Breaking news or broken news?

What happened to the reporting of the recent troubles in Thailand and the responsibility of foreign news journalists to report objectively?

The problem

Those of you who read this blog will know that I normally steer well clear of anything remotely political, but I couldn't pass this particular topic by without commenting on it as it affects everyone who lives here. Whether you are a long-term expat like me, or a Thai wanting to see your country represented in the international media in an honest and unbiased way, you will no doubt be dismayed as I have been by the recent coverage of the riots in Bangkok over the last few weeks.

Those of us who witnessed this destruction, whether on our TV screens, Facebook, YouTube, or in the flesh, will no doubt have been truly shocked at the scale of the general mayhem and the lack of intervention by either the police or the army. We saw thuggery and lawlessness on a grand scale paid for by a demagogue, now in exile, and fomented by so-called leaders whose own vested interests seemed to be the only thing important to them.

However, for me what was most shocking was the reporting of the carnage by foreign media outlets from experienced journalists who seemed to have popped off a plane and hunkered down with the Red shirts as if that was the only side of the story that needed to be told. I am of course referring to two particular outlets - CNN and the BBC - who seemed to offer daily reports on first hand accounts from the Red shirt leaders yet never thought it necessary to also get first hand accounts from the other side, too - the Royal Thai Government.

This news was not the "breaking news" kind that we see on our TV screens: news that makes us sit up and pay attention because we know that something awful has happened; genuine and truthful news that engenders something deep within us, which rises up and unnerves us, something atavistic that demands our attention. No, this was broken news because it presented a side of the story that was wholly at odds with what the vast majority of Bangkokians knew to be true - that the Red protestors were not merely innocent little victims practicing a kind of Satyagraha (Ghandi's concept of non-violent struggle), but that they too were offering a violent reaction to what they perceived as a class war against their amata masters in Bangkok.

To have not understood this was to completely miss the point leading inevitably to shameful reporting. It reminds me of "Yellow journalism" at its worst: a kind of journalism or storytelling that reverts to the lowest common denominator. In this case, that dynamic was what is commonly used when scandals break out, what the sociologist John Thompson calls "scandal syndrome". We had Watergate, the general lying that characterized the Nixon presidency, DianaGate, the events surrounding various scandals connected to Lady Diana, and many more.

In Bangkok we might have called it the "David and Goliath" syndrome where the aforementioned media outlets decided to present their coverage as a kind of "Big guy, Little guy" scenario, but where the little guys, the Red shirts, held the moral high ground and thus were automatically right. From there it inevitably followed that they, the media, as the so-called "guardians of democracy", needed to show them in the best possible light irrespective of whether they were in fact lobbing grenades at BTS stations and killing innocent civilians on their way home from work, or setting fire to businesses and shops that ordinary people, fellow Thais, had worked hard to build up.

Other commentators

I am not the only commentator to have noticed this complete abnegation of responsibility as journalists to remain objective and to report only the facts in as transparent and truthful a way as possible. Andrew Biggs in his column in The Bangkok Post had this to say:
"But CNN has really upset me over the last two weeks and it's not only an isolated news report. I have watched helplessly as Dan-somebody and the aptly-named Sara Snide - or is it Snider? - reporting breathlessly from the red shirt camp. Their new friends are freedom fighters battling the evil Thai government in the name of democracy. Bangkok is burning! Will good old-fashioned country folk triumph over the evil military? Will democracy survive? There is a difference. Dan and the Snide woman have been so slanted in their reporting that all they have forgotten is to tie a red scarf around their heads."

In an open letter to CNN International, which was also posted on Facebook, Alice Witheker Zeze Na Pombejra, a Thai citizen also had some scathing words for the two journalists:
"Mr. Rivers and Ms. Snider's choice of sensational vocabulary and terminology in every newscast or news report, and choice of images to broadcast, has resulted in law-abiding soldiers and the heavily-pressured Thai government being painted in a negative, harsh, and oppressive light, whereas the genuinely violent and law-breaking arm of the anti-government protesters - who are directly responsible for overt acts of aggression not only against armed soldiers but also against helpless, unarmed civilians and law-abiding apolitical residents of this once blooming metropolis (and whose actions under American law would by now be classified as terrorist activities) - are portrayed as righteous freedom fighters deserving of worldwide sympathy and support. This has misled the various international Human Rights watchdogs to believe the Thai government is sending trigger-happy soldiers out to ruthlessly murder unarmed civilians without just cause."

The Role of the Media

Of course it's a well-known cliché that you should "never pick a fight with an organization that buys ink by the barrel", but someone needs to stand up and say when the media has transgressed, and during the Bangkok protests, it's clear that at least two media outlets got it seriously wrong. Sad though it was that a number of foreign journalists paid with their lives for the opportunity to report on the mayhem, this does not let them off the hook. The golden rule of journalism is that you should not become the news, but the history of journalism is littered with instances where journalists got it badly wrong.

The most famous case was that of South African photojournalist Kevin Carter. In 1994, Kevin Carter won the Pulitzer prize for his disturbing photograph of a Sudanese child being stalked by a vulture (above). That same year, Kevin Carter committed suicide because he later realized that, in the ruthless pursuit of getting the perfect picture, he had lost his humanity by not rescuing the young girl who later died.

What this tells us is that journalists are human and can mistakes like the rest of us. Though by and large they do a good job, they are not immune to criticism either and more often than not these days, with the exception of the BBC, are merely mouthpieces for large corporations whose paymasters demand nothing less than the observance of their own personal views and convictions writ large for all to see.

Will the true story of the mayhem in Bangkok ever be told? Frankly, I doubt it but, with the social websites like Facebook and YouTube, a new form of democracy is being ushered in: one that allows us all to witness first hand the atrocities that are being perpetrated in the name of democracy. In future, the news that is fed to us by large corporations may still be "broken", but now we have the tools to see for ourselves what really happened. We can see through another lens and can thus frame our own opinion.

Tom Tuohy is a teacher and writer. He writes for a number of newspapers, magazines and websites including: The Guardian Weekly, the EL Gazette, jobs.ac.uk, The Bangkok Post, and UniversityWorldNews.com You can access Tom's blog here.