CNN, BBC Fully Deserve Criticism Over Thai Protest Coverage

[webfact]

CNN, BBC fully deserve criticism

By Dave Sherman

Special to The Nation

Dan Rivers' assertion that CNN's coverage of the crackdown on the red-shirt protest was "impartial" ("CNN, BBC correspondents defend coverage", The Nation, June 12) is simply untrue. The misinformation, generalisations and biases seen on CNN and BBC cannot be easily excused, especially because these reports brought the story of Thailand's conflict to the world - and the story the world saw was not the story of what actually happened.

The point is not that CNN didn't report that some of the red shirts were armed or show those armed men to the viewers. This they did. Where CNN and Rivers failed is in properly explaining the context of what was happening during the May 14-19 crackdown - and without proper context, understanding the story becomes impossible.

When Dan Rivers reported on May 14 that soldiers were firing on protesters, whom Rivers repeatedly insisted were unarmed, he was misinforming his viewers. He was omitting the fact that the soldiers were firing defensively on men who had been attacking them all morning with makeshift weapons, guns and grenades after the Army tried to secure a perimeter around the protest zone. Rivers did not mention that such red-shirt assaults were part of a long-standing pattern of militancy. The red shirts had been attacking legal authorities and civilians for weeks - invading Parliament and Thaicom, beating and killing military officials, fatally attacking peaceful anti-red-shirt demonstrators in Silom, and storming Chulalongkorn Hospital, forcing it to evacuate its patients.

Crucial context

Watching CNN, you'd never know any of these outrages took place prior to the Army's crackdown of May 14-19, or that even on the morning of May 14, the Army did not choose to attack the red shirts within their protest zone. Without explaining this crucial context, it simply appeared to most viewers that the Army was shooting at the protesters - something most peace-loving viewers would find abhorrent.

While Rivers was creating a picture of tough Army action against the protesters, CNN failed to run a video of a group of red shirts brutally attacking an unarmed soldier, which happened earlier in the day. When CNN finally ran the footage two days later, they edited out a key section - the part where red-shirt assailants dragged the soldier out of his truck as he was pleading for mercy and began to beat him viciously. That part of the video also included the assailants' attempts to wrest another soldier's weapon from his hands, and finally the soldiers firing into the air to disperse the assailants, so they could rescue their comrade, who, in the end, had to be medically evacuated.

The video showed both the violent nature of the red-shirt mobs and the enormous restraint of the Army in dealing with them. It is inconceivable that members of the US military would allow their comrades to be beaten in front of their eyes without shooting the assailants on the spot. CNN never ran any commentary on the video, never explained what was happening, only mentioning that they weren't sure when and where the action was taking place!

In fact, what we saw on the video was a repetition of the red-shirt tactics of April 10 of aggressively attacking military personnel, and the Thai Army taking all possible measures to avoid retaliating to such violent provocation. But apparently, this type of thoughtful commentary would be at odds with the story CNN was trying to tell - and was conveniently avoided.

I might add that CNN ran the video from YouTube. Were they too lazy to contact Thai PBS for the original footage as Asia News Network did, or was it simply more convenient to run grainy and unclear footage to a confused audience?

The many accusations of bias against CNN and BBC are also rooted in the fact that none of their reporters spoke with average Bangkok residents to gauge their views on the protest, speaking to red-shirt protesters and their leaders only.

Sorry, Dan, speaking to government officials doesn't count, that's an unavoidable part of your job.

And neither offered any analysis of the situation beyond repeating a one-sided view that this was a struggle of the poor masses against a "Bangkok elite", as if only the "elite" took issue with the red shirts. Both networks failed to address a crucial fact that many red-shirt demonstrators were not, in fact, poor, and many working class Thais in Bangkok and beyond strongly opposed the rally, something they could have learned by talking to people outside the protest zone.

Failing to take notice

Both networks mostly ignored the anti-red-shirt demonstrators who held genuinely peaceful protests for weeks and included people from all walks of life. The networks especially failed to take notice of the protesters in Silom who were killed and injured in the M79 attacks of April 22. These citizens put their lives on the line in defence of Thailand's democracy and paid the ultimate price for exercising their right to free speech. When discussing the Army's actions, Rivers never mentioned that the crackdown was against an organisation suspected of murdering one and wounding 75 unarmed civilians that night. How can CNN and Rivers honestly consider such an omission impartial reporting?

As an outsider, you'd never know from CNN that the rally had been violent and unruly for weeks, and that a similarly violent protest would never be tolerated in New York, London or Paris. The firing of firecrackers at military helicopters alone, something that the red shirts did almost daily with impunity - would warrant an immediate crackdown in most nations, let alone a takeover of several large blocks in the city centre and using that zone to store and repeatedly fire weapons. The incendiary nature of the red-shirt leaders' diatribes, and the fact that much of it would be considered "hate speech" and banned in many Western democracies, were conveniently ignored. I'm curious to see how Rivers would have reported this story if a group of Australian extremists urged their supporters to pour a million gallons of gasoline on Sydney and set the city alight if their political demands were not met.

The networks gave weight to a false red-shirt allegation that Thailand's government was undemocratic, playing down or ignoring the obvious - that the mob action was created by, organised and paid for by former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and carried out by his political operatives with financial support from his rich cronies. Worst of all, CNN and BBC completely ignored the fact that the fundamentally illiberal nature of a protest that used violence against both authorities and innocent people would make it utterly revolting to most of their viewers, were they kept fully informed of its details.

And that's the crux of the problem. While CNN and BBC were relaying the red-shirt leaders' claims of "double standards" in Thailand to viewers, the networks were, ironically, applying their own form of double standards to the story by treating it as another righteous struggle for democracy in a third-world country - without applying the same level of scrutiny to such claims had the rally taken place in a more "important" country.

CNN and BBC chose to create simple, distorted narratives rather than tackle the complex reality of this truly fascinating story. The disservice they did to the story, to Thailand, to their viewers and to themselves was immense. Many people, including myself, no longer trust these networks to report the truth. The criticism heaped upon them in the wake of their sub-par reporting is just and fully deserved.

Dave Sherman is a freelance writer who lives and works in Bangkok.

-- The Nation 2010-06-21

[Capealava]

And who are you Mr. Sherman. What are your credentials ? Did the Nation or the Thailand Government pay you well for your rebuttal ?

Thank you for your opinion piece, but it only supports the government and does not help any any type of national reconciliation. You are being used or willing being used. The government propaganda fight to ward off any blame at all in Thailand's problem is well served by you.

I for one would believe CNN and BBC and rather than Mr Sherman AND THE NATION, but I am a long visitor to Thailand to I do not need any of the propaganda to help me make my own decisions. I see it with my own eyes everyday.

[BanTamo]

Bravo Capealava!

[charlesfrith]

It's staggering to me that the Thai Government apologists fail to recognise the most pernicious act of media bias is the one where government closes down media. This above all else is the target for an open and transparent society not internationally respected media outlets.

[MCos]

Capealava - it would be useful to my understanding of your message if you to point out where the article is factually incorrect. I would also be interested in your ideas for reconciliation.

[mjnaus]

And who are you Mr. Sherman. What are your credentials ? Did the Nation or the Thailand Government pay you well for your rebuttal ?

Thank you for your opinion piece, but it only supports the government and does not help any any type of national reconciliation. You are being used or willing being used. The government propaganda fight to ward off any blame at all in Thailand's problem is well served by you.

I for one would believe CNN and BBC and rather than Mr Sherman AND THE NATION, but I am a long visitor to Thailand to I do not need any of the propaganda to help me make my own decisions. I see it with my own eyes everyday.

You seem to ignore the fact that the above piece mentions a lot of vital information that was simply IGNORED by the mainstream press; forget about who's site you think you're own, this is just simply what happened...

Unlike the writer of the above piece, you immediately take a stand and feel the need to express you're political views. Why the need for this? Just discuss the topic at hand; nobody cares about your political views. The writer didn't seem to express any view favorable to either side; he just criticizes the reporting done by CNN and BCC, and I think he's right in doing so (and many others who have been criticizing the mainstream media).

Don't try to turn every topic relating to the protests in another thread about annoying farang Expats who feel the need to vent their views.

Edited June 21, 2010 by mjnaus

[rabo]

And who are you Mr. Sherman. What are your credentials ? Did the Nation or the Thailand Government pay you well for your rebuttal ?

Thank you for your opinion piece, but it only supports the government and does not help any any type of national reconciliation. You are being used or willing being used. The government propaganda fight to ward off any blame at all in Thailand's problem is well served by you.

I for one would believe CNN and BBC and rather than Mr Sherman AND THE NATION, but I am a long visitor to Thailand to I do not need any of the propaganda to help me make my own decisions. I see it with my own eyes everyday.

Having also watched the story unfold myself, Mr. Sherman is simply telling the real story, something CNN failed badly to do.

His "credentials" are thus well beyond that of someone like Dan Rivers.

Or said the other way around, CNN has lost its credential for accurate unbiased reporting, though that did not happen recently.

[phuketrichard]

It's staggering to me that the Thai Government apologists fail to recognise the most pernicious act of media bias is the one where government closes down media. This above all else is the target for an open and transparent society not internationally respected media outlets.

What iritates me most about the foreign coverage is they did not pick up on it till it turned violent.

Peacefull protests do not sell Violence now adays does.

William Hearst said it best when he explained that bad news sells newspapers and if there is no bad news make it up

[tonywebster]

I wonder what Dave Shermans log in is on Thai Visa, the crap he spouts can be seen on a daily basis on here, another sad expat that has bought the government propaganda.

Come Dave, out yourself, which is your log in?

[Capealava]

And who are you Mr. Sherman. What are your credentials ? Did the Nation or the Thailand Government pay you well for your rebuttal ?

Thank you for your opinion piece, but it only supports the government and does not help any any type of national reconciliation. You are being used or willing being used. The government propaganda fight to ward off any blame at all in Thailand's problem is well served by you.

I for one would believe CNN and BBC and rather than Mr Sherman AND THE NATION, but I am a long visitor to Thailand to I do not need any of the propaganda to help me make my own decisions. I see it with my own eyes everyday.

You seem to ignore the fact that the above piece mentions a lot of vital information that was simply IGNORED by the mainstream press; forget about who's site you think you're own, this is just simply what happened...

Unlike the writer of the above piece, you immediately take a stand and feel the need to express you're political views. Why the need for this? Just discuss the topic at hand; nobody cares about your political views. The writer didn't seem to express any view favorable to either side; he just criticizes the reporting done by CNN and BCC, and I think he's right in doing so (and many others who have been criticizing the mainstream media).

Don't try to turn every topic relating to the protests in another thread about annoying farang Expats who feel the need to vent their views.

I am sorry you are so adverse to my post. I will let the the forum decide for itself on their views. I do not need your advise thank you very much

[MCos]

I wonder what Dave Shermans log in is on Thai Visa, the crap he spouts can be seen on a daily basis on here, another sad expat that has bought the government propaganda.

Come Dave, out yourself, which is your log in?

Change a few words Mr Webster and you comment could apply to yourself.

[tonywebster]

I wonder what Dave Shermans log in is on Thai Visa, the crap he spouts can be seen on a daily basis on here, another sad expat that has bought the government propaganda.

Come Dave, out yourself, which is your log in?

Change a few words Mr Webster and you comment could apply to yourself.

No, I say it as I see it, not what other people want me to see. Sherman talks about things and one poster (mjnaus)has asked another (capealava) to prove his point, well why does mjnaus not prove his point, simply because he has no proof, neither side has proof, the government are busy concocting that as we speak. The fact remains though from evidence seen so far that the army shot and killed unarmed civillians,and if they say it was in defence (ie they were under fire from the protesters) then I have to ask why so few soldiers were killed or injured compared to the protesters. Dress it up how you want, but in my opinion based on what I have seen the army killed unarmed protestors, if they were only shooting in self defence why did reporters and first aid get shot and killed, I guess them cameras and bandages are really dangerous.

[ROBJSThailand]

Excellent piece of writing Mr. Sherman, well done!! I couldn't agree more with everything you say. CNN and the BBC were totally irresponsible with their biased and inaccurate reporting.

Edited June 21, 2010 by sbk
no need to quote the OP

[princejohnjay]

And there goes another government recruited to cover up their mess...Mr Sherman shouldn't think this sh!t he published would give him free visa or land him a job in the government house...this type of news is what has brought about the division among the Thai people today...Sorry to Thai people who do not know what to believe as they are all being fed with a one-sided news.

[shows]

I am a long term resident of Thailand (15 years) who was watching the only "live" coverage I could get from my hospital bed outside Thailand on BBC World. I was STUNNED at the coverage. I saw it as one-sided and with none of the analysis I would expect from a news organisation I respect and admire. When I read the article in The Nation this morning I felt my opinion to have been vindicated.

I don't want to take sides in the political argument only on the coverage which had none of the depth we got a few weeks later when Athens had violent riots which were covered with cause and effect commentary.

I think the one-sided coverage of the situation in Bangkok and Thailand as a whole for this event meant that many people world-wide remain ignorant of the many problems besetting the country which need to be discussed if only to get both sides of the political argument to look beyond their personal bank balances and spread some of the wealth fairly and equitably to areas of need. But that said the Army, for whatever reason and on whoever's orders, deserves congratulations for its handling of an awful situation which would not have been tolerated in many of our more politically "sophisticated" societies as the article quite correctly points out.

[joefromdc]

Does anybody know where you can view these videos online? A cursory youtube search didn't show anything of the sort...

j.

[mausplan]

I saw the CNN's anchor Jim Clancy state "and the Thai PM speaks Thai with a strange accent" . Where did he get that wonderful little jem of unbiased news ? To be fair to CNN and BBC ,the ABC was just as biased, perhaps because of the simple reason they all take their news from the same sources !!!

Like it or not folks, Al Jazerra and even Fox were more even handed.

Dan the Man just got caught out reporting live from his balcony

[devaram]

International media coverage was way better than the local thai media coverage which was absolutely censored by the government.

Once I realized how much the government was censoring they lost credibility in my view.

[rabo]

When Cable Network News was first introduced many years ago, they set a new pace in international news reporting, one characterized by fast paced, glitzy, sound bite reporting. Its news was fluffed with byline and human interest angles to draw a wider audience, part of which had less interest in boring but accurate reporting and analysis. CNN was a commercial success and set the pace in news commercialization, which eventually consumed even highly reputable companies like the BBC. Since then, it has been a long slide downhill from the days of clear and well researched international news.

The scale of CNN's failure to report the story from Bangkok is partly due to the failure of CNN's news model to grasp a now 5 or 10 year old story in a country famous for its cultural complexities.

However, it was Dan River's choice to describe the complex events in Thailand as a simple Cinderella class struggle of the oppressed against a mysterious undefined elite. Dan Rivers had earlier made a name for himself by reporting on problems in Burma as just such a class struggle. Perhaps he thought he had found pay dirt on the streets of Bangkok and chose not to look beyond what he wanted to see.

[Sunny Valentine]

Seems Mr. Sherman getting a lot of flak here, by posters who have so far not been able to rebut even one of his many factual arguments.

Telling of the intellectual status of some TV posters, isn't it?

[DocHolliday]

I saw the CNN's anchor Jim Clancy state "and the Thai PM speaks Thai with a strange accent" . Where did he get that wonderful little jem of unbiased news ? To be fair to CNN and BBC ,the ABC was just as biased, perhaps because of the simple reason they all take their news from the same sources !!!

Like it or not folks, Al Jazerra and even Fox were more even handed.

Dan the Man just got caught out reporting live from his balcony

wasn't that BBC's Jonathan Head?

[mjnaus]

I am a long term resident of Thailand (15 years) who was watching the only "live" coverage I could get from my hospital bed outside Thailand on BBC World. I was STUNNED at the coverage. I saw it as one-sided and with none of the analysis I would expect from a news organisation I respect and admire. When I read the article in The Nation this morning I felt my opinion to have been vindicated.

I don't want to take sides in the political argument only on the coverage which had none of the depth we got a few weeks later when Athens had violent riots which were covered with cause and effect commentary.

I think the one-sided coverage of the situation in Bangkok and Thailand as a whole for this event meant that many people world-wide remain ignorant of the many problems besetting the country which need to be discussed if only to get both sides of the political argument to look beyond their personal bank balances and spread some of the wealth fairly and equitably to areas of need. But that said the Army, for whatever reason and on whoever's orders, deserves congratulations for its handling of an awful situation which would not have been tolerated in many of our more politically "sophisticated" societies as the article quite correctly points out.

How great to finally read a comment addressing the subject at hand without pushing any political views. Unfortunately, discussing any matter related to the recent events in Bangkok and other parts of Thailand is basically impossible on these forums. Too many "know-it-all" expats seem to think the whole board needs to hear their opinion on the current political situation and grab every single opportunity to vent their views.

I definitely agree with the statement that many news outlets where extremely biased/flawed in their reporting (the same might very apply to local media by the way). After several days, it became clear that especially BCC and CNN were more creating their own story instead of creating a more realistic picture of what was happening and what was behind the recent unrest. I guess the mythical struggle between the "rich" and "poor" is better a story then the complex situation in Thailand (perhaps easier to grasp for the less educated folks?).

Edited June 21, 2010 by mjnaus

[MCos]

No, I say it as I see it, not what other people want me to see. Sherman talks about things and one poster (mjnaus)has asked another (capealava) to prove his point, well why does mjnaus not prove his point, simply because he has no proof, neither side has proof, the government are busy concocting that as we speak. The fact remains though from evidence seen so far that the army shot and killed unarmed civillians,and if they say it was in defence (ie they were under fire from the protesters) then I have to ask why so few soldiers were killed or injured compared to the protesters. Dress it up how you want, but in my opinion based on what I have seen the army killed unarmed protestors, if they were only shooting in self defence why did reporters and first aid get shot and killed, I guess them cameras and bandages are really dangerous.

You ask "why so few soldiers were killed or injured" probably the same reason the so few of the armed "protesters" were killed. (Assuming that you accept that there were armed protesters). I would suggest that in both case it was because it's part of their training to look after themselves, whereas a number of the untrained red shirts did not and in effect were acting as human shields.

[antony77]

A good and proper article, CNN and BBC were biased. They kept plugging red shirt propogander like the governmemt was illegal etc. They never told the real story that it was a violent attempt by Taksin to destroy a legal elected governtment

Edited June 21, 2010 by sbk
no need to quote the OP

[timekeeper]

its all right for you lot to be pontificating about the coverage after the fact but did any of you do anything whilst it was going on?

i complained bitterly to the Times on line, CNN and BBC about their biased one sided coverage

i also wrote to Al Jazeera to comment favourably on theirs

i spoke to the Sun newspaper by telephone and the British embassy about Jeff Savage whose name i broke first on this very forum.

i had responses from them all, not helpful but responses that made them aware someone was out there

i sent over 30 text messages to Abhisit's SMS service offering advise and support

if you want to make a difference then take a little time out and do it at the pertinent time, not after

its easy to comment after the game......

Edited June 21, 2010 by timekeeper

[Rucharee]

I filly agree that Thailand should kick out Foreign media, especially BBC & CNN.

It Thailand like, we can keep some foreign media from China CCTV, Myanmar, North Korea, etc.

With NBT & CRES, Thailand have enough to keep our own people informed already.

Don't even start... There is no propaganda left in Thai media because all propaganda media (like PTV, Prachathai) has all been shut down. So you only get 100% pure facts.

[rabo]

its all right for you lot to be pontificating about the coverage after the fact but did any of you do anything whilst it was going on?

i complained bitterly to the Times on line, CNN and BBC about their biased one sided coverage

i also wrote to Al Jazeera to comment favourably on theirs

i spoke to the Sun newspaper by telephone and the British embassy about Jeff Savage whose name i broke first on this very forum.

i had responses from them all, not helpful but responses that made them aware someone was out there

i sent over 30 text messages to Abhisit's SMS service offering advise and support

if you want to make a difference then take a little time out and do it at the pertinent time, not after

its easy to comment after the game......

Well done and congratulations.

I wrote a few letters myself but not many.

One was to Amnesty International about the misinformation on their website.

You are 100% correct, well spoken truth and good ideas can always make a difference.

[mjnaus]

its all right for you lot to be pontificating about the coverage after the fact but did any of you do anything whilst it was going on?

i complained bitterly to the Times on line, CNN and BBC about their biased one sided coverage

i also wrote to Al Jazeera to comment favourably on theirs

i spoke to the Sun newspaper by telephone and the British embassy about Jeff Savage whose name i broke first on this very forum.

i had responses from them all, not helpful but responses that made them aware someone was out there

i sent over 30 text messages to Abhisit's SMS service offering advise and support

if you want to make a difference then take a little time out and do it at the pertinent time, not after

its easy to comment after the game......

You might want to consider getting off your high horse since you have no idea what posters on this forum did or did not do during the protests.

Bragging about your "efforts" isn't going to do you any good either....

[angiud]

Excellent piece of writing Mr. Sherman, well done!! I couldn't agree more with everything you say. CNN and the BBC were totally irresponsible with their biased and inaccurate reporting.

I agree too.

[animatic]

Mr. Sherman did an excelent job of evening out the story to be more factual,

as seen by most expats with open minds. Those without saw what they wanted to see.

And in too many cases continue to deny what should have been more than obvious.

Thank you Mr. Sherman.