This week and next, we are working to sharpen our critiquing skills. Remember that to critique is to analyse and interrogate the arguments, either on their credibility or on their logic, in order to make an assessment of the source.
In class, we looked at an article by Justin Heifetz (posted at the Google site) who is a former reporter for the
Bangkok Post. He is highly critical of Thailand's largest English language news source, and he charges them with kowtowing to influential figures, and not doing their job as a media organization. He also charges them with treating their foreign reporter staff unequally to the Thai staff writers.
Next class, we will look at the
Bangkok Post's side of the story. They published a rebuttal to Heifetz' article and it is also posted at the Google Site (Bangkok Post_rebuts_CJR.pdf). This is posted in the
Critique Practice folder on the left column. Read both sources, and put your analytical skills to work.
In your view, which is the more credible source. With everything we now know about
voice,
argumentation,
logic, and
fallacies, which side do you think you're on? Explain why.
Remember to include your ID# and Section # in your post. Aj. M
#6180634 #Section 7
ReplyDeleteBoth sides have their strong defensive points, which is hard for me to decide who is at fault, and I really don't know who is telling the truth. However, I think that Heifetz is doing the honest thing by telling his own experience and criticize Bangkok Post being deadly cover the truth of news. Who really shot the pig, I don't mind that much as if a gun releases a bullet in front of me, I will probably be like him too. Bangkok Post, on the other hand, giving all the fact and uncover the opposite truth that is said by Heifetz. Bangkok Post asserted that Heifetz experiences something called "Trauma" causing by his work in Thailand and made criticize them. Bangkok Post is just making assumption of his every action, and also trying so hard to win the argument to protect the fame of the news company. Maybe they are just doing their jobs as well, being forced. I still feel Heifetz is being straight and honest as I think that news from CJR or west world is way more unbiased and credible as they have freedom of speech and information, whereas news from Bangkok Post, being filtered and censored by the government before publishing it, which means the news is controlled by the government, probably only the good news.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete#6180693 #section7
ReplyDeleteI cannot consider information between Heifetz's article and Bangkok Post. They all have strong evidence to support their news. In Heifetz's article, he told his experperience to be an reporter in Thailand. He expressed how Thai media is restricted and is always shown the positive side of government. Bangkok Post have his statement and tell his working throughout 1 year in company. However, to be honest, I believe in Heifetz's article about Thai media becuase not only his expereince but also my experience form me to think the failure of Thai media. It sounds like I am biased, but I saw many governmental contents censored or blocked if they show negative news about government. It's kind like they cannot accept the truth.
#618006 #section7
ReplyDeleteFrom point to point, the Bangkok post is more credible for me since that the information they gave seems like a fact with data and human evidence. First, to think that Heifetz making up the story is possible, since the style of writing, for me, is like a first-person fiction based on his experience. The point where the Bangkok Post give the fact that he is not the only foreigner in the post makes the strong argument because the information could be easy to access. The point where the post mentioned that Heifetz and Wassana never met counters the whole argument about Wassana and got back to him since the information is based on the part that mentions that Wassana and him are not strangers. Another strong point is shooting the pork. It is reasonable that the journalists don’t have to do the experiment by themselves. It is the strong counter for me with the evidence from the cameraman and the real shooter. However, these reasons are making sense if the post is telling the truth, and there is no response from Heifetz yet. At this point, I believe what the Bangkok post counter Heifetz.
6180059 #section7
ReplyDeleteHeifetz and Bangkok Post both have strong evidence to defend themselves. According to Heifetz’s point, there is a systemic failure in the Thai media. The newspaper would not protect or defend its staff, many journalists have been sued for defamation when publishing negatives about government. Moreover, Thai law prohibits local media outlets from hiring non-national reporters and Bangkok Post claim that is primarily due to language barriers. However, the Heifetz’s story claims “The paper’s then-deputy editor forced me to apologize to the rear admiral by phone” and “the admiral said that I could never understand what I had done wrong because I was a foreigner.” In my opinion, I think Heifetz is more credible and honest by telling the truth. Unlike the news from Bangkok Post, that screen and censored by the government before publishing.
#6180603 #section 7
ReplyDeleteAccording to both articles that I read, both show various strong evidences. Heifetz's provided personal experience of working as a journalist in Thailand. He expressed how laws prohibited international journalists to work in this country. This makes me feel that he is telling the truth from the situation he had encountered. By contrast, Bangkok Post censored some information which had done by the government. There is an possibility that Bangkok Post will choose only positive side which result in bias news. Therefore, I agree that Heifetz's article seems to be more credible.
#6180990 #Section7
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both news, both sides have the strong points. First of all, Heifetz tells the experiences about Thai media, which is extremely worse. On the other hand, Bangkok post gives the opposite information from Heifetz, which seems that this Bangkok post might rewrite the news to be a positive before they published the news. Therefore, to be honest, I think that Heifetz is more incredible because he tells his experiences in the news, which I also face the same experiences about hiding the negative like him. For example, Thai government tries to hide their bad news from the citizens and other countries, which means that some news that we see might be fake. From this situation, I am able to analyze the news from researching a lot of news, my experiences, and knowledge.
6180922 Sec 7
ReplyDeleteThe conflict between Heifetz and Bangkok Post seems to be a very awkwardly debate between the two. Heifetz's argument in the CJR has been considered to be very descriptive about the events that he has experienced with Bangkok Post. Heifetz claims that Wassana and Heifetz knows each other well and knows the situation over the temple Praeh Vihear. Bangkok Post claims that both of them never met nor communicate and the story wasn’t true. Bangkok Post seems to have a very few description replying to the claims that Heifetz have talked about. The different feedback by Bangkok Posts seems to be very vague and minimal showing not as much story as expected. It is a big debate over who's more honest over this topic. For me, I feel like Heifetz could actually by trustworthy over Bangkok Posts generalised oppositions over Heifetz's claim and story on Bangkok Post.
#6180557 #Section7
ReplyDeleteAlthough both sides have presented strong arguments, I must say that the Bangkok Post wins my vote. Let’s start of with tone, Heifetz’s tone comes off like an shell-shocked soldier’s account from the frontlines, a mix of confusion and rage can repel readers and put them off as the reader decides whether to believe Heifetz or assume he’s shouldn't be publishing articles due to his mental instability. Next, Heifetz’s argumentation structure seems to be unstable at times, his story is just a collection of smaller, sometimes unrelated stories shoehorned into every opportunity he can get. He went from X-ray film vests to shooting pigs to being on the run from the Thai government. His disorderly manner would undermine the strength in his arguments as they would seem as only mildly developed. Thirdly, falsification is what the Post’s rebuttal excelled at. Although, we did not get to see Heifetz response to the rebuttal, the Post managed to falsify almost every one of Heifetz claims, which included the law banning non-Thai reporters hiring, the fact that Heifetz can not speak Thai, and the navy’s lawsuit against either Heifetz or the Post. Finally, logic, there is a very good example of the Post picking apart Heifetz’s logic, which is the Wassana issue. Heifetz claimed that he knew Wassana as they did a story on the same event. However, the Post claims that Wassana did not even know who Heifetz was. Logically, this makes sense because you can write an article on the exact same topic as someone without even meeting them at all. Heifetz had also failed to include any other evidence as well that they actually knew each other or even met at all. The Post even brought that even Wassana claimed that she had never communicated with Heifetz. Overall, the level-headed and emotionless approach of the Bangkok Post along with some fact-checking made it the more believable and digestible argument in this issue.
#6180642 #Section7
ReplyDeleteI think both sources are strong site, but I still more likely to prefer Bangkok Post. The truth from the experience that the reporter faced is the fact that all of people in Thailand have faced. The corruption can easily happened in Thailand. The authorities have a lot of power to do, so they hide the truth from their citizen. They legislate a lot of laws to make they right. Therefore, I believe that bangkok post is more believable.
ReplyDelete#6180614 sec7
I think this is what happen in all the industries, because a person view the problem only where he see it as a employee. But there is many time that there is a reason behind what the company are doing. When the company look at the problem they have to consider many aspects. The rebuts from Bangkok Post is very efficient on how they deconstruct the Heifetz report into pieces to make a explanation. Like the Wassna and Heifetz relationship, Heifetz said that they know each other, but Bangkok Post said that the never met Heifetz use Wassna old report. Afterall, most of the rebuts that Bangkok Post made are not that strong to make me as a reader believe them. In the end I still believe what Heifetz said even though after I rade both article there is some aspect that I think Heifetz is oversaturated.
#6180988 #section7
ReplyDeleteFrom my own perspective, those two articles both seem legit; however, Heifet’s article is less rational. Although he has several evidences and experiences to support his article, it still has some bias and negative emotional expression. This make his article become untrustworthy. Nevertheless, we cannot deny that Bangkok Post’s claim is for preventing itself from getting in trouble. It might provide only their positive side, which is also considered as bias. Therefore, I have neutral thought on this argument. It is better for everyone to decide by their oneself that which one is credible.
#6180070 # Section 7
ReplyDeleteEven though both Heifetz and Bangkok Post come up with strong arguments, Heifetz’s argument seems to be more trustworthy. Bangkok Post is a well repotted news company in Thailand which means it supposes to share reliable information. However, there is a chance that it publishes information that protects its reputation, as well as the government’s. Therefore, an information from one’s true experience like Heifetz’s one is more credible, due to the fact that Heifetz doesn’t gain or receive any benefits from writing the article.
#6180674 #section7
ReplyDeleteFrom my point, i think both sides have strong source, but i literally believe the source from bangkok post. Due to the fact that the article had wrote from writer's experience and this website is creditable source. However, it gives me another opinion that what was writer had wrote, it has a little bit bias as well. Additionally, i cannot decide which side provides the certain truth because there are two sides of every coin.
The journal blog is now closed. Thank you for your participation. Aj. M
ReplyDelete6180913
ReplyDeleteFrom my point of view, both sides seems very strong. Even though Bangkok post is a very reliable source but it wrote by the writer’s experience. Even though he have an evidence but he still bias on his point of view. However, it depends on the viewers to trust his opinion.