Another angle on Myanmar

[nancylebov]

I've been listening to NPR and the BBC, and their angle on the demonstrations has just about entirely been "People might get hurt!" followed by "People are getting hurt!". There's been nothing of "People are bravely taking risks to change a bad government" and little discussion of whether the demonstrations might lead to a better government.

What angle have your news sources been taking?

Comments

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>There's been nothing of "People are bravely taking risks to change a bad government" and little discussion of whether the demonstrations might lead to a better government.<<

Um...that would be editorializing in a news report, which is strictly verboten under most reputable news organizations' journalistic standards and practices. (Slanting the choice and presentation of facts is a whole 'nother thing...and a whole 'nother debate.) NPR and the Beeb are, at least in theory, duty-bound to restrict themselves to telling you what happened, when and where, without offering any individual's or the organization's "take" on what happened. (I was a student journalist in high school and college and took journalism courses, so I do know at least a small bit about this stuff.) "Why" something happened is for long-form newspaper and magazine or TV newsmag pieces, and can only be offered very sparingly in regular news updates. And discussion of where it may lead is for panel talk shows, of which there are too many.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

You can get the point across strictly via slant, even if you keep journalistic rules and never actually say it. I took the question to be "what do you perceive the slant to imply, in the sources you're reading?" not "what are they actually saying?"

[mneme]

Eh -- all of that can be handled by what facts are chosen as worth reporting. Frex, they can report on -why- the demonstrators say they are demonstrating, and why/if they think they have a better chance than previous demonstrations (like ones that resulted in some 3k people getting killed).

Speculating on causes/results is verbotten (in theory), but reporting on what people -say- is fine.

That said, I'm not particularly optimistic.

[avram]

How is it editorializing to report on the history, context, and motivations of events?

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what Nancy means. The text articles I'm seeing on the web do mention the possibility of political change. Here --

NPR: "9 Killed in 2nd Day of Myanmar Crackdown" (from Associated Press)

The protests are the stiffest challenge to the generals in two decades, a crisis that began Aug. 19 with protests over a fuel price hike, then expanded dramatically when monks started leading the marches.

BBC: "Burma junta faces monks' challenge"

Monks have been protesting in Burma, adding to the rare public defiance seen in recent weeks. The BBC's Andrew Harding has just returned from the country and explains why the monks' involvement will make the military government nervous.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

It was an impression I got from hearing the radio stories. I don't know how much was the words and how much was the tone of voice.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Mostly "people are bravely taking risks to speak out against a bad government." I haven't seen any source which thinks they have a hope in hell of changing it, but there has definitely been a slant of admiration for the protesters for trying anyway.

[19-crows.livejournal.com]

The SF Chronicle has been mostly "here's what happened, and people are getting hurt" with some background of why they're taking risks. I think that's appropriate. I've been looking at this Buddhist site (http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?index) for more background from a Buddhist perspective, but I expect them to editorialize more.

[stripeyseven.livejournal.com]

I didn't get such a negative impression of NPR's coverage. But I have heard them do this, which always annoys me: saying a protest "turned violent" when it wasn't the protest that was violent, but the authorities' response to it.