NY Times corrects opinion article about Thailand

[Lite Beer]

NEW YORK TIMES
NY Times corrects opinion article about Thailand
The Sunday Nation

The New York Times has run a correction on an opinion article about Thai politics that appeared in its print edition on August 23.

The correction, published on its website (www.nytimes.com) on Friday, said the article headlined "Can Egypt Learn from Thailand?" "contained several errors".

It said, "Thailand's economy is in recession, not 'booming'. Anti-government protests in 2010 occurred in the spring, not in January, and protesters were killed by the military, not the police. The prime minister since 2011, Yingluck Shinawatra, has proposed establishing a fully elected Senate and making it harder for courts to disband political parties; she has not 'avoided challenging the Constitution'."

More than 70 readers made their comments on this article. Some questioned the accuracy of certain information in the opinion piece and the neutrality of the writer, Jonathan Tepperman, who is the managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine.

-- The Nation 2013-09-01

[NongKhaiKid]

Congratulations to the NY Times, this is good, responsible journalism. Thai media please take note.

I presume the author of the piece will not be used by NY times again and irrespective of whether his article was deliberately biased or simply poorly researched resulting in glaring inaccuracies I wonder how he can be managing editor of a magazine called Foreign Affairs.

[ianf]

This was the most disgusting piece of journalism I have read for a long time. To me it smacked of the writer having been influenced (with money???) to produce an article in favour of the Thaksin regime. Lies from start to finish. TheThaksin PR machine is hard at work,

[OldChinaHam]

Congratulations to the NY Times, this is good, responsible journalism. Thai media please take note.

I presume the author of the piece will not be used by NY times again and irrespective of whether his article was deliberately biased or simply poorly researched resulting in glaring inaccuracies I wonder how he can be managing editor of a magazine called Foreign Affairs.

Good question. Maybe you should write to, and ask, Gideon Rose.

Just say, for me too, Tepperman seems nothing more than a politically appointed twit,

And would be better writing about illicit foreign affairs of the sexual nature instead of Number Two

At a serious journal.

[NongKhaiKid]

Congratulations to the NY Times, this is good, responsible journalism. Thai media please take note.

I presume the author of the piece will not be used by NY times again and irrespective of whether his article was deliberately biased or simply poorly researched resulting in glaring inaccuracies I wonder how he can be managing editor of a magazine called Foreign Affairs.

Good question. Maybe you should write to, and ask, Gideon Rose.

Just say, for me too, Tepperman seems nothing more than a politically appointed twit,

And would be better writing about illicit foreign affairs of the sexual nature instead of Number Two

At a serious journal.

I'm presuming you know something of this publication and the owner so can i ask is it something of a respected publication and taken seriously ?

Tepperman certainly did it no favours by his article on Thailand and it being corrected in a newspaper like the NY Times

[theblether]

Good on the NY Times for correcting however it still doesn't get away from the fact that they allowed the article to be published in the first place.

Someone on the editorial team is needing a metaphorical slap. Articles like that have a way of taking on a life of their own.

[OldChinaHam]

Congratulations to the NY Times, this is good, responsible journalism. Thai media please take note.

I presume the author of the piece will not be used by NY times again and irrespective of whether his article was deliberately biased or simply poorly researched resulting in glaring inaccuracies I wonder how he can be managing editor of a magazine called Foreign Affairs.

Good question. Maybe you should write to, and ask, Gideon Rose.

Just say, for me too, Tepperman seems nothing more than a politically appointed twit,

And would be better writing about illicit foreign affairs of the sexual nature instead of Number Two

At a serious journal.

I'm presuming you know something of this publication and the owner so can i ask is it something of a respected publication and taken seriously ?

Tepperman certainly did it no favours by his article on Thailand and it being corrected in a newspaper like the NY Times

Yes. It is very well respected and deserves it, I think.

When I was young, about 18, about 40 years ago, I first read this journal.

It was also a way for those in government to voice their opinions or become better known.

I think people like President Ford contributed an article.

Maybe, probably, he had someone write it for him, or maybe he wrote it himself.

As you say, it is good when the newspapers police and correct themselves when they error.

And to error is human.

To err Divine.

Edited September 1, 2013 by OldChinaHam

[NongKhaiKid]

Congratulations to the NY Times, this is good, responsible journalism. Thai media please take note.

I presume the author of the piece will not be used by NY times again and irrespective of whether his article was deliberately biased or simply poorly researched resulting in glaring inaccuracies I wonder how he can be managing editor of a magazine called Foreign Affairs.

Good question. Maybe you should write to, and ask, Gideon Rose.

Just say, for me too, Tepperman seems nothing more than a politically appointed twit,

And would be better writing about illicit foreign affairs of the sexual nature instead of Number Two

At a serious journal.

I'm presuming you know something of this publication and the owner so can i ask is it something of a respected publication and taken seriously ?

Tepperman certainly did it no favours by his article on Thailand and it being corrected in a newspaper like the NY Times

Yes. It is very well respected and deserves it, I think.

When I was young, about 18, about 40 years ago, I first read this journal.

It was also a way for those in government to voice their opinions or become better known.

I think people like President Ford contributed an article.

Maybe, probably, he had someone write it for him, or maybe he wrote it himself.

As you say, it is good when the newspapers police and correct themselves when they error.

And to error is human.

To err Divine.

Thanks very much for that.

I'm not saying I have never heard of the magazine as probably over the years it's been quoted on the likes of CNN and more than likely contributors have been interviewed.

If Tepperman had somebody " ghost " the article for him he deserves all he gets and can't wriggle as it went out under his byline and if as wrong as this one was it's self inflicted injury.

[jayboy]

Good on the NY Times for correcting however it still doesn't get away from the fact that they allowed the article to be published in the first place.

Someone on the editorial team is needing a metaphorical slap. Articles like that have a way of taking on a life of their own.

Don't be a dope.The New York Times stands by the article after having made some corrections of fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/tepperman-can-egypt-learn-from-thailand.html?_r=0

What the slightly inane comments so far on this thread reflect is that the objectors don't so much have a problem with the incorrect facts but rather with the article's conclusions (which weren't really affected by the original errors).

[AyG]

Is the correction itself 100$ correct? "protesters were killed by the military" - surely that's far from definitely established. And no mention of the black shirts role in the killings.

[smutcakes]

This was the most disgusting piece of journalism I have read for a long time. To me it smacked of the writer having been influenced (with money???) to produce an article in favour of the Thaksin regime. Lies from start to finish. TheThaksin PR machine is hard at work,

Why is it the most disgusting piece of journalism you have read in a long time? because he did not agree with your opinions? Many incidents, outcomes, things that are happening previously in Thailand or are happening are not facts but conjecture, opinion etc. Just because this writer holds a different opinion to you does not make it wrong, as is your opinion is yours and cannot really be argued as fact or otherwise.

I am slightly concerned that with all your normal rhetoric on Thaksin (comparing him to Hitler amongst others) you call this piece disgusting journalism, purely i presume because his opinion on issues, does not reflect yours. There is a certain irony in there.

[Sayonarax]

Congratulations to the NY Times, this is good, responsible journalism. Thai media please take note.

I presume the author of the piece will not be used by NY times again and irrespective of whether his article was deliberately biased or simply poorly researched resulting in glaring inaccuracies I wonder how he can be managing editor of a magazine called Foreign Affairs.

Sorry almost pee'd me pants holding in the laughter.. if they was as good as they're supposed to be they wouldn't of printed a half ass piece in the first place.

[NongKhaiKid]

Congratulations to the NY Times, this is good, responsible journalism. Thai media please take note.

I presume the author of the piece will not be used by NY times again and irrespective of whether his article was deliberately biased or simply poorly researched resulting in glaring inaccuracies I wonder how he can be managing editor of a magazine called Foreign Affairs.

Sorry almost pee'd me pants holding in the laughter.. if they was as good as they're supposed to be they wouldn't of printed a half ass piece in the first place.

How about the fact that the piece was written by the managing editor of a respectable magazine, they are entitled to believe it's accurate ? Can't see them checking every word, every fact and every conclusion expressed.

[mikemac]

This thread may contain "inane"comments, in some minds, but the "insane" comments did not kick in until #9, and I expect them to continue.

[kirk0233]

Good on the NY Times for correcting however it still doesn't get away from the fact that they allowed the article to be published in the first place.

Someone on the editorial team is needing a metaphorical slap. Articles like that have a way of taking on a life of their own.

Don't be a dope.The New York Times stands by the article after having made some corrections of fact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/opinion/tepperman-can-egypt-learn-from-thailand.html?_r=0

What the slightly inane comments so far on this thread reflect is that the objectors don't so much have a problem with the incorrect facts but rather with the article's conclusions (which weren't really affected by the original errors).

They didn't correct this statement "She has kept corruption, a perennial problem in Thailand, to a minimum".

[mikemac]

I am slightly concerned that with all your normal rhetoric on Thaksin (comparing him to Hitler amongst others) you call this piece disgusting journalism, purely i presume because his opinion on issues, does not reflect yours. There is a certain irony in there.

Irony ??? Not really.

"ianf" has as much right to consider the story disgusting journalism as I have to consider your comment as a load of bulldust. And if he wants to insult Hitler in his spare time, that's up to him. Most of us don't have a problem with that. Or are you pissed off because ianf's opinion does not reflect yours ?

[mikemac]

They didn't correct this statement "She has kept corruption, a perennial problem in Thailand, to a minimum".

By whose standards, pray tell ?

[smutcakes]

I am slightly concerned that with all your normal rhetoric on Thaksin (comparing him to Hitler amongst others) you call this piece disgusting journalism, purely i presume because his opinion on issues, does not reflect yours. There is a certain irony in there.

Irony ??? Not really.

"ianf" has as much right to consider the story disgusting journalism as I have to consider your comment as a load of bulldust. And if he wants to insult Hitler in his spare time, that's up to him. Most of us don't have a problem with that. Or are you pissed off because ianf's opinion does not reflect yours ?

I am not sure how to respond to your post- I am neither annoyed nor have been rude or in any derogatory to Ianf, so i am unsure why you are being so confrontational. I am not sure what you are talking about insulting Hitler, calm down and read the post again.

I merely pointed out that someone who regularly criticizes the current Government and accuses them of all kinds of mind bending tactics, dictatorship and the alike, calls something 'disgusting journalism' as the writers opinion did not reflect that of their own

Many things that have happened in Thailand are not fact and as such although one person might disagree with an opinion, i don't think that is akin to disgusting journalism, unless of course you are the type of person who cannot abide those with different opinions, and as such would make all of Ianf's comments on Thaksin rather ironic.

[jayboy]

I am slightly concerned that with all your normal rhetoric on Thaksin (comparing him to Hitler amongst others) you call this piece disgusting journalism, purely i presume because his opinion on issues, does not reflect yours. There is a certain irony in there.

Irony ??? Not really.

"ianf" has as much right to consider the story disgusting journalism as I have to consider your comment as a load of bulldust. And if he wants to insult Hitler in his spare time, that's up to him. Most of us don't have a problem with that. Or are you pissed off because ianf's opinion does not reflect yours ?

Forum members have the right to say anything subject to forum rules and moderators' discretion.

However that is very distant from being the same as suggesting that one person's opinion is as good (or as informed, articulate, amusing etc) as another's.The reference to the NYT piece as "disgusting journalism" isn't forbidden but it instantly identifies the poster as someone of limited comprehension and insight.Such a person is unable to provide coolly analytical responses to views with which they disagree - hence the use of terms like "disgusting journalism" or "load of bullshit."

It wasn't a particularly great piece in the NYT and it contained some errors of fact but its conclusions were very reasonable and few fair minded intelligent people would dispute them.The problem for the usual suspects that it's virtually impossible for them to find reports in the international media that support their reactionary views.Even canny right wing regional figures like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore makes many of the same points as the NYT piece.

[mikemac]

I am not sure how to respond to your post- I am neither annoyed nor have been rude or in any derogatory to Ianf, so i am unsure why you are being so confrontational. I am not sure what you are talking about insulting Hitler, calm down and read the post again.

I merely pointed out that someone who regularly criticizes the current Government and accuses them of all kinds of mind bending tactics, dictatorship and the alike, calls something 'disgusting journalism' as the writers opinion did not reflect that of their own

Many things that have happened in Thailand are not fact and as such although one person might disagree with an opinion, i don't think that is akin to disgusting journalism, unless of course you are the type of person who cannot abide those with different opinions, and as such would make all of Ianf's comments on Thaksin rather ironic.

Don't know where to start with your response, only to say that if you think my comment was confrontational you really do lead a sheltered life.

And to say, in part - "Many things that have happened in Thailand are not fact..................................." makes about as much sense as Yingluck does, which is zero.

[Moruya]

I am slightly concerned that with all your normal rhetoric on Thaksin (comparing him to Hitler amongst others) you call this piece disgusting journalism, purely i presume because his opinion on issues, does not reflect yours. There is a certain irony in there.

Irony ??? Not really.

"ianf" has as much right to consider the story disgusting journalism as I have to consider your comment as a load of bulldust. And if he wants to insult Hitler in his spare time, that's up to him. Most of us don't have a problem with that. Or are you pissed off because ianf's opinion does not reflect yours ?

Forum members have the right to say anything subject to forum rules and moderators' discretion.

However that is very distant from being the same as suggesting that one person's opinion is as good (or as informed, articulate, amusing etc) as another's.The reference to the NYT piece as "disgusting journalism" isn't forbidden but it instantly identifies the poster as someone of limited comprehension and insight.Such a person is unable to provide coolly analytical responses to views with which they disagree - hence the use of terms like "disgusting journalism" or "load of bullshit."

It wasn't a particularly great piece in the NYT and it contained some errors of fact but its conclusions were very reasonable and few fair minded intelligent people would dispute them.The problem for the usual suspects that it's virtually impossible for them to find reports in the international media that support their reactionary views.Even canny right wing regional figures like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore makes many of the same points as the NYT piece.

It isn't beyond the boundaries of forum protocol to suggest that your set of moral values would indicate that you shared the same set of bedsheets as he who is exiled in Dubai however that suggestion (probably) holds as much truth as the article written by the idiot in the NYT

[mikemac]

Forum members have the right to say anything subject to forum rules and moderators' discretion.

However that is very distant from being the same as suggesting that one person's opinion is as good (or as informed, articulate, amusing etc) as another's.The reference to the NYT piece as "disgusting journalism" isn't forbidden but it instantly identifies the poster as someone of limited comprehension and insight.Such a person is unable to provide coolly analytical responses to views with which they disagree - hence the use of terms like "disgusting journalism" or "load of bullshit."

It wasn't a particularly great piece in the NYT and it contained some errors of fact but its conclusions were very reasonable and few fair minded intelligent people would dispute them.The problem for the usual suspects that it's virtually impossible for them to find reports in the international media that support their reactionary views.Even canny right wing regional figures like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore makes many of the same points as the NYT piece.

"However that is very distant from being the same as suggesting that one person's opinion is as good (or as informed, articulate, amusing etc) as another's."

If that's the case, you may write your comments, but you obviously don't read them !

[aechzen]

ny times is an american low brow farmer newspaper , so what ?

[scorecard]

This was the most disgusting piece of journalism I have read for a long time. To me it smacked of the writer having been influenced (with money???) to produce an article in favour of the Thaksin regime. Lies from start to finish. TheThaksin PR machine is hard at work,

Why is it the most disgusting piece of journalism you have read in a long time? because he did not agree with your opinions? Many incidents, outcomes, things that are happening previously in Thailand or are happening are not facts but conjecture, opinion etc. Just because this writer holds a different opinion to you does not make it wrong, as is your opinion is yours and cannot really be argued as fact or otherwise.

I am slightly concerned that with all your normal rhetoric on Thaksin (comparing him to Hitler amongst others) you call this piece disgusting journalism, purely i presume because his opinion on issues, does not reflect yours. There is a certain irony in there.

And you make a nice example of the pot calling the kettle black.

[scorecard]

I am slightly concerned that with all your normal rhetoric on Thaksin (comparing him to Hitler amongst others) you call this piece disgusting journalism, purely i presume because his opinion on issues, does not reflect yours. There is a certain irony in there.

Irony ??? Not really.

"ianf" has as much right to consider the story disgusting journalism as I have to consider your comment as a load of bulldust. And if he wants to insult Hitler in his spare time, that's up to him. Most of us don't have a problem with that. Or are you pissed off because ianf's opinion does not reflect yours ?

Forum members have the right to say anything subject to forum rules and moderators' discretion.

However that is very distant from being the same as suggesting that one person's opinion is as good (or as informed, articulate, amusing etc) as another's.The reference to the NYT piece as "disgusting journalism" isn't forbidden but it instantly identifies the poster as someone of limited comprehension and insight.Such a person is unable to provide coolly analytical responses to views with which they disagree - hence the use of terms like "disgusting journalism" or "load of bullshit."

It wasn't a particularly great piece in the NYT and it contained some errors of fact but its conclusions were very reasonable and few fair minded intelligent people would dispute them.The problem for the usual suspects that it's virtually impossible for them to find reports in the international media that support their reactionary views.Even canny right wing regional figures like Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore makes many of the same points as the NYT piece.

It isn't beyond the boundaries of forum protocol to suggest that your set of moral values would indicate that you shared the same set of bedsheets as he who is exiled in Dubai however that suggestion (probably) holds as much truth as the article written by the idiot in the NYT

I see your back to your 'usual suspects' tag jayboy.

[TackyToo]

Good on the NY Times for correcting however it still doesn't get away from the fact that they allowed the article to be published in the first place.

Someone on the editorial team is needing a metaphorical slap. Articles like that have a way of taking on a life of their own.

During my time as an active editor for a newspaper with 14 mio readers, not a single line I ever wrote was published without tripple checks- 1st by a copy editor. 2nd by departmental manager. 3rd by the editor in chief or his deputy.

I am a little surprised about the fact that the NY Times gave up this vital ethical standard in journalism in favor of name, fame and reputation of an author. The focus of any serious publication should be based on some ethical standards first, as they have a responsibility to do so.

As fair as it is correcting the facts afterwards, some serious misinformation was published and this should under no circumstances happen in a well reputed newspaper.

Edited September 1, 2013 by TackyToo

[Moruya]

Good on the NY Times for correcting however it still doesn't get away from the fact that they allowed the article to be published in the first place.

Someone on the editorial team is needing a metaphorical slap. Articles like that have a way of taking on a life of their own.

During my time as an active editor for a newspaper with 14 mio readers, not a single line I ever wrote was published without tripple checks- 1st by a copy editor. 2nd by departmental manager. 3rd by the editor in chief or his deputy.

I am a little surprised about the fact that the NY Times gave up this vital ethical standard in journalism in favor of name, fame and reputation of an author. The focus of any serious publication should be based on some ethical standards first, as they have a responsibility to do so.

As fair as it is correcting the facts afterwards, some serious misinformation was published and this should under no circumstances happen in a well reputed newspaper.

The plonker that wrote the article should apologise himself and explain how he came to write such a pack of lies in my opinion.

[TackyToo]

Good on the NY Times for correcting however it still doesn't get away from the fact that they allowed the article to be published in the first place.

Someone on the editorial team is needing a metaphorical slap. Articles like that have a way of taking on a life of their own.

During my time as an active editor for a newspaper with 14 mio readers, not a single line I ever wrote was published without tripple checks- 1st by a copy editor. 2nd by departmental manager. 3rd by the editor in chief or his deputy.

I am a little surprised about the fact that the NY Times gave up this vital ethical standard in journalism in favor of name, fame and reputation of an author. The focus of any serious publication should be based on some ethical standards first, as they have a responsibility to do so.

As fair as it is correcting the facts afterwards, some serious misinformation was published and this should under no circumstances happen in a well reputed newspaper.

The plonker that wrote the article should apologise himself and explain how he came to write such a pack of lies in my opinion.

I suspect ignorance and high-handedness of the author will prevent it.

[slipperylobster]

ny times is an american low brow farmer newspaper , so what ?

You are very misinformed.... I suspect your statement is just an opinion based on ..well, nothing at all.

http://www.4imn.com/top200/

ratings says it all......No.1

[smutcakes]

This was the most disgusting piece of journalism I have read for a long time. To me it smacked of the writer having been influenced (with money???) to produce an article in favour of the Thaksin regime. Lies from start to finish. TheThaksin PR machine is hard at work,

Why is it the most disgusting piece of journalism you have read in a long time? because he did not agree with your opinions? Many incidents, outcomes, things that are happening previously in Thailand or are happening are not facts but conjecture, opinion etc. Just because this writer holds a different opinion to you does not make it wrong, as is your opinion is yours and cannot really be argued as fact or otherwise.

I am slightly concerned that with all your normal rhetoric on Thaksin (comparing him to Hitler amongst others) you call this piece disgusting journalism, purely i presume because his opinion on issues, does not reflect yours. There is a certain irony in there.

And you make a nice example of the pot calling the kettle black.

How is that the pot calling the kettle black?