I don't know what you mean by "American" style, since I see a lot of British influence in both papers, especially The Nation.
I don't think you can read only one or the other, as they both have strengths and weaknesses. You really need to look at both to get a good sense of what's going on.
Both can be unreliable at times when it comes to the facts.
The Nation is far more independent than the Post at this time. The Post is too close to the military, has censored its own reporters, editors and columnists when they written things critical of the government and replaced its editor for the same reason. Ever since the Central Group bought it, it has become timid in its reporting on many subjects.
The Nation, while serving the role of the independent, muckraking press with vigor (and that is definitely needed in Thailand right now), can also be relentlessly anti-Thaksin or status quo. You have to take what's in the paper with just a bit of a grain of salt. But with so few critical voices left, thanks to government intimidation, thank g-d it's here.
A story that appeared in the business sections of both papers recently demonstrates the differences. A relatively small development company announced it will pursue some of the contracts to build the road and rail systems that will be part of the government's upcoming $1.5 billion splurge on massive new infrastructure.
The largest project this company has ever built was a 28-story condo in Bangkok. Nonetheless, it will be competing with construction giants such as K-Tech, Siemens, etc. who all have a wealth of experience with big infrasutructure projects.
Why would this little firm have a good chance of getting some of these contracts?
Because, as The Nation reported right up top in the story, the company recently appointed the Prime Minister's cousin to it's board of directors.
That fact did not appear in the Bangkok Post story.
Question
Loburt
I don't know what you mean by "American" style, since I see a lot of British influence in both papers, especially The Nation.
I don't think you can read only one or the other, as they both have strengths and weaknesses. You really need to look at both to get a good sense of what's going on.
Both can be unreliable at times when it comes to the facts.
The Nation is far more independent than the Post at this time. The Post is too close to the military, has censored its own reporters, editors and columnists when they written things critical of the government and replaced its editor for the same reason. Ever since the Central Group bought it, it has become timid in its reporting on many subjects.
The Nation, while serving the role of the independent, muckraking press with vigor (and that is definitely needed in Thailand right now), can also be relentlessly anti-Thaksin or status quo. You have to take what's in the paper with just a bit of a grain of salt. But with so few critical voices left, thanks to government intimidation, thank g-d it's here.
A story that appeared in the business sections of both papers recently demonstrates the differences. A relatively small development company announced it will pursue some of the contracts to build the road and rail systems that will be part of the government's upcoming $1.5 billion splurge on massive new infrastructure.
The largest project this company has ever built was a 28-story condo in Bangkok. Nonetheless, it will be competing with construction giants such as K-Tech, Siemens, etc. who all have a wealth of experience with big infrasutructure projects.
Why would this little firm have a good chance of getting some of these contracts?
Because, as The Nation reported right up top in the story, the company recently appointed the Prime Minister's cousin to it's board of directors.
That fact did not appear in the Bangkok Post story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
0 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.