. Don't blame them like Andrew Somebody did this morning in BP.

The problem with the western media is that they decided that they story they wanted to tell was about "poor ignorant farmers seeking democracy". They had to ignore a lot of facts to sell this story. Maybe it wasn't as appealing as the real story of "Thai government allows protests despite violence and danger for general public". They had to ignore many violent acts by reds to cast them as peaceful protesters. They didn't notice that the reds have had their preferred parties in power for the at least 10 of the last 15 years. Western media tends to select the angle they want and report stories that support it. The American press is really bad for that. Around 2007 they decided that "America elects Black Man" was a great story and the media went about making sure it happened.

Saddam has weapons of mass destruction was peddled by what some (maybe mistakenly) regard as a free liberal press. Few are aware that the Georgian artillery shelled crowded towns of ethnic Russians before the Russian invasion of that country. Etc etc

What is printed in the media is just as likely to be a lie as a truth or something inbetween. It is up to each individual if they want to believe it or not and whether people decide to believe it or not is usually a reflection of their own biases rather than anything else.

The media erspecially the so called free media are the most powerful propaganda agencies on earth these days as people are taught to trust them, which is scary.