I have been a journalist for most of my life, and I can spot an “Agenda Based Journalism” from a kilometer away. And as I look at agenda based journalism, like Reuters and Bloomberg agenda to trash Yingluck, as a journalist, I say to myself, “What is new, even I am on an agenda, begin democracy, liberty and justice.” So I do not fault the likes of Reuters and Bloomberg much, for hating Yingluck and being hell bent against her. And yet, as I look at my own agenda and its application onto my journalism, something strikes me. There is a different between me and Reuters and Bloomberg, in that, I compromise little of my journalism ethic and professionalism, as I pursue my democracy, liberty and justice agenda.
- I mean, you may not notice it, but I have noticed things like Reuters and Bloomberg using 100s of mysterious and un-named sources, on its report like on Yingluck’s rice subsidy. Risking credibility?
- Then I have noticed 100s of quotes from the Thai rice exporters association from Reuters and Bloomberg. Risking conflict of interest?
- Then I have seen numbers and figures thrown around in its Yingluck’s rice reports, by Reuters and Bloomberg, that are just estimates and “So-Said-Opinion” by this person and that person. Risking fact check?
- Then amazingly, between Reuters and Bloomberg, 100s of reports on Yingluck’s agriculture subsidy, but not a single report on USA and Eurozone subsidy. Risking hypocrisy?
- Then as amazing as it sounds, 10s of reports, from Reuters and Bloomberg on the poor quality of Thai rice stock, mentioning zero as source of that information, but just an “Up-In-The-Air” type of statement. Risking neutrality?
- Then as equally, amazing, so hot on Thai rice story, but when there is a big sales contract of Thai rice to foreign countries, most of the time, it is “Zero Minimalist Report.” Risking censorship?
- Then I have seen Reuters and Bloomberg, 100s of times, say Yingluck is buying votes with her agricultural subsidy, not mentioning the West’s various Farm Bill as vote buying. Risking common sense?
What I just mentioned about are some basic facts about how Reuters and Bloomberg had reported on the Yingluck’s rice subsidy scheme, and I understand, perhaps both see the policy that must be killed, and are doing everything in their power to kill it.
But still, that basic reporting by Reuters and Bloomberg, however meant they broke so many “Professional and Ethical Journalism Standard” it boggles the mind, if their reports on Yingluck’s rice subsidy scheme, is “Real News” or “Fake News.”
Then anyone, who is neutral will point out, a simple fact. That simple fact is, in Reuters and Bloomberg attack on Yingluck’s rice subsidy, by spreading “Fake News” of bad Thai rice quality, “Fake News” about Thailand’s rice stock and others, the “Bottom-Line” is no longer to stop Yingluck’s rice subsidy, but the bottom-line is that, both Reuters and Bloomberg, are destroying Thailand’s rice market. In other words, Reuters and Bloomberg, in trying to prove that Yingluck’s rice scheme is a failure, are themselves, being the instigator, of making it failed. In quantum physics, it is simply, the observer, impacting the observed and changing the outcome against normal nature.
The question to students of journalism to ask is the age old question about does the end justify the means. Reuters and Bloomberg, in their Thai rice reports methods, are arguing that “Yes” the end, meaning killing Yingluck’s rice subsidy, justify all means to accomplish the task. Yet perhaps, some journalist will argue with Reuters and Bloomberg, that “Burning Down the House” meaning Thailand’s rice industry and all the things that makes journalism good, does no justify killing the mouse, meaning the Thai rice subsidy scheme, and committing journalism standard suicide.