David Armstrong vs the Bangkok Posturers | 1.09.05
The text below is from an email that Pichai Chuensuksawadi, the editor-in-chief of Post Publishing PLC, sent to the Bangkok Post staff yesterday (background here and here):
This morning David Armstrong met with a number of editorial staff. Understandbly [sic] not all could be present and he asked that his views be comveyed [sic] to as many of the editorial staff as possible, hence this message. Thanks - Pichai
................................Talk to Bangkok Post editorial staff: August 30, 2005
I had intended to discuss with you today the future of the newspaper, which is your future - until I read in an opposition newspaper that you had demanded that I resign.
In doing so, you have, deliberately, massively escalated the argument. Further, you took this issue public and had neither the courtesy nor the courage to present your demand to me. According to the report in the opposition newspaper, you want me show my responsibility for the mistake.
You do not say what that responsibility might be - and I suspect you do not know. The facts - and as journalists you should know the importance of facts - are that I took part in a discussion on Friday, August 5 about the story and the problems with the story. I did not take part in a discussion to publish the story, as has been said elsewhere.
I, and others in this discussion (including Khun Sonchai) expressed doubts about the story - doubts about the source; doubts about the US experts (their existence, their qualifications and who the represented) and doubts about the existence of the cracks. All these points, it was agreed, needed checking before the story could be published. I had an engagement that evening, so I delegated responsibility to Khun Sonchai and Khun Chadin - to use their judgment about publishing the story in the light of our ability to fix the flaws in the story. That is a proper exercise of authority and responsibility.
It has been said I could have stopped the story during that discussion. I can only imagine what you would have said about political interference if I had. But I didn’t want to stop the story: I wanted us to get the story right. I wanted us to do basic journalism. We did not do the basic journalism and we got the story wrong. It has also been said that I could have stopped the story appearing on August 9. I was away addressing a conference at the time, an engagement which had been arranged before I came to Bangkok. Before I left I delegated authority to Khun Sonchai - again a proper exercise of authority and responsibility. I could never have imagined we would run the airports runway story a second time, when we essentially had no new information. Nor could I have been expected to.
My responsibility then was to deal with a unique case.
It is a unique case and it has meant that we are going through sad and dramatic times at the Bangkok Post - for the colleagues who have just left us, for the editorial staff, for the good name of the newspaper, for the company and for all the people in other departments who work for the company.
They are also unprecedented times, for everything about the case surrounding the publication of the story on August 9 - “US experts insist runways cracked” - is unique.
The story was unique, not least because we managed to run the same incorrect story twice. A soft version, based on the same information, was published on Saturday, August 6. A tougher version, the one that caused the trouble, was published on Tuesday, August 9. In between the publication of the two stories we managed to miss official denials of our runway cracks story, and we missed TV footage showing that the cracks we said were so bad the runways might have to be rebuilt did not exist.
The retraction which followed was unique - in the swiftness with which it appeared and its placement, on the front page, within a story detailing the official denials.
The response by government authorities was unique - a criminal libel lawsuit with absurdly excessive demands. The damage all this did to the standing of the newspaper - and our relationship of trust with our readers - was therefore unique.
The investigation process, in which all involved were able to give their version of events, was unique.
The action which followed - the resignation of one senior colleague and the dismissal of another - was unique, because the investigation exposed a horrifying chain of errors of judgment, compounded by a series of failures to do our job properly.
The motivation for the action was unique, for there was no political pressure and no pressure from the owners. Khun Suthikiati left it up to me. As far as I know (and I have checked) there was no contact between Khun Suthikiati and anyone in the Government on the story. I was motivated by a desire to preserve the credibility of the Bangkok Post as “the newspaper you can trust”; by a desire to uphold high professional standards; and by a desire to see meaningful responsibility and accountability for such a serious series of errors, omissions and misjudgments.
I am going on at some length about the unique nature of all facets of this case because I want to talk about what it means for the future.
Does it mean that the Bangkok Post is going to give up doing investigative journalism? Absolutely not. The fundamental trouble with the airport runways story was a failure to investigate. Investigative journalism is one of the hallmarks of a great newspaper. It’s my impression that we should have more original, investigative journalism - not less. When I look at the paper, I think we spend too much time, energy and space on recording and recounting the statements of various officials and not enough on finding what is really going on - and telling our readers. In short, I’d like to see more good stories in the newspaper.
Does it mean that those who write investigate stories which spark a reaction from the government are going to get into trouble? Absolutely not. If stories are well researched, accurate and honest, fair and balanced, then I will always defend the stories and the reporters. No one need be afraid of lacking support if they do their job properly.
Does it mean that anyone who makes a mistake in the future is going to be dismissed? Absolutely not. I do expect those who make errors to accept responsibility and be accountable. But how these principles are applied depends on the severity of the error and the effort taken to avoid the error. Mistakes can be handled with anything from a simple admonition not to do it again, upwards. I cannot imagine the unique sequence of events we have just experienced ever happening again.
How do we try to ensure that serious mistakes don’t happen again? I think we all need to work on that. I would like to start discussions with the senior editors - with input from all staff who want to contribute - on the processes, procedures and structures at the Bangkok Post to ensure that our quality control is top class -so that, as far as is humanly and organizationally possible, we can always claim the title of “the newspaper you can trust.”
Another matter which is on my mind - and I imagine it is on yours - is the relationship at the Bangkok Post between editorial and management. I think it is clear that there has been a degree of mistrust for a long time - on both sides. If we are to build up trust, then both sides have to work at it. What does editorial have to do? Basically, do our job properly - fair, accurate, balanced journalism, in stories and headlines. Treat sensitive stories carefully. Be aware of the commercial environment in which a modern newspaper operates and be consistent in our approach to commercial requests. Treat the Central group exactly the same as we treat any other big company - no more, and certainly no less.
I’m sure you have no shortage of ideas of what management should do. But essentially it has to respect editorial independence and let editorial do its job as professionals. I am now in management but my background is editorial. I started in newspapers straight out of university - on November 16, 1969 to be exact - and except for a few months trying out public relations I have worked in newspapers and magazines, as a reporter and editor, ever since. I hope I can act as a bridge between management and editorial at the Bangkok Post.
Finally, does the Bangkok Post deserve a full-time editor? Absolutely yes. This present arrangement is meant to be an interim one and it will be. It has been in place for less than a month and for three weeks of that time we have had a serious distraction. But this week we will begin the search for a new editor in earnest and while that is going on, I will spend more time working with you.
The Bangkok Post is one of the most respected mastheads in this part of the world and is recognized around the world. I would like to think that when it comes to trying to enhance that respect - and to build up the paper’s reputation as one which breaks news with neither fear nor favour - that we are all on the same side. Let’s return to where we started. You have deliberately and publicly escalated the argument. You have decided we are not on the same side.
I will discuss the future of the paper with you when I get some sign that you want us to be on the same side. Thank you.
The “report in the opposition newspaper” is here.
« Encore! | Main | Thirayuthism 2 »
- 1
- Post staffer 1.09.05
From David Armstrong: I think we spend too much time, energy and space on recording and recounting the statements of various officials and not enough on finding what is really going on - and telling our readers. In short, I’d like to see more good stories in the newspaper.
In my opinion, the best part of his address. Post reporters are not trained to think about their story assignments. Almost everything is reactive: if someone says it at a seminar, then it must be news (seminars, by definition, are always worth going to…even when they are not). If someone issues a press statement, even better, let’s pile in.
But if something says something a little out of the ordinary, or does something we don’t understand…that might require a little critical thought. Hey, what do we do with that? Too hard.
Post staff spend hours a day churning out stuff which is already in the public domain, by virtue of it having being uttered at a seminar, or appearing in a press release. By the time it is published in the newspaper it is already hours old.
If this paper is to survive the internet age, it must start thinking smart and coming up with reader-oriented stuff no one else has done.
The recent series on development and the environment on Ko Chang was a good example of real journalism at work…but such efforts are few and far between.
- 2
- Tom Vamvanij 1.09.05
Post staffer:
If this paper is to survive the internet age, it must start thinking smart and coming up with reader-oriented stuff no one else has done.
Unfortunately, that’s not true. There is no serious on-line competition, and even if there were, the race would likely be toward the bottom, as it is with print competition. More sensational and partisan headlines, more incendiary and unverified bombasts, more stenography (tweaked as desired) of people who — according to the gods of Thai journalism — must be stenographed. You know the drill.
The readers seem not be calling for changes, but more of the same. The last time I heard, the Bangkok Post was doing very well financially, all the better now, I suppose, with the weekly advertising bonanza called “The Magazine”.
Very few Thais, English-speaking ones included, have been exposed to this kind of reporting:
“This is mass chaos,” said Sgt. Jason Defess, 27, a National Guard military policeman who had been stationed on a ramp outside the Superdome since Monday. “To tell you the truth, I’d rather be in Iraq,” where he was deployed for 14 months, until January. “You got your constant danger, but I had something to protect myself. [And] three meals a day. Communications. A plan. Here, they had no plan.”
Glenn Martes, 13, had no plan, either, but he has a quick eye. As his family waded toward the Superdome from their destroyed home two days ago, he grabbed a football floating by, “something to calm your nerves,” he said.
Inside on Wednesday, he was going long to try to catch a pass from Perrance Williams, 17, whose chest muscles gleamed under the generator lights on the field.
Williams looked good down there, as if a scout might be watching from the stands. “I play in the projects,” he said. He never thought he’d be playing in the Superdome, but there he was.
I doubt Thai journalists could pull off that sort of thing even if they tried. And why try?
- 3
- post staffer 1.09.05
I am standing by that quote, Tom. Newspapers can do many things to make themselves smarter on the Net. The Manager newspaper’s website is a good example: 24-hour news updates, better pictures than appear in the newspaper itself; links to radio and television stations run by the Manager group, webboards, blogs, photo essays, a place for reader comment on stories…the list goes on.
Newspaper and website complement each other. The newspaper runs a ‘post of the day’ feature taken from the website. The radio station develops stories run on the web (where stories often appear long before they make it into print), while all branches of this media empire relentlessly plug the views of founder สนธิ ลิ้มทองกุล, who appears to fancy himself as Thailand’s next media mogul.
The Bangkok Post has belatedly decided to develop its website and get into radio and television (in English and Thai), but has a long way to catch up.
As for Tom’s assertion that print media competition inclines towards the bottom of the trough, I have to disagree. Smart newspapers know they have to be good to survive. The enlightened ones do not wait for press statements to come in but initiate their own projects to serve readers: an in-depth look at pollution in the community, for example, local traffic problems, or why such-and-such department consistently fails taxpayers.
I have been involved in a few such projects in my time. They work (and often win awards), readers like them, and best of all we get to keep the politicians and other talking heads out.
- 4
- post staffer 1.09.05
Oops! Forget to mention. The Manager newspaper’s website is also a superb advertising vehicle. How did I forget that bit?
I am told it is Thailand’s top Thai-language news site. Little wonder, given the above.
What I would like to know is how many readers buy the print version after reading the paper on the Net. This paper does not worry about its web version cannibalising print, and nor should it.
While we are at it, Tom, why don’t you run Rupert Murdoch’s recent comments on the future of newspapers in the internet age?
- 5
- post staffer 6.09.05
At first glance, this doesn’t look so good…
ผลศึกษาพบ ชาวเน็ต 1 ใน 5 คนเลิกอ่านหนังสือพิมพ์
But read deeper, and it gets better:
บริษัทนีลเซ่นเน็ตเรตติ้งส์ (Nielsen/NetRatings) รายงานว่า ปัจจุบัน 21% ของผู้ใช้อินเทอร์เน็ต ติดตามข่าวสารความเคลื่อนไหวของเหตุการณ์ต่างๆทั่วโลกจากเว็บไซต์ ขณะที่ 72% ยังคงอ่านจากหนังสือพิมพ์ และอีก 7% อ่านทั้งออนไลน์และหนังสือพิมพ์
Internet users haven’t deserted newspapers…most still see a need for them, despite all the stuff you can get on the Net these days. But what kind of internet users are they? Geeks, or casual browsers?
สำหรับเว็บไซต์ที่เรียกว่าเป็นศูนย์รวมหัวข้อข่าวจากทั่วโลก เช่น Yahoo News และ Google News นั้น ก็มีจำนวนผู้เข้าชมสูงขึ้นเช่นกัน โดย Yahoo News มีผู้เข้าชมเมื่อเดือนพฤษภาคมที่ 23.8 ล้านราย เทียบกับ 7.1 ล้านรายของ Google News เพิ่มขึ้น 3% และ 4% ตามลำดับ
Interesting to see that Google is still miles behind.