WHERE THE ECONOMIST IS NOT CENSORED
Regular readers will know how I have covered issues relating to the non-appearance of issues of The Economist magazine in Thailand. On several occasions I have been first with the news that specific editions would not be making it to subscribers and retailers in the Kingdom.
Last month The Economist published an online story with the sub-headline 'Where The Economist is censored'. It listed Thailand as the fifth worst offender.
The story claimed that eight issues of the magazine between January 2009 and August 2010 were either banned or confiscated. This is simply not true. On seven of these eight occasions, the publishers of The Economist took the decision to suspend delivery to Thailand. And, in each of those seven cases the controversial content remains freely accessible online in Thailand, so who's to say those issues would have been banned anyway? Only one time did issues which arrived in Thailand not make it to readers, and that was down to the distributor of the magazine declining to handle the magazine - again not an official ban or confiscation.
I'm not suggesting that these issues would have escaped an official ban had the publishers attempted to distribute them but the data and findings, as they stand in this story, are plainly wrong.
Only one issue of The Economist in the last three years has, to the best of my knowledge, been the subject of any official government ban.
4 comments:
As a long-time subscriber, I would argue that distributor declining to handle the delivery is the same thing as banning. Before the ban of the issue dated 6 December 2009, there were banned only once in 2002, i think (which was bad enough) but after that the copies failed to be delivered to subscribers so often than I cared to count.
It's the same as self-censorship that the Thai media impose on itself not reporting on certain activities about certain people.
Thanks for your comment. Only one time since Jan 2009 did the distributor decline to handle the copies; in every other occasion the copies never left Singapore (where the copies of the Asian edition is printed).
I can see your point, but there is a big difference between an official ban and a decision taken not to distribute. In its story The Economist talks about issues which were confiscated or where maps were blacked out - nothing like that happened with the issues coming to Thailand.
From the same Anonymous:
Just to share more of my experience. I wrote to The Economist and it was handled by their Singapore office. For at least a few "banned" issues, I insisted them to send me copies and they did so from Singapore by post. It clearly showed the local distributor were too scared to handle it if it's true like you said that the issues left Singapore.
I'd prefer the issue delivered with certain page ripped off or blacked out. I think that would make its point of their editorial line but in the short run I think the Economist will get in to trouble finding local distributor to handle its delivery.
Same Anonymous:
By the way, I think the infamous issue was dated 6 December 2008 and not 2009. Sorry. Can't believe it's almost 2 years already that I've borne with inconsistent delivery of the magazine.
Post a Comment