The New York Times and Myanmar

The quality of in-depth reporting that could be expected of Mark McDonald's Thursday New York Times article, "U.S. Diplomat Makes a Trip to Myanmar," was evident by the time the reader skimmed past the dateline. It read Hong Kong, referring to a territory more than 1,100 miles away from the "remote capital of Naypyidaw," where the director of the Office for Mainland Southeast Asia at the State Department, Stephen Blake, met with Myanmar political figures.

Given the geographic distance between McDonald and his story, it is less than surprising that his article does not go far beyond formal quotes and secondary sources. It relies primarily on bland quotes from a State Department spokesman, the reporting of New Light of Myanmar, "the principal state-run newspaper," and a basic reiteration of modern history in the region.

While no bias of content presents itself, the article seems somewhat lazy. McDonald makes little effort to parse the pabulum of either side. The state newspaper's description of the meetings as "cordial discussions on issues of mutual interest and promotion of bilateral relations" and the Hilary Clinton quote that "the path we have taken in imposing sanctions hasn't influenced the Burmese junta. ... Reaching out and trying to engage them hasn't worked either" both serve to obscure rather than explain. McDonald's synthesis of the situation that the "United States has a range of political and economic sanctions in place against Myanmar" is similarly vague.

The article is technically fair and it lets both sides have their swings, but the real loser is the reader. The reader could benefit from more specific details of the alleged human rights abuses as well as more specific context and details about the Naypyidaw meetings.

This may be nearly impossible to accomplish from 1,100 miles away, but McDonald could, at the minimum, have provided somewhat more relevant context. While he recapped the political situation fairly well, the article would be better if it more thoroughly sketched the diplomatic history between the United States and Myanmar. The story is lacking any reference to the Bush Administration's approach to Myanmar. As the State Department spokesman says that the visit does not indicate "a change in policy or approach to Burma," it would be helpful to describe the United States' current approach to Burma and its origin. If McDonald made some of these changes, the article would be much improved, more thorough, and more worthy of being printed in The New York Times.

Source
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/world/asia/27burma.html