Late last year, the ABC’s managing director, Mark Scott, launched a campaign for the broadcaster to engage in what he described as “soft diplomacy” — a plan, he said, to use “the media to put our nation’s culture, values and policies on show”.
This week — in a superb piece of journalism by reporter Eric Campbell that could be called anything but soft diplomacy — the ABC’s Foreign Correspondent aired what it described as “one of the most difficult reports we’ve ever set out to make … the great untold story of Thailand”. As presenter Mark Corcoran explained in his introduction to Tuesday’s program …
“How do you tell the story of Thailand’s royal family when any criticism of the royals can bring a a hefty jail sentence in that country … But with Thailand at the crossroads, we’ve resolved that it’s time for a detailed examination of the laws that gag analysis of the laws, and their pivotal role in Thai politics.”
The report means that Campbell, Foreign Correspondent and possibly the ABC’s Bangkok bureau are now persona non grata in Thailand. And today, reports The Australian (curiously not online), Thailand’s ambassador-designate in Canberra has complained angrily to Scott “that an organisation of the ABC’s stature has lowered its own standard by airing the said documentary, which is presented in a manner no different from tabloid journalism.”
The cold hard truth about foreign coverage is that it cannot operate in a soft diplomacy zone. Especially in a region where governments in countries such as China, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore and Thailand are far from democratic and deserve constant editorial scrutiny.
If the ABC wants to retain the reputation it has earned through programs such as this week’s Foreign Correspondent, it should forget about being a diplomacy organisation and stick to being what it already is — an excellent journalism organisation.
What gets me is that these foreign countries say we should respect their culture & values hence the reporting is wrong.
What about they respect our values of an open society and a free press?
It’s an Australian organisation reporting on a an Australian network to an Australian audience from an australian perspective.
If the report is factual , accurate & balanced then there is no basis for a complaint
I agree: the ABC is for Australians to watch and listen to, and is accountable to *us*, not to overseas countries who feel a bit precious when we talk about what they would sooner we not.
The key words here are…. “A superb piece of journalism”.
And wasn’t it just that? I haven’t seen anything quite that good for ages.
Kudos to the ABC for going the extra mile.
Even if it means that poor old Eric won’t be welcome in “the kingdom of smiles” for the foreseeable future.
At least someone was brave enough to mention the threadbare nature of the Chakri dynasty’s robes.
It’s great to now have the opportunity to comment on editorials.
I think the end of the quote from Corcoran should prolly read –
‘ . . . it’s time for a detailed examination of the laws that gag analysis of the *royals*, and their pivotal role in Thai politics.’
Of course the ABC should report the news as it sees it. However, it is simply ignorant not to know when one might offend and impolite to offend. There is no justification for ignorance but impoliteness is sometimes justified.
We respect the wishes of the people inhabiting the island south of India to call their island Sri Lanka rather than the colonial Ceylon, but neither the ABC nor the CIA respect the wishes of the junta ruling the big country south of China to call their country Myanmar rather than the colonial Burma. So it is a question of judgement which can (appear to) be imposing one’s values on another people.
Because not everyone shares our support for a free press. Not even all in our own Government.