Bangkok Post, and critique of journalism in Thailand more generally. Near the bottom of the first page, Heifetz states: "There is a systematic failure in the Thai media, and the Post exemplifies it."
He then goes on to argue his case, describing his experiences as a foreign journalist in Thailand, at the time under military rule.
This exercise is meant as practice for our upcoming critique assignment. It will be your job to present an article with an opinion, summarize the position and arguments, and then critique it.
As you read critically, ask yourself some important guiding questions: What are the strategies the writer is using to persuade you, the reader? Are the arguments valid? Are you a biased reader? Do you have blind spots that may cloud your judgment of the debate?
Moreover, what is your level of confidence in the writer and the source in which it is published? All of these are considerations for a high quality critique.
For this post, I want you to simply state whether or not you are persuaded by the text. Why or why not? You may reflect on any of the above considerations that help to inform your position.
UPDATE: AFTER READING THE BANGKOK POST REBUTTAL, RESPOND TO YOUR OWN COMMENT ON THIS BLOG. DO YOU FEEL THE SAME WAY? OR DIFFERENTLY?
Make your post by next class. Remember to include your ID# in all of your posts. Aj. M
