BANGKOK POST: NOT THE FULL STORY
Regular reader "David" has highlighted a case where The Bangkok Post has made some significant edits to a wire service story. The original story from the AFP news agency is here and The Bangkok Post version of that same story appears here.
The entire eighth paragraph (beginning "Mr. Jatuporn ..") in the Post story doesn't appear anywhere in the original. Five further paragraphs including quotes from Foreign Minister Kasit also fail to appear in the Post version, as do the final four paragraphs of the AFP story that deal with the possible return of former PM Thaksin with quotes from current PM Abhisit.
I spoke to the bureau chief of a Bangkok-based international news agency for his views about the amount of editing that's permitted in agency stories. He told me the general rule is that a small amount of editing for clarity and length is allowed, but no additions or deletions can be made that significantly alter the original story.
The Bangkok Post cannot argue this story was edited for length as it was published online. The edits they have made, in my view, did not need to happen. So why did they?
ADD: The missing link to the original AFP story has now been added. Please accept my apologies.
5 comments:
Once again, you present information without making any attempt to explain its meaning.
I struck this problem in your Focus piece on the Economist. I complained here, and at the Bangkok Pundit blog.
You insisted the Economist should have tried to observe lese majeste law as it exists here, but in your post failed to tell us anything about the law itself - Strict? Permissive? How much can a publisher get away with?
How much are readers missing out on?
Laws develop and change like anything else. Sometimes the best way to get them to progress is to test them, by pushing them at their limits.
You, however, claimed the Economist had only itself to blame if one of their issues was banned. You implied you thought the law was good or acceptable simply because it exists. Publishers must abide by the law, you intoned.
Fine, but once again: how good, or fair, or permissible a law is it?
In this post, your link to the original AFP story is absent, but never mind.
More important is this point: How do you think the changes made by the Post alter the meaning of the AFP story? Are you suggesting the sub-editor had an agenda? If so, what?
What is the point you are trying to make?
You are not the only journalist working here in Thailand, but you are one of the few bloggers commenting on the industry. Your readers deserve better.
PS: I still enjoy your blog.
Bkkdreamer, thanks for the post.
First I have now added that missing link to the original AFP story, thanks for pointing out my glaring error.
The point I am trying to make with this story is that what The Bangkok Post claims to be an original AFP story is not. When a publisher signs an agreement to use wire service copy (and I know as I have signed these agreements) there are strict limits on what you can and cannot do. You can edit for clarity (by that I mean you can amend currencies, etc, to make the story more understandable to the local readership). What you cannot do is cut whole paragraphs and add things which were not in the original story.
I do not think there is a hidden agenda here whatsoever, but it would be easy to say the final paragraphs were omitted by The Post for LM reasons.
Unless you see both stories you're not aware of anything untoward happening. But in the grand scheme of things this is not a big issue.
I know a number of journalists in the industry here, and quite frankly I would really welcome more dialogue with them. I try my best ... and will never edit or censor a comment that disputes anything I publish here.
And I'm pleased you enjoy the blog and take the time to comment.
Wire service clients can cut as much as is necessary, no matter what the agreement says.
What a wire service reporter might like to happen to his copy and what actually happens on the page can be very different.
Wire service customers such as newspapers and magazines pay good money for the right to run that copy. If you have signed one of those agreements, then you will be aware of how much they cost.
If you have a 5 inch hole on the page and are presented with a 10 inch wire service story, are you going to pull some story by one of your own reporters to mkae room for that precious wire service copy? Of course not.
You will cut it according to what it's worth, and your other news priorities on the page.
Wire services have bigger concerns about what happens to their product, I should think.
Much worse is reporters who rip off wire service copy by re-writing it slightly then sticking their own byline on top.
They do not bother to acknowledge the contribution by the wire service, as they would rather take the credit themselves.
One other thing: It is common for papers to blend local and wire service copy. Local copy will usually get priority, because the paper does not want to make its own staff look bad by giving wire service copy too much prominence. Are you telling me papers can't blend and merge as well?
You really need to cover these things in some detail rather than merely knocking out a few paragraphs and asking your blog readers what they think.
You're the one who works in the industry: why not tell them what you think, then invite reaction?
Thanks again for your comments.
Can I ask .. do you work in the media BkkDreamer? If you'd prefer to answer by email that's fine. I'm guessing you do, or have done, as you seem to have a good knowledge of what happens.
I agree that wire services to have more important things to worry about, but all the agreements I have even been involved with say, and I am quoting directly from one now, say pretty similar things to: " .. shall not materially change the basic meaning of XXX's stories, and shall not with prior written approval, add to, edit, excerpt, abridge, condense, summarize, or otherwise materially change any substantive content .."
So while I accept blending, cutting and editing, etc, does happen, in the majority of agreements (and all the ones I've ever seen) it's not actually permitted.
Fair point. But as I say, the agreements do not reflect reality.
A newspaper would probably argue that it pays good money for that copy, and can do with it (within reason) what it likes.
And from the provider's perspective, much worse happens than having copy re-edited, blended and so on.
For the Post to chop several paragraphs from a wire services story is nothing. Some wire stories from overseas are monstrously long, and full of padding which local outlets do not need.
For example, wire service stories on Thaksin's non-speech in Hong Kong included background about his conviction last year, his fleeing to the UK, blah blah.
Local readers don't really need to be told all that...we know it already. It's there for overseas readers who for some bizarre reason might be interested in Thailand's political troubles.
Then there are wire stories from other parts of the world eg Israel, the Middle East which make it onto the foreign news pages.
Some of them go on, and on. If papers can't cut that stuff, are they doing a service to readers?
Providers and their customers meet occasionally to talk about each other's needs. I doubt many wire service salespeople come to the meetings with complaints about how XYZ story on the Israeli conflict ran minus two CRUCIAL background pars on line 150 last week.
Post a Comment