Thailand-Based CNN, BBC Correspondents Defend Red-Shirts Coverage

[webfact]

INTERNATIONAL MEDIA

CNN, BBC correspondents defend coverage

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Thailand-based correspondents of CNN and BBC on Thursday night defended their work as impartial against relentless criticism in recent weeks by some sections of the Thai media and society that they were biased in favour of the red shirts.

CNN's Dan Rivers issued a brief statement, which was read out at the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Thailand (FCCT), stating that "rumours about our reporting have taken over from the facts of our coverage".

"Since April 9th, we have carried live interviews with members of the Democrat Party on 15 separate occasions. On the day of the crackdown, we had seven interviews with government officials.

"Some sections of the Thai media have tried to suggest we deliberately held back video of black-shirt men. The truth is more prosaic - we ran the footage as soon as we obtained it.

"I have also been accused of saying the red shirts weren't armed. In fact, the day before the crackdown, we ran a report showing men in black firing automatic weapons on April 10. I was asked in one live cross, whether I had seen these gunmen with my own eyes, to which my response was 'No', but I stressed that local media were reporting there were armed elements among the protesters and repeated the government's claim there were 500 armed militia among the red-shirt protesters. But my subsequent explanation has been forgotten. Instead the Tweets and Facebook pages give the impression that CNN said all red shirts were unarmed. That's simply not true."

BBC's Bangkok correspondent Rachael Harvy was at the club and said allegations against her were simply "very general" and "quite nasty". She added that she and the BBC would welcome any specific complaint and there existed a proper complaint procedure at the BBC.

Informal complaint can also be pursued by simply switching on the channel, she said.

Rivers reiterated in the statement that CNN will continue to reflect both viewpoints in the conflict.

The remarks were made during a panel meeting at the FCCT where clips of the May crackdown were shown. Many who took part in covering the events said they doubted if there were as many armed men in black as the government claimed.

-- The Nation 2010-06-12

[george]

CNN Producer Demands Dan Rivers Report Red Shirt Rallies From Outside “Super Pussy”

Satire:

Not The Nation.Com :: The Website you can trust ::

[cdnvic]

CNN Producer Demands Dan Rivers Report Red Shirt Rallies From Outside "Super Pussy"

Satire:

Not The Nation.Com :: The Website you can trust ::

So much truth in satire.

Well done NTN

[Insight]

Thought some of the criticism against CNN was a bit hard. After all, when the rallies first kicked off wasn't it Dan Rivers who said something to the effect of "I'm not sure how many people are here willingly or how many have been paid?"

The "modus operandi" of the militant side also was to keep out of sight as much as possible - we've know they ordered many cameramen to stop filming them. Would make sense if they've been advised in advance to make a bigger effort to avoid journalists working for major news organisations such as BBC and CNN.

[Samuian]

The whole thing, the cover up, the counter measures are quite incredible, someone tried to make sure that this one doesn't become another "black Songkran" failure, but still it did.... kudos to the governemnt and everybody involved in the clean up!

[jackdawson]

course , when u have to defend your actions, it means u f ed up and have already lost the debate

[slapout]

I was disappointed in the sensationalism displayed by some of the reporters while they were doing feeds from the street/hotels several blocks from the action. This and the continual reference to the red shirts and democracy in the same sentence, left me wondering if the reporters took time to do any research prior to their assignment to the referenced coverage. I understand the networks are after market share of viewers and sponsors, thus the number of so called experts called in to analyze the situation. But, evidently, the reporters appeared to be substitute experts in Bangkok, noted by their daily recap and personal opinions broadcast around the globe.

There are several possible reasons for this, no experts available, asking fee from same too high, reporters did not have the where with all to locate and interview, experts, etc, etc. I mentioned at the time, that someone missed a great aside story on the army encamped in Pat pong, but maybe that was 'the rest of the story'that was not aired.

[Thailand]

They would really would they not?

Not going to say we were wrong or biased.

[BLUENILE]

I was disappointed in the sensationalism displayed by some of the reporters while they were doing feeds from the street/hotels several blocks from the action. This and the continual reference to the red shirts and democracy in the same sentence, left me wondering if the reporters took time to do any research prior to their assignment to the referenced coverage. I understand the networks are after market share of viewers and sponsors, thus the number of so called experts called in to analyze the situation. But, evidently, the reporters appeared to be substitute experts in Bangkok, noted by their daily recap and personal opinions broadcast around the globe.

There are several possible reasons for this, no experts available, asking fee from same too high, reporters did not have the where with all to locate and interview, experts, etc, etc. I mentioned at the time, that someone missed a great aside story on the army encamped in Pat pong, but maybe that was 'the rest of the story'that was not aired.

Letter to CNN (www.capothai.org)

[animatic]

I was disappointed in the sensationalism displayed by some of the reporters while they were doing feeds from the street/hotels several blocks from the action. This and the continual reference to the red shirts and democracy in the same sentence, left me wondering if the reporters took time to do any research prior to their assignment to the referenced coverage. I understand the networks are after market share of viewers and sponsors, thus the number of so called experts called in to analyze the situation. But, evidently, the reporters appeared to be substitute experts in Bangkok, noted by their daily recap and personal opinions broadcast around the globe.

There are several possible reasons for this, no experts available, asking fee from same too high, reporters did not have the where with all to locate and interview, experts, etc, etc. I mentioned at the time, that someone missed a great aside story on the army encamped in Pat pong, but maybe that was 'the rest of the story'that was not aired.

I agree with this. The level of research applied was woefully low and imbalanced.

Makes no difference how many interviews of both sides you do,

if you questioning is skewed to a direction that doesn't fit the majority of facts,

but also hits the most sensational and airtime worthy notes.

They are on the defensive, but now weeks too late to matter.

This is English/Yank journalistic face saving, not ackowlegment of inadvertant bias,

or direct lack of research or pandering to percieved editorial biases.

Argument lost before being started.

Edited June 12, 2010 by animatic

[virtualtraveller]

Problem is, there was some big expectations in Thailand for the media to expose the 'truth' but the two protagonists/sides have come to believe two entirely different versions of the truth, so disappointment was bound to happen. I'm of the opinion that from the start the protesters tactic was to force the Gobt to spill the Red's blood and quit in shame, hence the self drawing and spilling stunt at Govt House in March. The local media saw through it all, while the prime time international news thrives on bloody scenes. The media are just doing their jobs according to their audience's expectations, telling the news/truth in one way or another. What is important is for the public at large to pay attention to the various opposing analysis of this complex situation to realise that neither side is entirely blameless. Unfortunately, with censorship and a largely uneducated electorate it's not going to happen.

[junglist]

cnn you lost me and many more... now i use aljazeera for my news. just can not trust cnn. sad but true.

[bendejo]

The whole event involved a degree of duplicity that Western gov'ts and politicians usually know they can't get away with: eg, holding up an orange and saying "I hold this apple..." Not easy to cover this without one side or the other get peeved at you for not maintaining their lies.

Demonstrators obsessed with weapons (anyone else remember the reds constantly trying to confiscate weapons from cops/soldiers?), the presence of the armed bully boys who no one ever admitted the existence of (even the gov't) up until April 10th, and then the question is "who are those guys?", the image of the raving lunatic fugitive on the TV screen being worshiped but who denies he was involved, everybody in the country knowing how much money they could make by participating in the demonstration, and on and on, but no will admit any of it.

Ok, so it's cultural: someone tells audacious lies and you're supposed to accept them, as challenging them would be impolite. That guy on the giant TV screen gets a lot of mileage from that.

Edited June 12, 2010 by bendejo

[hammered]

Why would anyone give any credence to what a reporter said anyway? Never understood that.

[Portlandstone]

It's not these reporters who were "biased", it's the Thailand netizens , both foreign and local, that think so because their own visions of what they believe are real are actually narrow and slim. These reporters were there on the scene, rolled their cameras, and described what they saw and the atmosphere around them. Netizens meanwhile sat behind their computer screens and were so obviously enraged when a very particular "atonement" wasn't offered, namely one that didn't use deragatory terms to describe Red Shirt protesters and wasn't filled with monologue praising the Palace, the PM, and his deputies once every third sentence. If anybody should be explaining themselves for their biases, it's these narrow minded "Netizens" that live their lives through a very particular ideology that often lies really way off base from the truth.

Forgot to add -- if we're going to accuse the News Reporters of poor journalism, let's post their Youtube clips on this thread and discuss.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Portlandstone

[jayboy]

I agree with this. The level of research applied was woefully low and imbalanced.

Makes no difference how many interviews of both sides you do,

if you questioning is skewed to a direction that doesn't fit the majority of facts,

but also hits the most sensational and airtime worthy notes.

They are on the defensive, but now weeks too late to matter.

This is English/Yank journalistic face saving, not ackowlegment of inadvertant bias,

or direct lack of research or pandering to percieved editorial biases.

Argument lost before being started.

Yawn.Another person who just doesn't like what is being reported.Look at any newspaper and the reader comment colums are always full of nutjob contributions about editorial bias.Nobody with a brain expects to get information from one source anyway.Sure many foreign news organisations get things wrong sometimes but one gets the impression that many middle class Thais - frankly I don't much care what weirdo foreigners think - are whining simply because one or two home truths have been exposed.As though there aren't more important things to worry about than what the foreign press think anyway.A good start might be for the Thai English language press to do their job less lazily and incompetently, and less slavishly as well.

[ballpoint]

Rachel Harvey at worst lied to the world, and at best distorted her reports to give misleading conclusions. From the Thaksin asset freeze trial, where, after hours of verdict reading, the vast majority of which were strong "guilties", she came out with "it looks like the court may be starting to lean away from Mr Thaksin"; through the ridiculous bloodletting stunt, where she said something along the lines of "all Thais believe that the body should not be separated from the blood, so this is showing a strong signal to the country and the Thai people respect the significance of the ritual"; all the way to her latest post where she followed a red supporter home and interviewed her while footage of the APC's knocking down the barriers was shown, giving the impression that this poor red was directly threatened by these armoured vehicles. Interestingly, in not one interview did she ask the red supporters on the ground exactly why they were there, what they personally wanted out of it, who they would vote for in the next election, why they would vote for that person and how that person would make lasting change to their lives. It was obvious from the start that she had aligned herself with the reds. The vast majority of her reports were made in the midst of the red crowd, the vast majority of the people she spoke to were in the red crowd. By embedding herself in them she came to empathise with them, (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she wasn't already pro red from the start), even a group of hostages will come to support their hijackers over time. For this reason I am firmly against this practice of embedding reporters. We saw it in the Gulf War, where the majority of them became gung ho, pro military cheerleaders, applauding every successful operation. You simply can not get balanced coverage when your main reporter is so closely linked with one side. Whenever I now look at BBC reporting from other trouble spots around the world, that I know little about, I can not trust them to be giving me accurate, unbiased news with which I can form my own opinion. They now decide the opinion they want the viewer to reach.

CNN should have been more promising, I remember the famous Jim Clancey interview with Thaksin during Black Songkhran, where Thaksin came across as a buffoon, reading from a pre prepared script, announcing the deaths of "his people", when it was patently obvious from the coverage shown, and confirmed by events since, that he was lying. Enter Dan Rivers. If Jim Clancey were dead, he'd be spinning in his grave. To their credit, CNN did come out with good footage clearly showing armed black shirts mingling with the reds, but it was a little late, the demonstration having been ended by then. Again, too much time spent with one side. It's only natural that you would start to get to know people, have some sympathy for them, and start showing that sympathy in your reports. Cut out the reporter's personal opinion. Give us hard hitting interviews from both sides. Give us the material with which to form our own opinions.

[Jimmu]

..........................

Edited June 12, 2010 by Jimmu

[ballpoint]

Yawn.Another person who just doesn't like what is being reported.Look at any newspaper and the reader comment colums are always full of nutjob contributions about editorial bias.Nobody with a brain expects to get information from one source anyway.Sure many foreign news organisations get things wrong sometimes but one gets the impression that many middle class Thais - frankly I don't much care what weirdo foreigners think - are whining simply because one or two home truths have been exposed.As though there aren't more important things to worry about than what the foreign press think anyway.A good start might be for the Thai English language press to do their job less lazily and incompetently, and less slavishly as well.

Yawn. I really don't understand why you bother posting here. You could be down the Bangkok Club, sipping on a long drink with a tall girl, or vice versa, rather than telling us you are tired of the whole thing, you don't care about what others post here, and you think every other member is a weirdo. Maybe it doesn't matter in the long run just what the foreign press write or say, but, as I wrote in my previous post, we rely on them to give us the facts of any international incident. When we see that they are being so biased in reporting an event we are familiar with then it raises serious doubts as to the accuracy of other events they report on globally. Either they care about that, and will take steps to rectify the situation, or they don't, and will lose viewers. The choice is theirs.

[rixalex]

It's not these reporters who were "biased", it's the Thailand netizens ,

So says netizen Portlandstone.

[ianf]

Rachel Harvey at worst lied to the world, and at best distorted her reports to give misleading conclusions. From the Thaksin asset freeze trial, where, after hours of verdict reading, the vast majority of which were strong "guilties", she came out with "it looks like the court may be starting to lean away from Mr Thaksin"; through the ridiculous bloodletting stunt, where she said something along the lines of "all Thais believe that the body should not be separated from the blood, so this is showing a strong signal to the country and the Thai people respect the significance of the ritual"; all the way to her latest post where she followed a red supporter home and interviewed her while footage of the APC's knocking down the barriers was shown, giving the impression that this poor red was directly threatened by these armoured vehicles. Interestingly, in not one interview did she ask the red supporters on the ground exactly why they were there, what they personally wanted out of it, who they would vote for in the next election, why they would vote for that person and how that person would make lasting change to their lives. It was obvious from the start that she had aligned herself with the reds. The vast majority of her reports were made in the midst of the red crowd, the vast majority of the people she spoke to were in the red crowd. By embedding herself in them she came to empathise with them, (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt that she wasn't already pro red from the start), even a group of hostages will come to support their hijackers over time. For this reason I am firmly against this practice of embedding reporters. We saw it in the Gulf War, where the majority of them became gung ho, pro military cheerleaders, applauding every successful operation. You simply can not get balanced coverage when your main reporter is so closely linked with one side. Whenever I now look at BBC reporting from other trouble spots around the world, that I know little about, I can not trust them to be giving me accurate, unbiased news with which I can form my own opinion. They now decide the opinion they want the viewer to reach.

CNN should have been more promising, I remember the famous Jim Clancey interview with Thaksin during Black Songkhran, where Thaksin came across as a buffoon, reading from a pre prepared script, announcing the deaths of "his people", when it was patently obvious from the coverage shown, and confirmed by events since, that he was lying. Enter Dan Rivers. If Jim Clancey were dead, he'd be spinning in his grave. To their credit, CNN did come out with good footage clearly showing armed black shirts mingling with the reds, but it was a little late, the demonstration having been ended by then. Again, too much time spent with one side. It's only natural that you would start to get to know people, have some sympathy for them, and start showing that sympathy in your reports. Cut out the reporter's personal opinion. Give us hard hitting interviews from both sides. Give us the material with which to form our own opinions.

Agreed. I was in the UK watching 24-hour BBC news feed. Caption said: "The protests started after the government was declared illegitimate" or words to that effect. I complained but had no response.

[dobadoy]

Although there appears to be a misprint in the Nation article, it looks like Rachel Harvey said something along the lines of "People can always make informal complaints by switching off the channel" (in the article it says 'on' - i'm assuming that's the misprint).

I'd just like to inform her that many of us have already done this. After a lifetime of use and implicit trust, I don't use BBC anymore.

[jayboy]

Yawn.Another person who just doesn't like what is being reported.Look at any newspaper and the reader comment colums are always full of nutjob contributions about editorial bias.Nobody with a brain expects to get information from one source anyway.Sure many foreign news organisations get things wrong sometimes but one gets the impression that many middle class Thais - frankly I don't much care what weirdo foreigners think - are whining simply because one or two home truths have been exposed.As though there aren't more important things to worry about than what the foreign press think anyway.A good start might be for the Thai English language press to do their job less lazily and incompetently, and less slavishly as well.

Yawn. I really don't understand why you bother posting here. You could be down the Bangkok Club, sipping on a long drink with a tall girl, or vice versa, rather than telling us you are tired of the whole thing, you don't care about what others post here, and you think every other member is a weirdo. Maybe it doesn't matter in the long run just what the foreign press write or say, but, as I wrote in my previous post, we rely on them to give us the facts of any international incident. When we see that they are being so biased in reporting an event we are familiar with then it raises serious doubts as to the accuracy of other events they report on globally. Either they care about that, and will take steps to rectify the situation, or they don't, and will lose viewers. The choice is theirs.

If one used a reasonable selection of media sources it was perfectly possible to get a fair picture.If you look at a single press report in any country on a subject one knows well one will always find errors: that's in the nature of journalism.Many middle class Thais however just didn't like the home truths that some foreign reporters were relating.There was a similar campaign a little while ago against the BBC's excellent Jonathan Head.These people don't seem to understand how crazy they seem when stating opinions such as "Rachel Harvey is a liar".I daresay WW2 reporters commenting on D Day landings made a few mistakes.So what?

Your comment, though misguided and without much substance, is quite reasonably toned.However on every subject and in every country there are thousands of nutjobs ranting about the BBC, CNN or what ever organisation displeases them.That's life and somehow I suspect the BBC,CNN will survive.One needs to exercise a little common sense and look at matters in the round.

[TAWP]

Dan tries to cover himself by explaining away some minor points and pretending that they are major. Yes, they might have run photos of black shirts after the protests ended, but the complaints was started before that when words, editing etc was done with a seemingly clear agenda. The approach and questions posted was not what one would expect from a objective source. And the number of times a government person has been 'interviewed' is very much besides the point if the questions put forward to either side is already showing a slant - or the editing afterwards.

And running the black shirt photos after - long after they first appeared random spots of them online - is too little too late for many. The initial days of pure slant has already put, or people are afraid that it did, a slant on the international perception of the two sides that is unfair and incorrect.

This was NOT a demonstration PRO DEMOCRACY. IT was NOT purely PEACEFUL.

Heck, run the speeches from before and during the first days with subtitles a couple of times and the whole world would know.

Was this EVER done?

[rkidlad]

BBC lie, CNN lie, The Thai Govenment lie and the Thai media lie.

Three words; pot, kettle, black.

Thais don't care what foreigners think. None of our business. Keep watching the Thai media because they report what the government want people to hear. Nation included.

We now have the internet. There is a ridiculous number of sources people can use to get information. Why keep watching BBC and CNN? Ha ha, they're the only two English speaking news channels I have on my cable.

I like Abbisit and despise Taksin. But at the end of the day, it's just a different set of old greedy wanke_rs pulling the strings.

[landofthefree]

Problem is, there was some big expectations in Thailand for the media to expose the 'truth' but the two protagonists/sides have come to believe two entirely different versions of the truth, so disappointment was bound to happen. I'm of the opinion that from the start the protesters tactic was to force the Gobt to spill the Red's blood and quit in shame, hence the self drawing and spilling stunt at Govt House in March. The local media saw through it all, while the prime time international news thrives on bloody scenes. The media are just doing their jobs according to their audience's expectations, telling the news/truth in one way or another. What is important is for the public at large to pay attention to the various opposing analysis of this complex situation to realise that neither side is entirely blameless. Unfortunately, with censorship and a largely uneducated electorate it's not going to happen.

The problem is that the Thai Government censors the Media .Most of what we have left is mostly garbage, if you want an example of this try reading the nations report on the reconciliation plan in yesterdays papers and Bangkok posts they are two different stories both meant to be on the same topic. World famous organisations such as the BBC are very suspicious of a country that sends in the army to shoot its own people and then censors the press. Sorry Thailand but the world doesnt trust you.

[rixalex]

World famous organisations such as the BBC are very suspicious of a country that sends in the army to shoot its own people and then censors the press. Sorry Thailand but the world doesnt trust you.

Speaking on behalf of the world again i see.

In your self-appointed aforementioned role, does the world consider that people who pose a deadly threat should be treated differently dependant on their nationality?

[TAWP]

landofthefree>> Two magazines posting different slant/view on an event should be the opposite of proof that the government censors the media...

[Portlandstone]

It's not these reporters who were "biased", it's the Thailand netizens ,

So says netizen Portlandstone.

And you're wrong. Unlike most people who post on forums and whine about real-life news network journalists, I was out there in the streets, many days. In addition, look at your details and mine: you have 4769 posts, what is that like 30 posts a day or something? Talk about addiction. I on the other hand have 160 in 9 months, which I must admit is still too much, but at least I get out there and live life. That's called NOT being a "netizen."

Edited June 12, 2010 by Portlandstone

[rixalex]

It's not these reporters who were "biased", it's the Thailand netizens ,

So says netizen Portlandstone.

And you're wrong. Unlike most people who post on forums and whine about real-life news network journalists, I was out there in the streets, many days. In addition, look at your details and mine: you have 4769 posts, what is that like 30 posts a day or something? Talk about addiction. I on the other hand have 160 in 9 months, which I must admit is still too much, but at least I get out there and live life. That's called NOT being a "netizen."

Your maths is as appalling as the assumptions you make of others.