Thai editorial: At least divided media is better than nothing

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
At least divided media is better than nothing
The Nation

TV host Sorrayuth is the latest media figure to be accused of bias, but by now all are on one side or the other

BANGKOK: -- As soon as TV host Sorrayuth Suthassanachinda complained that his programme was badly misunderstood by anti-government protesters, opinions were divided along the usual line. Some said he had had it coming, while others backed his claims that his "content" was only "biased" because the other side viewed it with prejudice. Debate could go on forever, but the issue of media "neutrality" amid the Thai crisis may be fast becoming irrelevant.

In every newsroom - or almost every newsroom - there are sympathisers for both sides of the crisis. There may be those "in between" - such as those deeply agreeing with the "corruption" charges but seeing the February 2 election as the real and only solution - but they are in the minority. Little by little, the political showdown has nudged many Thais into thinking one way or the other. There is no exception in people who work in journalism.

After all, how can we define "neutrality"? Of course, compliments from the pro-government camp or scolding from the other side can't be used as the barometer. If we are asked to name a news outlet that is "pro" or "anti" government, it will take no time at all for the answer to come out. Name one news organisation that is neither for or against Yingluck Shinawatra or Suthep Thaugsuban. There you are.

Everyone is either taking sides, or accused of taking sides. A recent article in the Washington Post that condemning the Thai protest and called on the US administration to threaten Thailand with an aid cut was met with "Bravo!" on one side and "Lame!" on the other. To some, the foreign media are helping "protect" democracy in Thailand. To others, international journalists are anything but neutral.

To make it more difficult for journalists, the "ideological swing" has been drastic and their conscience is tested on a daily basis. Most of the challenges have to do with condemnation, not praise. If one deplores a road closure, what did one do in 2010? If one thinks the rice-pledging scheme is corruption evil, is invasion of media offices not equally shocking?

The game politicians play is like a football match now, with partisan fans cheering rather blindly. Sports stories often have a paragraph that begins with "To the neutral...", but the truth is that the neutral wouldn't care to watch the game, to start with. In politics, maybe the neutral are not writing any newspaper article.

This is not to say that Sorrayuth is right or wrong, but there must be many like him out there. As a popular TV news host, he is scrutinised more closely than the others. The time he allocated for, say, controversial politician Chuwit Kamolvisit or foreign reports slamming the protest has not gone unnoticed. Again, to some, he was doing a great job

balancing the issue. To others, he was adroitly but not so obviously discrediting the protest.

The bottom is, if Sorrayuth can be condemned, he can also be supported. And the same goes for those cheered by the protesters and deplored by the government.

Perfect democracy may need perfectly neutral media. In imperfect Thailand, the best we can hope for is that imperfect media on both sides are not intimidated into silence. The people have to know both sides of the story, perhaps regardless of how extreme they are being presented.

-- The Nation 2014-01-27

[RWB60]

And where does the Nation newspaper group stand on this issue. They don't mention themselves here.

[Thai at Heart]

They should just stick to pointing out who is breaking laws and those who are being hypocrites.

[noitom]

And where does the Nation newspaper group stand on this issue. They don't mention themselves here.

They have hope, but no opinion on the issue or where they stand.

[Tatsujin]

As I argued with another poster recently, all media the world over is biased one way or another. You as a reader/user are not forced to read the content from any one source however. Simply use other/many sources to get a more rounded and accurate view of the world. Complaining that The Nation or others are biased one way or another is all well and good, but if you don't like what it says cos it doesn't agree with your sensibilities, just pick up another paper.

[pookiki]

Watching Channel 3 as I write. So far, I have found the news coverage very balanced.

[Siripon]

Of course everyone has his or her preferences, but the trick is to keep an open mind and admit or accept wrongdoing when done by those you support. Once many Thais like or love someone, they will blindly support that person whatever they do, it's a national weakness due to poor critical thinking, partly due to poor education.

Suthep was wrong yesterday to block the polling stations, I accept that it was undemocratic, it weakens his calls for reforms before an election, demands I think are justified and indeed essential.

But it's sad to see so many posters recently on thai visa using abusive language, stooping to the level of youtube one sided rants where people compete to be as unpleasant, vile and stupid as possible.

May these days of turbulence and chaos end soon and the regular long term posters with informed, intelligent and diverse

opinions return!

[pookiki]

Although Sorrayuth has been attacked for bias, I would rather watch Channel 3 than any other news program in the morning. Don't know what their rating are but I assume they are very high. In the evening, I watch Thai PBS. Because both news programs are longer than the 30 minute news, they have more opportunity to present an unbiased view of what is happening in Thailand. I am sure there are other stations doing the best they can and they should be applauded for their efforts.

Edited January 27, 2014 by pookiki

[BlueNoseCodger]

Although Sorrayuth has been attacked for bias, I would rather watch Channel 3 than any other news program in the morning. Don't know what their rating are but I assume they are very high. In the evening, I watch Thai PBS. Because both news programs are longer than the 30 minute news, they have more opportunity to present an unbiased view of what is happening in Thailand. I am sure there are other stations doing the best they can and they should be applauded for their efforts.

I like channel 3 too. When I wanted to know the size of the protest, the Nation did low angle shots with a Thai flag floating over the camera. A clear propaganda message and makes it impossible to judge the size of the crowd. Channel 3, on the other hand, no messing, sent a helipcopter up and flew it around the protest circuit showing very low numbers. Showed live shots of the protest stages, no people. Suthep accused them of bias.

To get that Thai flag in the top of the Nation picture, someone has carefully arranged to take the shot with the wind, and a man has carefully held a flag above the camera and the photographer has taken photo after photo until the wind was just right and the flag didn't obscure any protestors.

It's orchestrated propaganda. It's tiresome, inconsistent and obvious and it's why they lose readers.

Even now, they use stock photo footage from the original protest when writing articles about the current protest. The original protest wasn't even support for PDRC, or a dictators government, yet they pretend Suthep has that support for his 'block the vote' thugs.

Edited January 27, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[icommunity]

IMO, it is OK for the medias to have diverse opinions and stance - the same as any individual has. The current situation is not a matter on different of opinion, view, etc. It is the danger of media emboldening or encouraging lawlessness. The media, especially the mainstream, should be united in condemning violence such as we have seen - the use of intimidation, threat, violating of people's rights.

IMO, the activities or the tactics of the DEM's PCAD/PDRC is to provoke violence clashes. Whenever there is a clash, it followed by the use of giant fire-crackers and gunshot sound to escalate the clashes and than the use of arms to injure or kill people will surface. There is a pattern and I think law enforcement agencies noticed that.

[Emptyset]

They should just stick to pointing out who is breaking laws and those who are being hypocrites.

So that would probably be at least 90% of people on both sides...

[Scamper]

This article raises a good point, but the proof is in the pudding.

" In imperfect Thailand, the best we can hope for is that imperfect media on both sides are not intimidated into silence. The people have to know both sides of the story, perhaps regardless of how extreme they are being presented. "

The writer didn't mention that Chalerm had a " chat " with media heads last Wednesday. True, he didn't invade the studio, he simply invited himself - for those who are scrambling for a distinction. And he also had " advice " as to how to present the news, what to cover and what not to cover - what he thought was appropriate, and what he thought would create " panic ". Is that not as severe a threat to the media that could ever take place ? Because every time we turn on the TV we are now left with the lingering thought - " Why wasn't this covered ? Is this pressure from Chalerm ? " For the writer of this article not to mention this - in light of the points he was making - is pretty shocking.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Scamper

[BudRight]

I disagree. It is worse than nothing.