DISTORTED HEADLINES ABOUT 'THAT' MAGAZINE
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, or in these cases the headlines.
Global media coverage of The Economist and its non distribution in Thailand this week has seen some pretty distorted headlines that, at best exaggerate the facts and at worst are just plain wrong. Here are four examples:
Magazine pulled from shelves – Toronto Star
Fact: Copies of the magazine never made into Thailand, let alone onto the shelves.
Thais take Economist off shelves – Gulf Times, Qatar
Fact: Again, no copies were physically removed from any shelves.
Thailand blocks Economist – Straits Times, Singapore
Fact: Thailand’ has not blocked this edition. The decision was taken by the distributor and publisher.
Thailand bans Economist magazine – BBC
Fact: There is no ban in place.
My award for the most accurate headline writing is jointly shared by The Guardian (Economist not circulated in Thailand after monarchy article) and the Chicago Tribune (Distribution of The Economist magazine in Thailand halted because coverage of monarchy). Wordy, yes but factual.
7 comments:
It's effectively the same thing, because Distri-Thai only banned it because of government policy.
The distributor made an uncommercial decision, presumably out of fear of prosecution if they did not ban it.
So, the government has the best of both worlds - they can claim that there is no state media censorship, and Thailand remains free of controversial magazines.
Also, we don't (and surely won't) know how much pressure was put on Distri-Thai to ban it. A coded threat from a government official would be enough to prompt Distri-Thai to err on the side of caution.
What the situation reveals is Distri-Thai's total disregard for its paying customers. I wonder if there's any way to subscribe directly via the UK or US Economist office, having the magazine shipped by airmail? But this would presumably be more expensive.
I'm going to respectfully dispute your use of the word 'ban', Matthew. There is no ban. As you know it was just a decision by the distributor - commercial or otherwise - not to handle this issue.
Sure, there is a real threat of action against anyone distributing or disseminating less majeste material. We've seen that in recent weeks where bookshops were "asked" to remove copies of books. Would a case have been lodged against them if they had declined to do so?
The distributor of The Economist was Distri-Thai until recently but I understand they are no longer responsible for this magazine. I do stand to be corrected if this is not the case but that's what I am told from contacts in the industry. For sure whoever distributes this magazine is playing it very safe and not waiting for any formal notification from Government.
I'll look into the subscriptions issue you have raised and see if it is possible. Subscribers in Thailand get the Asia edition of The Economist which is edited in Hong Kong and distributed from Singapore. I'm guessing it would be possible to get the UK or US editions mailed here but, as you say, at what cost?
If one company has a monopoly on distribution, and that company decides not to distribute (either because they have been pressured by the government, or because they fear government pressure), it's 99% the same as a ban. OK not 100%.
The Asian edition of Th Economist is sometimes better than the UK/US edition - as in December, when Asia had the "The King and them" cover, whereas other editions didn't. Luckily individual editions are available on eBay, anyway.
Agreed. And yes, Distri-Thai does handle 99% of the imported magazines.
I wonder how many of that December issue made it into Thailand? Admitting you have one in the bottom drawer of your office desk seems almost like admitting you have a copy of a porn magazine under your bed.
In my case I hope you can take an educated guess which scenario applies. ;-)
As the December issue's articles are online, and anyone curious enough could probably use proxies to see them, I guess not many people went to the trouble of individually importing the magazine. But it's worth it, because it's a nice object to have. Interesting to see if copies (e.g. from business-class flights) turn up at JJ! Really, Kinokuniya should've been enterprising and imported some exclusive copies.
No copies seem to have made it to JJ although I'm checking almost weekly.
Those December articles remain censored, at least through my ISPs, and are on the Ministry lists that have recently been published by FACT. Given that I feel anyone openly selling that edition in Thailand, even a JJ, would have serious problems.
Yes, they probably would have serious problems, but if anyone was brave enough to sell it, this would force the government to ban it officially. If someone went to prison for selling The Economist, that might swing more people against the draconian law. (Or it might convince people that The Economist and all western media are evil cohorts of Thaksin.)
Post a Comment