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
The author is using various flashbacks from his time reporting for the Bangkok Post to persuade me that the institutes of independent journalism in Thailand are dead. He does this by citing a specific example on a time he reported on a submarine base with no submarines. The author was threatened with a defamation suit for this after his fellow reporter at the post chose to leave him out to dry on a quote she received from a rear admiral.
ReplyDeleteThe author is also very effectively recognizing his place as a replaceable cog in a well-regulated machine. Independent press in Thailand for Western writers is forever walking on eggshells. He emphasizes this point by mentioning the person who last held his position, and how she had to flee the country after reporting that a high-ranking government official had plagiarized his dissertation.
The arguments in this piece are valid. The author, through his personal experiences reporting on important conflicts such as between Thailand and Cambodia, demonstrates that reporters like Wassana who get ahead have to be willing to say what people want to hear - not what is true.
I recognize that I am a biased reader. I believe that no one should be above criticism, least of all government officials who are SUPPOSED to be serving the public. Living under the entirety of the Trump administration has shown me that sometimes criticisms are not only important, but necessary to show the alternate side to an authoritarian's perspective.
My confidence in the writer is quite high. He has worked for multiple publications and his writing is persuasive, informative, and flawless. I enjoyed reading this article mainly due to his amazing ability to tell stories and connect them metaphorically to shooting a pig. I believe the blood on his jeans represents how he had to bleed - lose reputation, risk jail time, and miss out on perks and benefits that miss Wassana receives for looking the other way. His commitment to the truth is what holds him back from succeeding in his specific position. But he chose not to be a pushover and left before they could charge him with defamation. He is a true journalist and a hero for sticking to his morals.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete6480553 (replying to own comment)
DeleteI dislike the Bangkok Post's constant attacks against the fact that the author does not speak Thai. It is not relevant. Reporters consistently report on countries around the world that speak languages they themselves do not. Furthermore, a he said she said situation between an ex-reporter and a publication that is attempting to retaliate to an expose has heavy biases on both sides that are difficult to ignore. Justin has motive to defame a news outlet he worked for due to his alleged abandonment issues from his editors. On the other hand, Bangkok Post is an outlet that must save face from an article written that attacks not only their working practices but the foundation of their journalistic integrity. BP accuses Justin of being an over exaggerator and a lazy liar. Justin accuses BP of being a propaganda machine. My position about the writer remains the same mostly. But I am more skeptical of his work ethic.
6480553^
ReplyDeleteID: 6480250
ReplyDeleteThe author describes his experiences as well as his colleagues' to emphasize his view on how Thai newspaper media is becoming too scared on reporting out of fear of defamation charges. I have to say that his points are well constructed and his personal experiences really made the fear of being a foreigner getting criminal charges in countries overseas really pointed out how "HE" or foreigners like him could be afraid of publishing what should be published.
His reasonings made sense for connecting to how independent press and Western writers might have differing objectives in writing an article. It's illustrated in here that these writers are pretty much replaceable for the press, well this case being thePost.
While reading the article, I was expecting some exaggeration of the situation of the coup in Thailand or some mentioning of something outlandish but overall, I have a feeling that this article was more about the author letting out his frustration as a writer rather than a personal attack to the Press he used to work for.
The author is making his points and reasons mostly from experiences, his or from people close to him. The arrangement of his points is appropriate and logical. I wouldn't say I'm convinced just yet as for now I would like to hear from more than his experiences but his arguments interests me and keeps me open for more information regarding the matter.
ID: 6480250
DeleteI have to say I'm glad I didn't draw any sort of conclusion from Heifetz's article. Bangkok Post clearly organized their response, citing from Heifetz's article and properly argue with his points. With the tone of professionalism as well as proper evidences and citations from previous articles, Heifetz's article somewhat changed into a child's rant to me rather than some emotional News media hero exposing the evil. This response helped me realize how biased I was toward Heifetz's emotion as his story telling was pretty much dialed to 11, it's really well written and a super convincing piece. While Bangkok post dismiss most of Heifetz's claim they aren't making any claims to better their image, which to me is very professional. I'm not saying that Heifetz's word is completely reliable, however I'm more oriented toward finding some more "actual" truth. Surely the Thai News Media would have some flaws, however the conclusion Heifetz had form doesn't really convince me anymore.
ID: 6380777
ReplyDeleteAs someone that isn’t the biggest fan of the government, I’m definitely entering the article with a strong bias in favor of anything that will discredit them. Additionally, from my own personal experience with the military culture and others’ anecdotes, I’m inclined to support Heifetz’s story. That being said, I feel the article’s criticism of Thai media is convincing enough on its own. What Heifetz argues, that Thai media fails to protect its employees in unjust lawsuits and buckles to government intervention, is supported primarily by Heifetz’s own personal experience facing a defamation suit. I do think the part about the X-ray vests (and the whole introduction) is an irrelevance fallacy, serving only to reinforce the image of Heifetz as the ‘hero’ of the story. It doesn’t reinforce Heifetz’s argument, and the initial references to civil unrest leads readers to form a negative opinion of the Thai government before Heifetz's criticism even begins. In fairness, if events did play out as Heifetz describes, it’s to be expected that he portrays himself as the underdog. There is a clear appeal to readers’ emotions and pity though, by recounting his mental state during the ordeal.
The anecdotes presented in the article are a weak point, since there is no way of corroborating them. The main strength of Heifetz’s argument is the references to similar incidents (the case of Morison and Sidasathian as well as the arrest of Erika Fry), and the statistic that “96 percent of defamation cases that go to trial end in convictions”. By showing that what happened to him wasn’t unique, the argument becomes more believable: readers feel more assured that Heifetz is telling the truth if they can find the other situations of this happening.
6380777
DeleteWhile the Post’s rebuttal has left me doubting some of the details of Heifetz’s story, I still agree with his general position. As for the response itself, I think the Post fails to respond to Heifetz’s primary criticism of Thai media, instead opting to attack Heifetz himself and frame him as an unreliable narrator (which he indeed may be). The corrections the Post makes serve to deny Heifetz’s story, painting it as a complete fabrication. Although the rebuttal appears to refute his experience, it seems strange to me that he would make up a story that could be so easily proven false. Personally, I believe some of the rebuttal’s points are rather questionable. Nowhere in Heifetz’s article does he say that he interviewed the Admiral, despite what the rebuttal implies. Furthermore, it doesn’t explain what the Admiral’s “query” about Heifetz’s original article was. Heifetz’s feelings of abandonment could have also been true: he may wrote the resignation statement in that way in order not to escalate the situation further and to leave without any more trouble. Given that Chiratas’ dismissive email to Heifetz wasn’t a lie (since the response ignores it), “abandonment” might well be appropriate. Additionally, the situation with Fry, Morison and Chutima were not mentioned at all in the response, so even if Heifetz’s experience was a fabrication, these other instances of journalists being mistreated by Thai media remain valid. The statistic concerning the conviction rates of defamation cases was also ignored, suggesting that this is indeed correct.
6480577
ReplyDeleteI agree that the essay successfully persuaded me of the serious concerns in Thai newspaper media. The author discusses how other journalists are growing too afraid of defamation penalties to report, demonstrating how the Thai media fails to offer accurate information.
In order to express his argument to the readers, the writer makes extensive use of emotions and his personal experiences in his work. The implications of questioning authorities, defamation charges, and the lack of support journalists receive from their publishing firms are all valid issues made by the author. I believe his experiences are supported by genuine and well-known names of companies and individuals to persuade readers that, despite being a foreigner, he understands what he's talking about. Furthermore, rather than just writing statistics and making it boring, he contributed his own personal experiences to each section to capture the reader's attention.
I would say I'm a biased reader since I've heard stories about the consequences of calling the authorities. Despite not having any hands-on experience or knowledge of the news back in 2008 because I was too young, I was agreeing with the writer due to my personal bias of understanding Thai media. In my opinion, individuals in positions of control prefer to tamper with the media in order to make things look good for them. As a result, I have a lot of faith in the author.
However, as persuasive as it is to play the victim, it deteriorates and exaggerates the truth. I believe the author is portraying himself as a victim throughout the article, justifying his actions with reasons such as "because my editor said so" or "because I was terrified." It makes the writing appear more one-sided, as though it just shows one point of view rather than the complete story.
6480577
DeleteI was expecting to see something similar to this article. Heifetz's article was a frontal hit on the Thai media, mentioning names and companies. I had a feeling the Thai press would react in some way. I was already skeptical of Heifetz's article since it portrayed him as the nice guy, which in the news media context, I believe is too good to be true.
With highlighted examples from the Heifetz paper and subsequently their reasoning, the rebuttal was quite solid. They refuted every claim made by Heifetz. Both articles demonstrate how opposing viewpoints exist in every situation. The rebuttals establish that most of the actions, such as the protests and the pig incident, did occur, indicating that the incidents were real. However, the scenarios have differing perspectives and storylines. This makes both stories appear untrustworthy because there isn't enough tangible evidence to back them up.
On the other hand, the answer has a considerable impact on my confidence in Heifetz's writing and distorts the overall truth.
ID 6480274
ReplyDeleteThe article made me question the Post's method of operation and how it handles with political news. His claims are interesting to look at and his examples of other journalists are noteworthy, and should be looked at closely. However, the article felt to me somewhat sensational by using strong emotional tones to describe his own experience. While this isn't wrong per se, it somewhat degrades the author's credibility somewhat in my opinion, by trying to appeal to ones emotions rather than hard facts.
Overall, I would say that I would believe some allegations that Heifetz's has put out, based on evidence that he gives. But on other allegations, especially where he emotion to sway the reader, I will consider with a grain of salt.
ID 6480274
DeleteThe Post's rebuttal was more detailed than I first expected, and really shone a light on how untrustworthy some of Heifetz's points are. The claim that Heifetz never shot the pig carcass in the first place was a bit of a shock at first but made sense later, as something like a ballistic test usually would have been done by a professional, not a journalist.
I standby my statement that some allegations, especially the ones involving media censorship here in Thailand, are credible and have some truths within them. However, my current doubts combined with the Post's rebuttal have convinced me that Heifetz's narrative of "being the victim" was beyond emotional, and more exaggerations.
6380489
ReplyDeleteThe article succeeded in revealing to me the experience of a reporter in Thailand. The struggles and obstacles given were not entirely his own. Constantly being looked down upon simply for trying to "report the truth". Most if not all his journalist obstacles are being put there but his own team. The very organization that should be supporting his findings instead shove him to the side and try to put him down. It truly is aggravating have to learn of the inhumane treatment he receives for doing his job. On one side he has to do his job and interest yet on the other, it shows that his job has only been made difficult by the very people that I used to believe as the people that is suppose to protect him. There plenty of emotion that emits from this post even with his best efforts to sound professional. I understand that anyone would be upset after his experience and even after extended durations of time has past, he still holds a grudge.
6380489
DeleteThe article by The Bangkok Post reveals to me that Heifetz, like any other person, was fueled by emotion and stress. This makes his article a little less convincing in terms of authenticity now that I learn more about the topic. Heifetz had written his article while under stress which ultimately altered his conveying message. While it doesn't fully explain as to why he would lie(if he did) even after realizing that the odds were against him.
The Bangkok Post discredit certain statements by Heifetz with a much calmer tone. Whether this is to emphasize the emotions Heifetz was portraying or the simply the fact that they held the real truth. Then again The Bangkok post is still a whole organization in comparison to a lone Heifetz thus producing a possibly more compelling argument.
6480492
ReplyDeleteI understand that the position of the author is that journalists cannot cause any disruption between the media and the government in Thailand and that if they did, they would easily lose their job. Furthermore, they receive no protection from their editors who are supposed to be their bodyguards.
The author showcases how experienced they are and that helps validate their input because it tells the reader that the author knows what they are talking about.
The author themself said that the editor has asked to shoot the pig, not ordered. The author only states that they could lose their job if they do not do so. This falls under the fallacy of presumption as they assumed that they would lose their job instead of requesting someone with power to see whether or not the request from the editor was fair and receive help from them. This is not a political issue so I doubt it would have been a big issue in the office.
The author shares examples of other people facing a similar situation to show that it is not only them who has a problem and that there’s a larger, more widespread issue; providing readers with evidence that this article is not made entirely for a personal reason and is actually a systematic issue.
By going into more detail, the author makes it harder for the reader to believe that this is made up and fake and leaves the author more open to fact checking.
The story of Wassana can be checked as there are public records which can show the validity of the argument. Just a quick search can show that Wassana is indeed in the Bangkok Post. I could not find the article the author was talking about for the Cambodia-Thailand dispute where the author stated that she wrote about people playing soccer. This makes me slightly concerned about the validity of the article.
This article was posted in a highly reputable magazine so to get the opportunity to write an article would have been taken seriously which is why the author is unlikely to post weak arguments.
I may be biased towards going against the control of journalism that is rumored to exist in this country. I have not experienced it and do not want any legal issues either which is why I think it does not exist whatsoever and that this country is the most free country in terms of journalism in this world.
After seeing multiple cases of foreigners, some assumed to be and some not, failing to abide by the mask rule in Thailand, their criticisms have held less value lately, at least to me.
The article is very persuasive but Thailand’s system for journalism is impeccable and second to none. It is definitely the journalists who are always at fault and never the government.
6480492
DeleteAfter reading Bangkok Post's response, I feel more inclined to believe that Heifetz is just trying to make his story sound more riveting than it is because he has been given the chance to write in such a reputable journal. Furthermore, the idea that Heifetz has showcased the fallacy of presumption has been given some strong foundation. Reading through Bangkok Post's response provided me with an understanding that Heifetz did not know the full picture, especially after his comment on the laws related to foreign journalists. Additionally, Heifetz has provided no proof that he has shot pork or that he was walking around with pork-blood stained jeans. Bangkok Post on the other hand, has shared that it was a professional shooter who did the deed and not Heifetz himself. Making Heifetz’s story harder to believe in. However, I would like to see Heifetz's response to the Bangkok Post’s response because that would clarify whether the Bangkok Post is writing strictly the truth or the Post is trying to protect its reputation. The Post has had enough practice with other reporters to become persuasive enough to protect themselves. On top of that, the journal has not taken down the story which suggests that professionals from one of the top institutions still believe in Heifetz which is why I am not sure. However, at the end of the day, Thailand has the perfect environment for reporters and I think it should be placed at the top of the lists around the world for freedom of speech. It is such a weird situation where only the worst journalists come here. Maybe it is because the better journalists of the world would be able to afford to come and travel Thailand without taking a job, leaving only the bottom of the barrel to enter the workforce.
6480607
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think the author did a good job of persuading the readers. He talks about his own experiences, which is a good way to persuade the readers. However, as a Thai citizen, I think I might be biased as well because I have seen and heard several things about the government. I think people who do not really know how the Thai government might not be completely convinced about the point the author is trying to make.
Other than providing his own experiences, the author also talks about what other people have went through, which is a good way of trying to persuade the readers. However, I think he kind of uses his emotions too much which I don't think is a good way to prove a point, and it makes the article not very professional.
After reading Bangkok Post's response, I feel like Heifetz's article is not very reliable. I am not saying that he was lying, or making things up, but I do feel like he over exaggerated things just to make people believe him, or make his story sound more believable. In my previous response, I said that Heifetz used a lot of emotional language, and talked about his emotions too much which is not very professional. In contrast, Bangkok Post used a lot of facts and evidences to support their point and their argument. That alone would make me lean towards Bangkok Post's response to be more reliable than Heifetz's. He could have done a better job at persuading his readers by using less emotional language, and more facts and evidences.
Delete6480607
DeleteThis article was able to totally convince me that I am biased as well. I think how the author shared his personal experiences was good enough to persuade the readers.
ReplyDeleteThe author has explained his and other people stories who faced the situation like him which makes it quite obvious that everything seems to be real and evidenced. Also I can assume that the author is the victim because he states many times that he is feared.
6381040
After reading the rebuts point of view, I did start doubting Heifetz’s stories. I would also say that I don't trust the rebuts because they could also make up a story to protect their position and Bangkok Post from legal threats. For me, I feel Heifetz’s stories could be right because he uses a very strong descriptive emotion in his post. If we reverse our thinking, we could also see Heifetz’s post as making false statements to degrade Bangkok Post and the Thai government.
DeleteHowever, in some parts, I think Heifetz was lying e.g. where he states about the pork blood. More evidence is needed to justify who is stating the truth because both sides were good in convincing the reader.
6381040
6381253
ReplyDeleteThis piece of journalism strikes me as a detailed log of the regrettable experiences that Heifetz went through with his career in Thailand. At first glance, it looks to be quite credible as Heifetz has gone through higher education, as well as publishing articles in many large media outlets, such as CNN. His English literacy and writing skills are also of industry standard with the article being very well written and articulated.
He described his experiences of encountering the low degree of freedom of press in Thailand, especially during the time of high political tensions. Although his storytelling involves a lot of emotional tones, I don’t think this reduces the credibility of this specific article. Considering what he had to go through (assuming he isn’t blatantly lying), I think anyone would find it hard to not let some emotion slip through into their writing. This text type also seems to be more of an editorial, rather than a strict fact-reporting article style. As a Thai citizen, stories similar to this are always floating around, making his story just a tiny bit more believable. I do believe his story.
Without a doubt, I am biased on this issue. However, it’d be incredibly naive to think that the Thai government and its military are pillars of truth and justice.
6381253
DeleteThe rebuttal has definitely shed some light on a one-sided story. I believed that the article was somewhat embellished and it turned out to be true. However, other than this, I don’t really see them disputing his arguments. They seem to be attacking his character more than anything. One point that was off to me was how they misconstrued what Heifeitz was saying. Heifetz never stated, or even implied, that he interviewed the navy admiral. Furthermore, he also never said that he had a relationship with the military journalist, just that they crossed paths.
The rebuttal seems to be no less an emotional piece than Heifetz’s original article. Using my own experience in Thailand, I certainly know which arguments I believe to be true.
Personally, I do find this article to be convincing as it is published by the Columbia Journalism Review which is under the infamous Ivy League Columbia University. This brings credibility to the author just by looking at the name of the publisher. I would have to admit that I am bias in a way as I do come from a country with a similar government structure that attacks journalists and promotes censorship which plays a major role in persuading me to believe this story. I think the most significant aspect of this article would be the emotional tone that the writer uses to provoke a sense of empathy and relatability within the audience as well as the very descriptive way of writing that he includes in his texts which convinces me as a reader as he would have to be a really good liar in order to write a description of a story like the one in the article.
ReplyDelete6480765
After reading the Bangkok Post's response, I do have to admit that my thoughts on Heifetz's article has changed significantly. One of the main reasons that lead me to be convinced in Heifetz's article was his persuasive writing technique that he used by emotionally connecting with his readers in order to gain sympathy and it worked. However, after looking into the details of his story, some statements he made in the article seems hard to believe such as how he was the only foreign national employee to report on such issues at one of the biggest media corporations in Southeast Asia. Another thing that i noticed is how he mentioned that he was abandoned by the corporation when he was having conflicts with the admiral, although at first glance, that story may seem convincing after some careful considerations it seems pretty unlikely for a large corporation to allow a mere journalist to "handle" such sensitive matters especially when he was still their employee at the time. The part where it is stated in the Bangkok post that the admiral instead had contact with Heifetz's editor instead of himself seems more convincing to me after reading the response. Overall, this is a tricky situation as both sides seem to have their own point of view. It may be a possibility that this was just a misunderstanding between the two parties, however, in this case I believe that the Bangkok post has more solid facts and responses compared to Heifetz.
Delete6480765
6480095
ReplyDeleteI would have to side with the author here. He vividly describes his past experiences working with the Thai press. In many ways it points out how he was treated unfairly, how he felt disposable, and how speaking the truth was like walking on eggshells. I have a high level of confidence in the writer because it felt genuine. His use of language provokes a type of emotion when reading the article; for me it was mostly frustration.
Although his writing was persuasive to me, I have to recognize that I am biased as a reader. For all we know, he himself could have been biased while writing the article. It wasn’t difficult for me to empathize with his situation when it appeals to the views of my own. As a Thai citizen I relate and connect with his scrutiny, especially because it is a reality I have seen before.
id: 6480095
DeleteThe Bangkok Post's response for the most part addressed points and possible fabrications Heifetz made . While I sided with him because of his experiences, it started to feel like a he-said-she-said situation. When it comes to interactions with no solid evidence, it could be a misunderstanding on both parties. The only reasons I had to believe Heifetz was because his recounts seemed genuine and it aligned with my biases. The rebuttal definitely put the situation into perspective. On one hand his experiences may be skewed, exaggerated and false, but the Post could just be deflecting his claims in their own interest as they were under harsh criticism. Whatever the situation may be, I do think that Heifetz lost credibility on some of his arguments because they were countered with factual information by the Bangkok Post.
6480297
ReplyDeleteI feel like the author did a really good job persuading readers. In using his own experience, he shows the readers what he went through and relates it to the experiences of others in similar situations. He is very detailed in the things that matter and the language he uses is also fairly neutral and not overly emotional. Though his personal experiences are biased, I think he balances it well with the data and information that he used to support his points. I would say I am biased to some degree because of my background. Since I was educated in a Western background in Thailand, I can relate to both sides, but most of the time I find that my ideology is more similar to that of the Western world.
Overall, I find this pretty believable and would cite it as a source, but I think I wouldn't rely heavily on this if I were using it for my essay since it is based on a lot of personal experience and emotion. However, I think the author did well trying to find the balance between personal experience and facts.
6480297
DeleteAfter reading the rebuttal by Bangkok Post, I feel that it changed my views on what I originally thought was a pretty detailed and well-written piece. The piece by Bangkok Post highlighted several points in Heifetz's article and filled them in with what they say actually happened.
While reading this rebuttal shed light on the credibility of Justin Heifetz, I feel it doesn't sway me to the extent of now standing on any one side. To me, there were several points made by Heifetz that Bangkok Post didn't address as well and that just makes it look like they were deliberately not bringing it up. While both sources seemed credible, they were also both extremely emotional, so I really have to pick and choose when it comes to this. If I were writing an article on this, I would possibly cite both sources, but also outline the bias in each (picking and choosing what information to use from which source).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I am persuaded by the text. The author describes his personal experiences working under the Bangkok Post and presents certain events (such as being threatened for defamation) to support his claims (of Thai media being "dead") and persuade the reader.
ReplyDeleteAlthough his personal experiences were a valid and logical form of reasoning, I would say that the author may be over-exaggerating the truth. The author strongly incorporated emotions into his writing, using fairly strong word choices such as "I had no choice" or "being the only non-national... is terrifying" , which made him seem as if he were the victim (despite it being true or not). This use of emotion definitely helped increase the persuasiveness of the article as it evokes sympathy in the reader.
As for credibility, I do find this source quite credible as it was published by the Columbia Journalism Review, which is under a renowned university.
Overall, I think the author did a great job in persuading the reader that the Thai journalism industry is flawed, especially with his extensive use of personal experience examples which evoked emotion from the readers.
6380784
After reading the Bangkok Post rebuttal, my views have definitely changed. Although I was initially a bit suspicious of Heifetz extensive use of emotion—especially his "trauma"—before reading the rebuttal, I was still mostly persuaded by his claims due to his incorporation of personal experiences and persuasive style of writing. After reading the rebuttal, it has become apparent that many of Heifetz claims may have been a bit ridiculous. For example, claiming that all foreign nationals were copy-editors—especially in a relatively large news corporation in Thailand—seemed a little dramatic (and Bangkok Post highlighted this, stating that his own supervisor, Paul Ruffini was an Australian national). Overall, Bangkok Post presented a more systematic, well written piece, incorporating quite a lot of factual evidence as compared to Heifetz's highly emotional piece. That is not to say though, that I am now on Bangkok Post's side, as they also made a few big claims such as "Nothing could be further from the truth", which was printed in bold. This statement seems highly defensive, and thus, we can infer that Bangkok Post was also highly biased as they tried to defend themselves from the hate they received due to Heifetz article. Therefore, I now stand in the middle, unsure of who to trust. Both sources contain good, logical arguments, however, they also present a large bias. Rather than believing just one source, it would be best to read both and come to your own conclusion.
Delete6480719
ReplyDeleteIn this opinion piece, the author utilizes ethos and pathos to convince readers of the underlying problem with Thai media. Heifetz explains his position as a reporter who has worked in South East Asia and is comfortable with reporting traumatizing events. This establishes his credibility and persuades readers to believe his words as he is experienced in the area. Throughout the article, Heifetz emphasizes his feelings of oppression, expendability and injustice as he is forced to go against his morals to survive as a foreign reporter in Thailand. He demonstrates these injustices by describing situations he and other reporters have been in.
The arguments seem valid to me, but I do have to admit I am a biased reader. Growing up in Thailand and having to be fearful of the Lese Majeste law through the example of my mother. She would privately criticize the monarchy but would scold me if I mentioned anything negative about the monarchy in public. So it makes sense to me that Thailand is a country that would persecute people for reporting the "truth".
Though the author seems very believable with his writing, I must admit that I do see him and his writing as a privileged white man complaining about a situation he can easily escape whilst other Thai citizens that want to pursue his line of reporting risk their entire life and future. I understand his motivations for reporting these injustices in Thailand, but the way he emphasizes pathos to convince readers has me feeling doubtful on the veracity of his words. And this is a possible blind spot that could cloud my judgment as I definitely harbor negative perspectives on "oppressed" white people in Thailand as Thailand gives a lot of privileges to those with lighter skin and eurocentric features. As a reader, it seems disingenuous of him to not acknowledge his whiteness.
Though I do not doubt that there is a problem with Thai media, his portrayal is extremely biased and does not consider his positionality. As with the source, it comes from a high standards ivy-league university. From my judgment it seems that the report is of high quality and trustworthy to a certain extent. Reading or learning about a societal problem in a country requires one to analyze many different perspectives and sources. Forming an opinion based on one report seems silly and dangerous as it could possibly enforce harmful stereotypes and ways of thinking.
Bangkok's Post rebuttal highlighted Heifetz ability to manipulate facts to create an interesting read. As I already am biased to the fact that I feel Thailand has a problem with media, I was blindly led to believe his words. As a reader, his writing is good but there is definitely something fishy about the report as he used extremely strong language on a delicate matter. The rebuttal brings forth the fact that publishers, even "high standards" publishers, do not often fact-check a well written story. I think I doubted his story to a certain extent but believed him based on his language and the fact I am biased against Thailand's media.
Delete6480729
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe that this article is quite persuading and I can say that I am convinced, but not strongly. He uses strong language and plenty of personal anecdotes, but that's the issue. He's persuing the issue from his side only while not expanding on it. The only person he used to back up his article was a collegue who went through the exact same experience as him. While that is enough, there is a risk of selection bias.
I do not doubt that there are issues in Thai media. Censorship of media is a major issue in East Asia and it would be foolish to deny so. However, this article is simply evidence of one incident. Until the author furthers this article with more people's stories, I will remain open to other opinions.
6480729
DeleteBangkok Post's rebuttal was exactly what I expected to happen. The issue with the original article is the complete LACK of evidence and the narrow scope. When Bangkok Post started linking actual evidence and spoke with the people involved, that's when i knew that the original article was simply a rant.
I still believe that the Thai Media has its issues, but now I do not believe the original article at all. It has lost all of its reliability.
6381073
ReplyDeleteI believe the author did a fantastic job persuading the audience. He shows the readers what he went through by utilizing his personal experience and relating it to the experiences of others in similar situations. He is quite specific about the things that important, and his language is pretty objective and non-emotional. Though his personal experiences are biased, I believe he does a good job of balancing them out with the statistics and research he uses to back up his claims. Because of my history, I believe I am biased to some extent. I can identify to both sides because I was educated in a Western environment in Thailand, but I think that my worldview is more akin to that of the western part of the world.
Heifetz's skill to alter facts to produce a fascinating read was underlined in Bangkok's Post response. I was inclined to trust his statements since I was already predisposed because I believe Thailand has a media issue. There were other concerns raised by Heifetz that Bangkok Post did not answer, which makes it appear as if they were not bringing it up on purpose. I know which arguments I think to be valid based on my personal experience in Thailand. The language and manner definitely showed certain biases and some things are a bit overstated or overemphasize.
Delete6381073
6480500
ReplyDeleteThe author is skilled at writing a convincing persuasive narrative. He successfully conveys the idea of inequality and censorship in the Thai media business, with many stories as anecdotal evidence to support his claims. It forces the reader to live through these situations and empathize with the victims and appeal to their emotions, instead of just making generalized claims or targeted accusations. However, I feel there was a lack of statistical evidence to support these claims. Still, it would have helped his argument if he had also provided information such as comparing how much news coverage different events get or how often news stories are stolen from foreigners (not sure if the latter would be easily accessible but my point stands that it would help his argument if it supported his claims) to appeal to their logic and reasoning.
One questionable part of his story, however, is the presented need to shoot at a pig's corpse to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of x-ray film armor against bullets. I would have though just firing at the film armor and showing the hole would have been enough to prove its ineffectiveness. It's also confusing as to how he got his "jeans stained with pork blood", as it would have been difficult to be hit by the blood splash if he was standing a reasonable distance away from the target, preferably also with something solid (like a rock or car) in the way to protect him from any shrapnel that flies his direction.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete6480500
DeleteBKK Post's response was logical and organized, tackling each point that Heifetz made in order of their appearance. These two reports have an obvious difference in technique and style. I still maintain my previous statement, that Heifetz was a skilled persuasive writer, especially at appealing to emotion and empathy. Was correct about my questioning of some of his logic, specifically his choice of using a pig's carcass. His arguments on second reading had a few logical inconsistencies able to be attributed to a possible fabrication of events, inconsistencies that would be easily missed by those who aren't explicitly keeping an eye out for them.
The final question I think comes down to who is telling the truth and who is lying, and with the need of a large company like BKK Post to avoid legal threats of falsifying information, as well as their ability to refer back to past records, alongside questioning and cross-referencing the answers of various involved parties, I'd say that there is a significant chance that Heifetz was either lying, or falsely remembered details to fit with the narrative he constructs (a very real possibility that everyone does as a part of the human mind's operation, called "false memories"). I think that Heifetz's article still served its purpose, to create scrutiny against BKK post. Whether this scrutiny is needed or not will have to be proven by further investigation using logic and verified facts.
The journal blog is now closed. Thank you for your participation. Aj. M
ReplyDelete