Following objections raised by the Bangkok Post to an article in the Columbia Journalism Review, the editor of the CJR has since added the following note to its original article:
EDITOR'S NOTE: The Bangkok Post has issued a sharp critique of this story, disputing many of its assertions. As a result, CJR conducted a broad review of Justin Heifetz's piece, a process that has involved conversations with more than a dozen journalists and legal experts in Thailand and elsewhere, as well as with Heifetz. We have determined that there are several errors of fact that require correction. In the opening anecdote, about testing bulletproof vests on a pig carcass, Heifetz wrote: "I didn't want to shoot a slaughtered animal, but I had no choice." Heifetz now says that shooting the pig was a decision he made, and that his editor did not force him. Heifetz wrote that the Bangkok Post is the "largest circulating English-language daily in Southeast Asia." This is incorrect. Heifetz stated that "Thai law prohibits local media outlets from hiring non-national reporters." There is no law categorically prohibiting foreigners from being hired as reporters (as opposed to editors), though in practice it's rarely done. Additionally, Heifetz's statement that "all defamation charges in Thailand are criminal" is incorrect. Thai law contains penalties for civil as well as criminal defamation, and any charge of defamation can be brought under either civil or criminal law, at the plaintiff's option. In some cases, the facts are harder to judge. Heifetz wrote that he "clashed" with another Bangkok Post reporter, Wassana Nanuam. Heifetz now says that he and Wassana "never spoke nor saw each other." His use of the word "clashed," while misleading, reflects his view that there was tension between the two resulting from an incident in the newsroom.
This story was written in the first person, and represents Heifetz's personal opinion and experience while he was an employee of the Bangkok Post. The events he describes are open to multiple interpretations, and it is not surprising that they have provoked strenuous disagreement. Before publication, Heifetz contacted the managing editor of the Bangkok Post, Chiratas Nivatpumin, seeking his response to many of the points that the Post has since disputed. Chiratas chose not to answer the specific claims in Heifetz' piece, instead responding in an email that "the Post has a different recollection and perspective of the events in question," which CJR included in the piece. Heifetz also suggested that Chiratas forward his request for comment to reporter Wassana Nanuam, for whom Heifetz said he lacked contact information. It is unclear whether that was ever done. In an attempt to emphasize that this piece represents Heifetz's opinion, we have also changed the headline.
While CJR's review did surface factual errors, none of them challenged the general thrust of Heifetz's narrative or perspective on his time at the Bangkok Post.
Bangkok Post editor Pichai Chuensuksawadi has issued the following statement:
The Columbia Journalism Review has acknowledged that its original article by Justin Heifetz about his brief employment at the Bangkok Post was flawed and that the author had essentially fabricated a number of assertions.
This came after the Bangkok Post took issue with a number of points in the original article, both publicly and privately with the CJR, under the position that the piece was inaccurate, unbalanced and defamatory. CJR, in an editor's note now attached to the original article, says that following a review, a number of errors of fact had been present, has stipulated that the piece represents a personal opinion and has changed its original headline ("Pork, bullets, and the dismal state of journalism in Thailand").
The Bangkok Post is concerned about the poor judgement exercised in the CJR in publishing the original piece. It is obvious that the CJR failed to follow the basic tenets of journalism in publishing a piece riddled with factual errors without adequate review or verification. We question the judgement of publishing an article which presumes to summarise the state of journalism in Thailand and the Bangkok Post based upon the opinions of a single writer without any additional sources, corroboration or perspective.
The CJR says that an opportunity was given to the Bangkok Post to address points raised in the original article. At no point did the CJR contact the Bangkok Post to verify any of the assertions in the piece prior to publication. The author did seek comment on six points in the piece, and submitted excerpts totaling less than 300 words out of the original piece of over 2,300 words. Out of these points, four were factual errors and the remainder the personal opinions of the author, which the newspaper said was contrary to the views of the Bangkok Post.
The newspaper had stated clearly that it was willing to address all questions in depth once the author identified his affiliation and intent regarding about the article - no reply was given.
The Bangkok Post views that the CJR's admission that elements of the article were factually incorrect and indeed, outright fabrications validates the position that the piece is without credibility.