I don't mean to get on a soapbox and preach. I'm actually a little curious as to what others think. Do you believe that the BP is an honest publication, or do they intentionally spin the news a bit? Do they prefer one side over the other.

As for myself, I've noticed that some commentators complain that the BP filters web comments on their articles. Basically rude people saying borderline racist things are allowed to post, people generally throwing mud at the other side are accepted, but people that coolly mention facts that counter the claims in the article are blocked out. It's been a while for me, and I've heard others complain about it too. Obviously I'm not posting stuff that would be illegal here or elsewhere.

I wonder what others think.

Edited December 9, 201312 yr by stix1776

5...4...3...

5...4...3...

I'm sorry, I don't understand the reference.

All newspapers (anywhere in the world) are biased to a greater or lessor extent. Usually they reflect the views/agendas of the owners/editors.

Note quotes from the BP are not allowed on this site (at BP's insistence).

all publications are

I'm active on it, post often, their moderating seems irrational but they at least edit strictly, unlike arm (well no comment), so it's better quality comment. Most the posters are anti-govt, post too much and they get selective.

One thing I've noticed in the past few days is it's been hijacked by a very obvious vote buying campaign whereby all of a sudden comments supporting Yingluck get way more likes than dislikes, which is totally counter to the usual trend, it only occurs on specific articles and it's so damned obvious because the likes run into the 100s which is very unusual. Basically, someone somewhere with access to lots of computers is clicking away in a blatant attempt to affect public opinion. Police state?

I'm active on it, post often, their moderating seems irrational but they at least edit strictly, unlike arm (well no comment), so it's better quality comment. Most the posters are anti-govt, post too much and they get selective.

One thing I've noticed in the past few days is it's been hijacked by a very obvious vote buying campaign whereby all of a sudden comments supporting Yingluck get way more likes than dislikes, which is totally counter to the usual trend, it only occurs on specific articles and it's so damned obvious because the likes run into the 100s which is very unusual. Basically, someone somewhere with access to lots of computers is clicking away in a blatant attempt to affect public opinion. Police state?

I think it is pretty balanced. Not noticed any manipulation of responses to comments. The lengthy article on events at RU was very even-handed. I won't be subscribing to the online edition though: the highlighted stories include " Thailand, priorities 2009-2010" and some other old stuff ,as well as a reader poll asking if ASEAN is dysfunctional. But better than The Nation by a country mile

Bangkok Post seems pretty balanced compared to many other newspapers or TV news channels. Then again, I'm American and judge everything against Fox (faux) News

Don't think they are selective about comments. It could be just a manpower problem. As for being anti-govt, check out the major shareholders. That will give you a clue.

No, I could not say they’re a biased newspaper. From the readers prospective they seem to be fair and reasonable. However, I must say they’re editorial content is very lean these days in comparison to the Bangkok Post I used to know. Should be renamed as '5mins-Silence', because that’s how long it takes to read from front to back these days once you;ve skipped over the gobbly goop.

Edited December 9, 201312 yr by MK1

Clearly biased. Right now they are reporting scurrilous accusations about anti-government protesters, accusing them of being thieves but when I check The Nation website there are no such reports... I'd provide a link but...

A simple answer is yes.

If you were to ask if anything of what they print is given serious consideration outside the English speaking community, then the answer is no.

They're aim is merely to appease their target audience and sell copy.

Not unlike many poor publications in other nations.

Jerry

Crazy you ! Don't you know on which free speech forum we are here ? :-)

Don't think they are selective about comments. It could be just a manpower problem. As for being anti-govt, check out the major shareholders. That will give you a clue.

Where can I check out who their shareholders are? source?

Don't think they are selective about comments. It could be just a manpower problem. As for being anti-govt, check out the major shareholders. That will give you a clue.

Where can I check out who their shareholders are? source?

Good info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangkok_Post

It's OK to talk about the Post, but per forum rules:

31) Bangkok Post do not allow quotes from their news articles or other material to appear on Thaivisa.com. Neither do they allow links to their publications. Posts from members containing quotes from or links to Bangkok Post publications will be deleted from the forum. Please note that this is a decision by the Bangkok Post, not by Thaivisa.com and any complaints or other issues concerning this rule should be directed to them. Quotes from and links to Phuketwan are also not allowed and will also be removed. In special cases forum Administrators or the news team may use these sources.

EVERY publication is a bias publication.

I'm active on it, post often, their moderating seems irrational but they at least edit strictly, unlike arm (well no comment), so it's better quality comment. Most the posters are anti-govt, post too much and they get selective.

You might be right. I don't really know what they're moderating out. But what do you mean by editing strictly??

I notice that guys post things like "Thais are like children" (really freakin offensive) and seem to not get filtered out. Others post mindless droll like "Thaksin is controlling Thailand like an X-Box" or "Suthep is a hairy monkey" (obviously not direct quotes). It doesn't add to the discussion. But when I or others mention dates, facts and no insults, we're cut out. I wish I knew the BP's reasoning.

I don't pretend that I have any evidence of wrongdoing... just a strange feeling.

Sure they are. The latest who got my attention was when they called the anti Government protesters for mob when other news sources wrote democratic demonstrator's.