TO BBC: BANGKOK STREETS NOT VIOLENT
I was quite shocked to watch an interview on the BBC this morning that suggested the streets of Bangkok were "violent".
Interviewer Mike Embley in London was talking to Thailand's Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya in Washington. I don't recall the exact words but the interviewed suggested the "situation in Bangkok" was becoming more "violent". It was made more as a statement than a question.
Kasit defended the question and said the situation is safe and normal - which is the truth - but should the BBC even be posing such a nonfactual question?
The streets of Bangkok have been calm for more than a week and by suggesting otherwise in the form of a statement is bad journalism at best.
4 comments:
It's not an excuse but I think many western TV journalists get carried away on air and find themselves saying things they think will make them sound like a 'hard-hitting journalist' reporting from the 'front-line of the action', etc.
By comparison, if such misleading statements are made by print journalists, it is even more unforgiveable.
Typical of 24-hour satellite TV news I suppose.
It used to be 'if it bleeds, it leads', now it has become 'What, nothing's bleeding? Do something!'
As a journalist I know you do have to work hard to create a story on occasions. But sometimes there's just no story in the first place.
It would be like interviewing either K-o-C or David and saying: "But you were paid 500,000 baht by Thaksin to write comments on this blog." There's simply no factual basis for that 'question' in the first place.
Unless ... ;-)
So often TV cameras show a miniscule speck of a city and imply that the whole is an extension of the part.
The close-ups, the heightened excitement od the reporter typically provide an opportunity to skew the situation.
We have expected better of the BBC in the past, but now?
Is it time to turn to new media along the lines of twitter to get real time info from on the spot participants/observers of events.
Post a Comment