Docstoc

newspaper-content

Document Sample
newspaper-content Powered By Docstoc
					                             Analysis of
   Sub-regional Media Coverage of
   Human Trafficking and Migration:
                            2004 - 2007
Content Analysis of Newspaper Articles on the subjects of Trafficking, Migration and
Labour/Sexual Exploitation in the Greater Mekong Sub-region (sub-regional analysis)




                                        By:

                                    Jenny Björk



                                    Edited by:

                                    Allan Dow,

                       Communication Officer, ILO Bangkok

           For the ILO Mekong sub-regional project to Combat Trafficking

                              in Women and Children



                                    July, 2007



                                         1
                                     ABSTRACT


This research sets out to analyse the news content of two major Mekong sub-regional
newspapers as it relates to the coverage of human trafficking and migration. The main
objective of the study is to identify trends and track changes in the sub-regional media
coverage of the above topics. The newspapers chosen are The Bangkok Post and The
Nation. Though both are Thai newspapers (published in English), they are deemed to be
the two strongest journals of record available in the entire sub-region for systematic
analyses. The period of analysis covers mid-2004 to mid-2007 and, for time-bound
comparative purposes, is divided into six-month intervals, thus six periods over the three
years. A total of 648 articles have been analysed. Established content analysis
methodology is employed and the main results are compared with the responses following
an in-depth interview with the news editor of the Bangkok Post. The research finds that
both the amount of coverage and type of coverage had changed over the control period;
with a clear increase in frequency of articles on the issues of human trafficking and
migration during the period.




                                            2
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS


Exploitation:

This term as used in this report includes “… at a minimum, the exploitation of the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services,
slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs…” (in
accordance with the UN Protocol to Prevent Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
Especially Women and Children, 2000, Article 3)



Migrant worker:

Anybody who is going to be engaged, is currently engaged or has been engaged in a paid
activity in a state where he or she is not a national (according to Article 2(1) of the UN
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their
Families, 1999)



Migration:

The movement of people abroad for education, employment, political or personal reasons,
and this movement should be legal and well prepared to ensure a successful movement.
Migration can also depend on natural or human disasters, conflict, an oppressive regime
and other situations where the life, freedom or livelihood of people are endangered
(according to the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers
and Members of their Families, 1990)



Trafficking:

This content analysis and interview with an editor operates from a baseline knowledge of
human trafficking using the internationally-recognized definition (summarized) below



Article 3 of the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons,
Especially Women and Children (2000):


                                            3
“(a)      ‘Trafficking in Persons’ shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer,
         harbouring and receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other
         forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of
         a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
         achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the
         purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of
         the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or
         services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;

(b)      The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set
         forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means
         set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;

(c)      The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the
         purpose of exploitation shall be considered ’trafficking in persons’ even if this does
         not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article;

(d)      ‘Child’ shall mean any person under eighteen years of age



Vernacular Press:

Local language press. In Thailand the largest Thai-language newspapers are Thai Rath
and Daily News.



Child:

A male or female under 18 years of age as defined by the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child.



Quality Newspaper:

This is common news industry parlance (British) referring to the informal designation given
journals of record, e.g. “The Times” when compared to other daily papers which places
greater emphasis on reporting the lives of celebrities, e.g. “The Sun” (Bangkok Post and
The Nation are considered the main sub-regional quality newspapers)




                                               4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Human trafficking and exploitation of migrants are issues that are increasingly appearing
in the news agenda of mass media organizations, not only in the Greater Mekong Sub-
region (GMS) but worldwide. While not new phenomena – historically, people have been
migrating and crossing borders in the sub-region – these news reports on both trafficking-
related exploitation of migrants and issues relating to migrant workers in general, have
been published more frequently – or so it appeared. This research set out to determine
whether there was indeed an increase in frequency of reporting these issues and if so
‘how’ the issues were being reported.

The problems associated with migration and human trafficking had for several years been
addressed and managed by various NGOs, Governments and international organisations
in the GMS. The ILO, through IPEC (the International Programme on the Elimination of
Child Labour) launched the Mekong Sub-Regional Project to Combat Trafficking in
Children and Women (IPEC-TICW) in 2003 (Phase II). This project has been working to
combat human trafficking and to promote safer migration since the start of phase one in
2000.

As part of a response to meet one of its main developmental objectives (regarding extent
of press coverage in the sub-region and any changes in that coverage over time), a
content analysis of two major newspapers has been conducted to quantify and track/trace
changes in the coverage about human trafficking and labour/sexual exploitation, in
particular that of migrants, across the GMS.1 The aim is to set a baseline on how the sub-
regional media is reporting on these issues and track the changes over a period of time in
a systematic way.

The methodology of the research is based on two different approaches, a content analysis
of the Bangkok Post and The Nation newspapers and interpretive inquiry through an in-
depth interview with the news editor at the Bangkok Post.

Coverage and Level of Press Interest

Around 1,200 articles were collected during the three years of primary research,2 648 of
these suited a predetermined criteria and were chosen for analysis. These articles were


1
 The Nation and the Bangkok Post were chosen as the sources for the articles due to their sub-regional
coverage and also since they are considered to be the main journals of record in the sub-region
2
    July 1st 2004 to June 30th 2007


                                                      5
carefully read coded, then analysed via SPSS. The analysis of the articles showed that,
since the third period of research, there had been an increase in frequency of articles or
increased interest regarding these issues. For the purposes of this research ‘interest’
simply means that a particular news item was deemed worthy of publishing.

The interview with the news editor at the Bangkok Post was conducted as a means to
further explore the results of the content analysis and to see if any of the changes
depended on conscious changes on behalf of the newspaper’s editorial staff.3 The
interview revealed that the editor was not very concerned about issues of human
trafficking and migration unless there was something new to report. The news editor
thought that the increase in coverage was a result of an increase in occurrences where
people had been exploited and trafficked.

Another conclusion to be drawn from the interview is that during the last couple of years,
the media have been increasingly drawn to political stories in Thailand. Human trafficking
and migration issues are often seen as matters regarding national security, she said, and
thus had become ‘politicised’. Indeed the content analysis found that many articles have
governmental sources or spokespeople as their main source of information and many also
focus primarily or at least secondarily on administrative issues as opposed to violations of
human rights (for example). Often this was a result of an increasing amount of interest the
sub-regional governments have shown in regards to these issues. Bilateral and sub-
regional MOUs have been signed on human trafficking and regulation of migration, these
efforts have been well documented in the news and can be assumed to play a large part in
the amount of articles published in some periods (e.g. during the second period of
research where there was a peak in articles – a time when many migrants were victims of
the Tsunami in the Andaman Sea). The news editor also confirmed during her interview
that there were more reports on migration when work permits for migrants from the sub-
region were being renewed and when the Thai government was deciding on the number of
these permits to issue.

Labour/Sexual Exploitation: The Data

The content analysis showed that there had been changes in regards to how the media
reported on labour exploitation and sexual exploitation. During the latter periods of
research, a change could be detected regarding reports about exploitation of migrants. In
Period 1, 35.5% whereas in Period 6, 57.9% of the articles were about labour migration
and only 7.9%4 were about sexual exploitation – a clear shift in attention to the fact that
trafficking and migration-related exploitation also occurs in the labour sector, and not just


3
  Even though two newspapers were analysed in the content analysis we could only conduct one interview,
with the news editor at the Bangkok Post (the reasons for that will be described further in the report), thus the
singular use of newspaper at this point.
4
  The above mentioned numbers are based on the amount of articles about exploitation of migrants and not
the total amount of articles in the analysis


                                                        6
in the commercial sex sector. These findings indicate that there has been an increase in
interest or at least perhaps a growing awareness among journalists about labour
exploitation during these three years.

This increase in interest of labour exploitation (in comparison to sexual exploitation) can
also be seen in the analysis of the articles about human trafficking. There has been a
slight decrease in the amount of reports published about human trafficking, in Period 1,
55.9% of all articles referred in some way to trafficking, and during Period 6, 41% of the
total amount of articles were about human trafficking. Regarding labour exploitation as the
purpose of trafficking, the percentage of articles has increased from 7.7% in Period 1 to
35.6% during Period 6. Conversely, the number of articles about trafficking for the purpose
of sexual exploitation has decreased, from 32.7% during Period 1 to 17.8% of the articles
during Period 6.5

These two results of the content analysis show that there is an increasing frequency of
articles about labour exploitation and related trafficking. This does not necessarily mean
that human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation has decreased. However, it
shows that there might have been a change in awareness and interest about human
trafficking and exploitation of migrants for a variety or purposes. We can see that there is a
more balanced presentation of these issues, and now labour exploitation is acknowledged
to a larger extent.

Tone of the Articles

Another finding of the research is that the authorities in the country of exploitation,
whichever country that may be, are generally less sympathetic towards stateless people or
ethnic minorities than other groups of people/nationalities. However despite the views of
officials, the content analysis showed that, in most of the articles, the “tone” of the article6
was actually sympathetic towards stateless people/ethnic minorities.

News reports about people of Thai nationality were found to have the most sympathetic
tone and this group suffered least from negative views and treatments by the authorities.
This issue was confirmed by the news editor who said as a Thai newspaper, they are
more likely to be sympathetic towards Thais. She also claimed that the majority of articles
being published are about Thailand or Thai people for the same reason. This was
confirmed in the content analysis which showed that 431 out of the 648 articles in total
were about Thailand and 100 articles about Thais, being the largest single nationality
referred to in the articles.


5
  These numbers are not based on all (648) articles but on the amount of articles about human trafficking, in
total 260 for the full three years of research.
6
  As determined by variable 21 in the coding schedule ”As a reader, are you left with the impression that
the reporter wrote this story in such a way that the exploited person/persons was deemed to
be”:1.Worthy of your sympathy or empathy, 2.Not worthy of your sympathy or empathy, 3.Unclear/None of
the above, 4.No individual/s faced exploitation


                                                      7
Another finding regarding nationalities was that, in comparison to how many Burmese
migrants there are in Thailand, there was a surprisingly small number of corresponding
articles on the suffering and abuse of Burmese migrants. The news editor claimed that
Burmese migrants have been in the country for a long time and so there was nothing new
about their plight – in other words they weren’t seen as newsworthy.

To conclude, we can see that there have been changes in the extent of the sub-regional
media coverage, there have also been changes regarding the way the articles address the
problems of human trafficking, migration and related exploitation.




                                          8
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT                                                             2

GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS                                                3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                    5

TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                    9

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION                              12

     1.1   Background to the Study                                   12

     1.2   Context of the Study – Trafficking and Labour Migration   13

           1.2.1   A Line in the Indo-Thai Sand                      14

     1.3   Context of the Study – The Media’s Role                   15

           1.3.1   Shifting the Focus                                16

     1.4   Objective of the Research                                 16

     1.5   Research Question                                         17

     1.6   Structure of the Report                                   18

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY                                               19

     2.1   Overview of Methodology                                   19

     2.2   Methods/ Approaches Adopted                               19

           2.2.1   Content Analysis                                  20

           2.2.2   Interpretive Inquiry - In-Depth Interview         20

     2.3   Structure, Sample and Design of the Research              21

           2.3.1   Selection of Units of Analysis…                   21

           2.3.2   Coding Schedule                                   23

           2.3.3   Coding of the Articles                            24

           2.3.4   In-Depth Interview Questions                      24



                                            9
CHAPTER 3: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES                                        25

     3.1   Strengths and Weaknesses                                        25

     3.2   Content Analysis                                                25

     3.3   In-Depth Interview                                              27

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS – CONTENT ANALYSIS                                     29

     4.1   Findings of the Content Analysis                                29

           4.1.1   Main Findings: Increase in Frequency                    29

           4.1.2   Primary Focus of Media Coverage                         31

           4.1.3   Secondary Focus of Media Coverage                       32

           4.1.4   Coverage: Bangkok Post or The Nation?

                   Type of Article                                         33

           4.1.5   Source of Information                                   34

           4.1.6   Countries and Nationalities of Exploited Individual/s   35

           4.1.7   Migrant Labour and Related Exploitation                 37

           4.1.8   Human Trafficking                                       39

           4.1.9   ‘Tone’ of the Articles                                  39

           4.1.10 Age and Gender                                           40

           4.1.11 ILO/IPEC TICW in the Media Coverage                      41

     4.2   Cross Tabulations                                               42

           4.2.1   Perceptions of Migrants                                 43

           4.2.2   Labour Exploitation versus Sexual Exploitation          44



CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS INTERVIEW                                              45

     5.1   Findings of the In-Depth Interview                              46

           5.1.1   Focus of Newspaper – What is Newsworthy to the



                                            10
             Bangkok Post                                          46

             5.1.2   Migration and Migrants                        47

             5.1.3   Human Trafficking                             48

             5.1.4   Coverage                                      48

CHAPTER 6: FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS                   51

     6.1     Final Conclusions                                     51

             6.1.1   Coverage                                      52

             6.1.2   Administrative Issues in the Media Coverage   52

             6.1.3   The ‘Tone’ of the Articles                    53

     6.2     Recommendations                                       54



BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                       56

APPENDICES

1.   Terms of Reference for the Research

2.   Coding Schedule

3.   Justification of Questions in the Coding Schedule

4.   Letter to the News Editors of the Bangkok Post and

     The Nation

5.   Questions to the News Editors

6.   Transcription of Interview, Bangkok Post

7.   All Variables Cross Tabulated with Period

8.   Cross Tabulations

9.   Sample of 12 of the Analysed Articles




                                           11
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION

1.1 Background to the Study

The overall objective of this study was to try to provide a clearer picture of the way the
‘quality newspapers’7 of the Greater Mekong Sub-regional (GMS) approach and report on
human trafficking and the related issues of labour/sexual exploitation of individuals, in
particular migrants.

Specifically, this research sets out to systematically document (for the first time to the best
of our knowledge) how these issues are covered in the press especially in relation to
cross-border migration for the purpose of setting a baseline of press interest in these
topics which the project could later track changes in that interest as well as the type of
coverage.

By examining the extent and ‘type’ of news media coverage (albeit by examining only two
of the sub-region’s main English-language daily newspapers based in Thailand)8, the
project hopes to gain an insight into the level of interest given to the issues of migration
and the link to human trafficking and labour/sexual exploitation. This initial research indeed
does track changes in levels of interest over a three year period (1 July 2004 – 30 June
2007).

While it is hard to define press ‘interest’ it is perhaps more quantitative to track frequency
on the reporting on a given issue. Therefore, for the purposes of this research, the levels
of interest and frequency will be seen as one and the same.

An in-depth interview with a news editor from one of these newspapers in 2007 provides
further important insight as to the process through which editors/journalists approach
issues of migration and human trafficking as they relate to labour/sexual exploitation.

Contextually, in the terms of the TICW project’s objectives, the research is conducted to
form a baseline of ‘press interest’ as directed in Immediate Object 3. The methodology and
coding schedule can be re-deployed as the project approaches its sunset to further record
changes through the months prior to final evaluation.

One of IO-3s indicators reads;


7
 “Quality Newspaper” is common news industry parlance (British) referring to the informal designation
given ‘journals or record’ e.g. “The Times” when compared to other daily papers which place greater
emphasis on reporting the lives of celebrities, etc. e.g. “The Sun”.
8
    The two papers are the Bangkok Post and The Nation.


                                                     12
           3.1 OUTPUT (IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE) INDICATOR- Extent of press interest
           and coverage of project related messages and activities, both in opinion
           pages and news articles in countries, sub-regional and/or international media



Note the indicator refers to “project related messages”. This could be interpreted as either
‘directly’ or ‘indirectly’ related to the project. Since it is not specified, we are adopting the
broader definition, e.g. any press interest relating to the ‘type’ of messages and activities
the project normally supports. In other words, the project doesn’t need to be mentioned or
even directly involved. Clearly in most cases the project will not be directly involved.

Indeed, it is also noteworthy to mention that the TICW project takes more than just a
passive interest in the extent and type of press and media coverage. It also sees its role
as an advocate – to influence media coverage where possible to help in its drive for
greater trafficking/exploitation prevention measures. On the project’s webpage it states
that:

           “[t]his ILO-IPEC project places a great emphasis on media relations to advocate for
           safer migration practices, improved labour standards and workplace monitoring to
           fight trafficking of children and women.”9



This shows the importance of the media and it also places the research into a wider
framework. Further, in order for the ILO-TICW project to measure and understand the
current level of press interest, and determine what it ‘was’ in previous years, a content
analysis and interview with a news editor was evidently one way to achieve this. This
research paper makes no claim that a content analysis is the only way to achieve this goal
– it simply points out that it is ‘one way’ to systematically measure press interest in the
GMS in a controlled environment.



1.2 Context of the Study - Trafficking and Labour Migration

Growing wealth discrepancies between rich and poor countries in the GMS, long porous
borders and an instable political climate have led to major flows of migrants throughout the
sub-region. People are migrating in search for a better life and the majority of them have
good experiences. Migration is often rewarding economically as well as personally.
However, sometimes their dreams of a better life can develop into nightmares. People are
being trafficked and exploited on the way to what they believe will lead to a better life. But,


9
    Found at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/child/trafficking/presscentre.htm


                                                       13
this does not mean that migration should be seen as a problem to be solved, it should
rather be seen as a process that needs to be managed.10

Many actors in the region are trying to eradicate the problem of human trafficking and
exploitation of migrants: local and national NGOs, UN agencies and the governments of
the countries in the Sub-region. Since 2000, ILO/IPEC TICW has been working to combat
trafficking in the sub-region, with a specific focus on children and women. Since then it has
focused its second phase activities on capacity building, information distribution,
community mobilisation and advocacy, with a limited but effective direct assistance
programme via employment creation, skills training and credit provision. The second
phase of the project, which incorporated the above, was designed to build capacity at the
community levels and involve young women and children at risk in activities to combat
trafficking and to focus on source areas for migration to create possibilities ‘at home’. In
addition, phase two also place emphasis on destination areas including changing attitudes
of people at those destinations as they relate to the treatment of migrants, defending their
human rights, and recognising the value they bring to destination countries.11

As a part of the solution to tackle the problem ILO/IPEC TICW is, through advocacy work
and awareness raising, trying to rid the destination peoples’ negative perceptions of
migrants. If the wrong messages are being conveyed via media for example, then negative
stereotypical views and unfair attitudes are being reinforced which will make it hard to
bring an end to exploitation of these marginalised groups –and adds on to the difficulty in
mainstreaming effective anti-trafficking messages to policy makers at destination. Thailand
is particularly a sub-regional destination area of concern and thus the special attention to
press report in Thailand.



1.2.1 A Line in the Indo-Thai Sand:

In late 2006, the ILO, through the ILO-IPEC TICW Project and its partners in the ILO EU -
UNIFEM Project, conducted a joint poll in Thailand with Assumption University (Abac) to
determine the public’s perception as relates migrant workers. The results reinforced
findings of another ILO/IPEC TICW publication,12 that many Thai’s have somewhat
negative perceptions of migrants .Indeed a full 50.3 percent of the Thai’s participating in
the Abac poll did not think that alien workers deserve the same working conditions as Thai
workers.13 Whilst not a carefully crafted scientific evaluation of Thai attitudes toward


10
     ILO/MIGRANT, Singapore Symposium May 2007, Conference address by Manolo Abella, ILO
11
  Information from the ILO/IPEC TICW website www.childtrafficking.net (proxy name for ILO-
IPEC/TICW)
12
     “The Mekong Challenge: Underpaid, Overworked and Overlooked”, (2006) ILO IPEC TICW
13
     Abac poll 2006 retrieved at www.childtrafficking.net


                                                       14
migrants in Thailand, and not a sub-regional measurement, this is nonetheless an
illustrative example of the reality of the attitudes facing migrant workers in Thailand, which
is undeniably the largest receiving country in the sub-region (GMS). This attitudinal
“problem” could continue unless there is recognition of the fact that migrants are
contributing positively to the growth of the host economies/societies as well as contributing
to that of their countries of origin.14



1.3 Context of the Study - The Media’s Role

The growing problems of trafficking in women and children, exploitation and prejudice
against migrants, are indeed being displayed to the public by news and other media, and it
is therefore essential that the reports written on these topics via newspapers reflect the
reality. The news media are a significant source of information for the public; not only
reflecting the reality but also actually constructing it.15 The purpose of this analysis is also
to determine which ‘messages’ are actually conveyed to the public, whether a reflection of
reality or popular constructs based on “conventional wisdom”.

Whilst media power can influence public opinion, educate the masses and raise
awareness on issues such as human trafficking and migration, the media also contribute
to the public’s perception of different groups of people. As well, they contribute to social
attitudes inherent in the discourse about ‘foreigners’. These perceptions are not a direct
result of the media coverage alone; other things influence the public’s perceptions, e.g.
government policies and educational structures. However, it has to be recognised that the
media play a large part in shaping public opinion. The media should be encouraged in a
positive way to expose the problems faced by migrants vis-à-vis trafficking/and labour-
sexual-exploitation, to inform the masses in both sending and receiving areas, to create
awareness and to spark dialogues about people vulnerable to exploitation within reach of
the audience.

Although migration has long been phenomenon in the sub-region, the movements are
increasing. Governments prioritise migration policy which is part of the reason to why there
are many reports emphasising the ‘administrative’ sides of these issues. The public then
form their opinions partly on these reports. There is an important connection to
governmental policies since “…public perception of migrants has a direct impact on the
policy direction of governments on migration…”16 it is therefore important to decode and
change the negative connotations of migrants that are being displayed by the media. In



14
  Martin, Phil (2007) The Contribution of Migrant Workers to Thailand DRAFT 1.25 % of GDP in
Thailand attributed to migrant workers
15
     Milivojenic, Snjezana (2003) Media Monitoring Manual p.9
16
     IOM (2004) “The Image of Migrants in Society” found at www.iom-seasia.org/resource/pdf/image.pdf


                                                     15
Thailand for example, more efforts should be made to ensure a greater recognition of the
essential value of migrant labour to the Thai economy.17



1.3.1Shifting the Focus

In recent years media reports have been illuminating the problem of human trafficking.
However, many of these reports have generally focused on sexual exploitation. This is
potentially diverting attention from other forms of trafficking, e.g. trafficking for the purpose
of labour exploitation. This media concentration on sexual abuse has a twin effect on
public awareness. First, the general public may quite understandably think human
trafficking equals forced prostitution and may lack clarity on trafficking for labour
exploitation. Second, this media focus on sex trafficking may result in less clarity among
policy makers too, who in turn may devote fewer human and financial resources to fighting
trafficking-related labour abuses. Through this research it is possible to detect changes in
the way the media are reporting trafficking, and to which extent (if any) the newspapers
are shifting their focus to include labour exploitation too.



1.4 Objective of the Research

This research was designed to evaluate and measure the media coverage of human
trafficking and sexual/labour exploitation, in particular of migrants, in the GMS between 1st
July 2004 and 30th June 2007 – three years. This involved six months reporting periods
(hence 6 periods in total).

As mentioned above, the research was conducted as part of a response to project outputs
to meet Immediate Objective 3.18 There was a need for a systematic method to gauge the
extent of press interest as specified in Output 3.1.19 The content analysis method was
chosen to monitor, measure and report on the increase and/or decrease in the reporting of
human trafficking and migration related labour/sexual exploitation in the GMS. In addition
to measuring the number of relevant reports, the analysis can also give us an idea about
the ‘tone’ of news reports, editorials and opinion pieces. This research cannot however
draw inferences about how and if the discourses have changed and the reasons thereof, it
is out of the scope of this content analysis. But combined, the content analysis and the
interpretive inquiry can give us an idea about the possible changes in tone and interest.


17
     Broadmoor Tony (2002) “Land of Guile: Migrant Workers in Thailand”, Mae Sot
18
     Already cited.
19
  3.1 OUTPUT (IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE) INDICATOR- Extent of press interest and coverage of project
related messages and activities, both in opinion pages and news articles in countries, sub-regional and/or
international media


                                                    16
The in-depth interview with the news editor from the Bangkok Post was conducted with the
aim to extend the knowledge about the sub-regional media coverage. To interview a
specialist within the field of endeavour was believed to add a limited amount of qualitative
depth to the quantitative nature of the content analysis. This method is aimed at gaining
first-hand knowledge from a specialist about the underlying nature of the media coverage,
and hopefully provide some explanations as to any shifts in editorial interest as regards
labour migration, migrants and human trafficking.



1.5 Research Question:

So then, what is the actual developmental research question? It has been phrased thusly:

           “How are the issues of human trafficking, migration and labour/sexual
           exploitation of individuals, in particular migrants, covered in the main sub-
           regional journals of public record and what are their frequencies of coverage,
           and how, if at all, does coverage of these issues change over time
           (quantitatively and qualitatively)?”

The research is trying to determine the way in which issues of human trafficking, and
migration-related abuses, especially involving foreign or cross-border migrants and the
labour and sexual exploitation they may face. More specifically, the analysis is attempting
to answer the following questions; When there were reports of migrant exploitation or
cross border trafficking, how was it reported? Were the people who were being
trafficked/exploited seen as victims in need of assistance or as people that should be
detained and/or prosecuted? Were individuals the main focus of the reports or were there
more reports on administrative issues, such as the various inter-governmental agreements
on human trafficking and labour migration? Were the majority of the reports on migrant
exploitation on labour or sexual exploitation? Were there more reports on a specific
country and/or persons with a specific nationality? And most importantly, has there been
an evident change in the ways and frequencies these issued were covered through the
control period?20



1.6 Structure of the Report

The structure of the report is as follows; first the methodology of the content analysis,
including a short explanation on each of the two approaches which are used, namely
content analysis and interpretive inquiry (in-depth analysis). Chapter 3 covers the major
strengths and weaknesses of the research. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the content
analysis and Chapter 5 presents the findings of the interview with the news editor at one of



20
     These are some of the questions which the coding schedule are based on.


                                                       17
the newspapers. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes the findings, triangulates the quantitative
findings with the results of the interview with the editor and offers some recommendations.




                                            18
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY


2.1 Overview of Methodology

This research was conducted during the first six months of 2007. The researcher worked
under the close supervision of the TICW project’s communications officer during the
creation of the methodology, in order to systematically identify suitable reporting periods,
determine the research question, and develop the coding schedule. Evidently, it was
important to establish a systematic and replicable methodology that can (and most
probably will) be replicated in the future. The initial aim with the research was to conduct a
content analysis on its own, but as the research proceeded, it became evident that an
additional research method might be able to add some depth and substance to what was a
purely quantifiable study. It could also provide some valuable explanations as to the
findings of the content analysis. It was decided that in-depth interviews with news
editors/journalists be conducted with the aim to access their insights and knowledge and
better understand the process for selection of ‘newsworthy’ migration/trafficking reports.
The specific value of this additional approach allows the researcher to compare results of
the content analysis to the views of the editor.21

The extent of the press coverage is to be included in Technical Progress Reports (TPRs)
every six months, beginning with the TPR for January – June 2007. Another content
analysis is expected to take place, using the same coding schedule (for the purpose of
systematic comparison), for the period between July 2007 and end of June 2008 (2 further
reporting periods). Hence, the aim of this research is to set a baseline of the press
coverage and also to provide information about the way these issues are covered during
the three years that are being analysed here.



2.2 Methods/Approaches Adopted

This analysis employed two main research methods; a Content Analysis of the press
coverage of trafficking and labour/sexual exploitation of individuals, especially migrants, in
the GMS, and an In-Depth Interview with a news editor at one of the newspapers selected
for analysis. The two approaches are used with the intent to give a more comprehensive
picture of the media coverage on these issues.




21
  Dow, Allan (2005) “An American Angle: Foreign news in the United States and the United States in
Foreign News.” A Masters Degree dissertation accepted by the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of
Leicester.


                                                    19
2.2.1 Content Analysis

Content analysis is the primary method employed in this research and this approach was
chosen since it has the ability to address these issues in a systematic and comprehensible
way.

This content analysis identifies, categorises, and quantifies occurrences of certain issues
pre-defined (pre-categorised) within the research. Content analysis is an established mass
communication research method, which was chosen partly because it enables the
researcher to examine a vast quantity of textual information and partly since the
systematic nature of the approach allows for replication of the methodology. This is
important in order to compare this research with results of future analyses – both within
the framework of the TICW project and that of future efforts by other researchers. In this
manner it is possible to draw some limited conclusions about the messages that are being
conveyed and the importance of the broader social messages of the texts being
analysed.22 The method is systematic and (arguably) objective and the aim with it is to
remove subjectivity from summaries and to simplify the findings of trends.23 In order to
gain as much as possible from a content analysis, there needs to be clearly defined
categories as well as a distinct number of options for the classification of the variables.24

Aside from finding the prominence in the texts that are being analysed, this method can
also detect absences of certain issues. This is an important feature and is believed not
only to show the lack of reports on certain issues but also to determine if there is an
imbalance in the way the issues of human trafficking and exploitation of migrants are being
displayed within the media coverage (e.g. more reports may refer to migrants as villains in
need of punishment rather than victims in need of assistance).

One of the problems with this kind of research lies at the heart of its inherent quantitative
nature. It counts things, but does little else, it doesn’t tell us “why”?25



2.2.2 Interpretive Inquiry, In-Depth Interview

The in-depth interview, using interpretive inquiry, can deepen the understanding of the
coverage of human trafficking and migration in the sub region. In-Depth Interviews often
aim at revealing and understanding rather than describing or measuring. Whilst the


22
     Hansen, et al. Mass Communication Research Methods (1998) p 94
23
     “Know your Audience: chapter 16 - Content Analysis” www.audiencedialogue.org
24
     Milivojenic already cited (p. 26)
25
     Hansen et al, already cited


                                                    20
content analysis can focus on ‘how many’ times something occurred, the in-depth
interview might be able to tell us ‘why’ something occurred. This latter method can add
substance to the research as a whole and also provide us with rich and detailed
information on various issues connected to the news coverage of migration and human
trafficking.

The lone interview conducted was a semi-structured inquiry with predefined open-ended
questions. The aim with in-depth interviews is to encourage a full discourse with the
interviewed person, in this case the news editor. The flexibility of this method allows for the
interviewer and the respondent to go deeper into issues that come up during the interview.
This method is not perfect and it is not in any way trying to generalise about issues based
only on one interview. However, as a complimentary approach it adds some depth and is
therefore instructional in reaching some limited conclusions.

The reason for interviewing the news editor is to try to find out if there have been changes
in editorial direction or subject interest of news editors when publishing reports on human
trafficking and foreign migrants/labour migration during this period. This can help to
explain some elements of the content analysis.

The usage of multiple methods is believed to produce stronger indications and adds
reliability to the results of the research. It is believed that the analysis herein provides a
better understanding of the results than with examining the content analysis alone, which
was the initial suggestion for research (see original Terms of Reference in Appendix 1).26



2.3 Structure, Sample and Design of the Research



2.3.1 Selection of Units of Analysis

More than 1,200 articles from various newspapers have been collected by the ILO/IPEC
TICW communications officer since 2004. To be able to sort out articles for coding, a
certain set of criteria was decided on. The criteria were chosen to systematically examine
the media coverage in selected thematic areas. However, it was necessary to limit the
criteria so that the task of analysing the units would not be overly cumbersome.

Firstly, for the article to be selected for coding, it had to be from either the Bangkok Post or
The Nation. These two English –language newspapers were selected, not only because of
the language, but also due to the fact that they are the most visible and substantial
newspapers in the sub-region. They provide coverage of national, regional and
international news and in-depth reports about issues relevant primarily for the sub-



26
     Björk. Jenny, Proposal to amend terms of reference for research


                                                       21
region.27 They are both based in Bangkok and together they have a distribution of about
120 000 newspapers per day.28 The reason to why this analysis is using news paper
articles as the units of analysis is that the word ‘press’ is used in the project document’s
Objective 3 Indicator.

Secondly, only articles published between July 2004 and end of June 2007 were chosen
for analysis. In order to get a broad overview of the coverage, an overall period of three
years was chosen and divided into 6 monthly periods to coincide with the project’s
Technical Progress Reports (which include reporting on Indicator 3.1 – Press Interest).
This is believed to be a time period sufficient enough to be able to detect changes in
media coverage.

Thirdly, the articles had to involve at least one or more of the following references either by
mention or inference:

       1. Trafficking

       2. Migration/migrant

       3. Labour

       4. Prostitution

       5. Stateless people and/or ethnic minorities

       6. Begging/beggars

       7. Maid/domestic worker

       8. Fishing boats/fish/seafood processing

       9. Agriculture workers

       10. Manufacturing workers

Finally, the articles chosen for analysis should also contain at least one or more of the
following references by mention or inference:

       1. Thailand

       2. Cambodia

       3. Lao PDR



27
  McCargo, Duncan (2000) Politics and the Press in Thailand: Media Machinations Garuda Press Bangkok,
pp. 12,153
28
     Bangkok Post 70 000 and The Nation 50 000, (estimates)


                                                     22
       4. Yunnan Province, China

       5. Viet Nam

       6. Myanmar



2.3.2 Coding Schedule

To be able to systematically code the articles, the creation of a coding schedule29 was one
of the most important parts of the methodology since this it was determining which results
we looked for and also found. The coding schedule is an important tool used to conduct
the analysis. Without a thoroughly developed coding schedule, the analysis will not
provide sufficient information for the analysis. An important feature of the coding schedule
is that it adds meaning to concepts that are vague and insignificant outside their context.30

Different aspects of the articles and the main things that we intended the research to show
were discussed and a suggestion of a coding schedule with 17 variables was pilot tested.
25 articles31 were used in the test with the aim to provide enough evidence about the
structural features of the units of analysis to revise the coding schedule to be more
inclusive and to correspond better to the expected outcomes of the analysis. After the pilot
test, final adjustments were made; more variables were added to cover additional aspects
of the media coverage. The lack of some questions was detected by the pilot coding
schedule and new variables were then added. The aim was to make the coding schedule
as exhaustive as possible without having too many variables. This test proved to be an
important part of the creation of the schedule. Issues that had not been considered before
became essential parts of the creation of the final coding schedule and this added strength
to the content analysis as a whole. Six new variables were added. After this correction, the
23 variables which are found in Appendix 2 were decided. The variables were created to
identify patterns and relationships of the findings that the coding of the units of analysis will
result.




2.3.3 Coding of the Articles




29
  See Appendix 2, Coding Schedule and Appendix 3 which presents a thorough discussion about the
different variables
30
     Hansen et al, already cited
31
     The sample for this pilot test was randomly sampled and included 25 articles from all six different periods.


                                                         23
All news reports, opinion pieces and editorials collected since July 2004 were reviewed to
determine if they met the above criteria for inclusion; the ones that suited the
predetermined criteria were selected for analysis. Out of more than 1,200 articles
reviewed, only slightly more than half – a total of 640 news reports, opinion pieces and
editorials were considered suitable for coding. After sorting them according to date of
publication, they were carefully re-read and then coded according to the coding schedule.

The coding of the articles was a lengthy process; some of the articles were just a few lines
long, while others were several paragraphs or even several pages in length. Despite these
differences, they were all valued and coded in the same manner. The data was then
processed via SPSS software. As a standard statistical program used in social science to
process data, cross-tabulations, graphs and tables are easily created and make the
analysis of the results easier to distinguish.



2.3.4 In-Depth Interview Questions

The researcher proposed and it was accepted, to try to get interviews with specialists from
the newspapers in question to add some perspective to the findings. Letters were sent to
the respective news editors requesting their participation.32 Questions for the specialists
were drafted and supplied in advance to the editor from the Bangkok Post at her request.
The questions were also designed to be open-ended, which provided some flexibility to
deal with a variety of possible responses. It has also the ability to reveal a wider diversity
of opinions than it would if the questions were not open-ended. The questions33 were
jointly developed by the researcher and the communications officer beforehand, and the
number of questions was limited to ten, but there were additional questions prepared if the
original questions were not enough to fill the one hour that was made available. Some of
the questions relate directly to the findings of the content analysis while others are
broader, employed to gain a deeper understanding on how the newspapers mirror the
issues of human trafficking and migration in general.

To avoid as much interviewer bias as possible in the analysis of the interview, the
interview was recorded and then transcribed. In this way the researcher avoids the
mistake of quoting the source wrongfully and it also limits misunderstandings.34




32
     See Appendix 4
33
     See Appendix 5
34
     Appendix 5


                                             24
CHAPTER 3: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

3.1 Strengths and Weaknesses

This chapter discusses the limitations of the research as well as the strengths and
weaknesses. Similar to other kinds of research, there are limitations to this research.
However, these have been carefully considered and since the methodology as such is well
developed the research and the findings thereof are still to be considered as reliable. 35



3.2 Content Analysis

Content analyses are usually connected to more limitations than are usually associated
with other types of analytical research.36 While the strength of content analysis is that it
provides an easy way to measure frequency of news reports on a given topic the findings
remain silent on the reasons for that frequency. For example one could quite easily count
the number of times “forced labour” and “Myanmar” appear in the Bangkok Post and then
compare this to the number of times that “forced labour” and “Europe” appears in the
same newspaper during the same period, but what would it tell us? Even though we might
find that the former is more common than the latter, we will only be able to tell the numeric
values and we cannot tell “why” there is a difference. This weakness is inherent in almost
all quantitative research. Quantification is the main goal and the ability to qualitatively
analyse the result are rather limited.

Another weakness in this type of research, as relates specifically to this particular project,
is our attempt to measure press “interest”. Since “interest” has not been defined by the
ILO-TICW Project Document, how does one gauge the “level” of that Press interest?

The use of coding schedules to dissect Press clippings is a standard approach in this line
of inquiry. Despite the evident limitations outlined above, careful attention to the coding
schedule and its questions can provide some insights into the types of news reports that
are carried, how they differ from each other, and how both the frequency and type of
articles published change over time (in this case of a three-year period).

The units of analysis were chosen through preset criteria, which in itself can be questioned
– as there could be no limit to the inquiry. The motivation for the selection of these specific
criteria has been previously discussed but there is also awareness of the fact that a
different set of criteria might have changed the findings and the final report – again a




35
     Hansen et al, already cited
36
     Hansen et al, already cited


                                              25
recognised weakness.37 These specific criteria are developed to answer the questions that
were posed in the initial stages of the research and are therefore believed to be best
suited for this analysis.

The decision to use the Bangkok Post and The Nation, both English language newspapers
based in Thailand, for the analysis was made not only since they are the most accessible
to the researcher, but also because they are considered to be the main Sub-regional
journals of record.38 These newspapers have a different target group than the local dailies
and do not reach the same number of readers like the more popular vernacular press Thai
Rath or Daily News.39 The distribution of the Bangkok Post and The Nation are barely
comparable in audience reach numerically, but as mentioned they are considered the
main journals of record – and influential given their target audience of academics,
business leaders, neo-liberals and policy makers alike.40 Given the editorial supremacy
and quality of reporting of these two newspapers the approach is therefore a logical choice
for this sub-regional news analysis.

One of the strengths of the method of content analysis in research is that it is highly
flexible and allows the researcher to analyse large amounts of text. The coding of the large
number of articles was time-consuming but the coding schedule transformed the text into
numbers, which were processed into SPSS and then analysed in an easy and
comprehensive way.

Given time constraints and the fact that the articles had already been clipped out of the
hard copy newspapers over a number of years without reference to page number, the
position, prominence or ‘location’ (e.g. front page? Back page? Page 26?) was not a
consideration.

Evidently, there is a risk that things have been missed or not emphasised enough. The
content analysis is conducted primarily with hard copy versions of the clippings, but when
older articles were missing and the newspapers could not be found in hardcopy, the units
of analysis had to be used in electronic format. The researcher did a systematic search on
the internet,41 using the key words from the criteria set above to find additional reports for
analysis. Some new articles were found in this way and were then coded in accordance
with the coding schedule, in the same manner as the other units of analysis. While there is



37
     Hansen et al, already cited
38
     The purpose of this research is to conduct a sub-regional analysis of the coverage.
39
     McCargo, Duncan. already quoted.
40
   The Public that is being referred to is here the readers of the Bangkok Post and The Nation, the target group
is Thai’s
41
     www.bangkokpost.com and www.nationmultimedia.com ,


                                                         26
still a risk that a few articles have been missed it is unlikely that would play a determining
role in the final result of the analysis.

The issue of bias, while always a risk, is evidently greater given the fact the researcher
and supervisor devised both the coding schedule and the criteria for inclusion of articles in
the survey. Furthermore, since the researcher then carried out the actual coding herself,
she may have done so with a pre-determined bias – something that a neutral or ‘fresh’ set
of eyes may have avoided. While these issues are acknowledged, time and financial
resources were two constraints that precluded other ways.

On the other hand, it could be argued that the researcher has a defined knowledge about
the issues which are being dealt with and is therefore the ‘best’ person to carry out the
coding. Things were noticed that might have been missed by coders without the same
familiarity with the units of analysis. As in other kinds of research, it is impossible to be
fully objective; there is always a bias when the researcher is valuing text. However, the
coding schedule is designed so that the analysis can be transparent and replicable. The
unambiguous criteria that are formulated in the coding schedule are facilitating a
consistent and clear review and coding of the articles.



3.3 In-depth interview

There are limitations with this method as well, but since the content analysis is the primary
research method, this interpretive enquiry, adopted mainly to validate results from the
content analysis, has less evident weaknesses. Those noted will however hereby be
discussed as will the strengths of this approach.

 One of the main benefits of this approach is to get a specialist’s view on the media
coverage in the Sub-region. Since only one news editor was interviewed however, the
results of the interview should be seen as adding insight to the level of interest about
migration and human trafficking related news in the GMS and the ways the issues are
covered by reporters. Therefore it is instructional but the results are only possible
indications of the overall reality.

The initial aim was to interview the news editors of both newspapers in order to be as
systematic as possible. Letters were sent out to the newspapers,42 requesting an interview
with the chief editors responsible for the “news” section (as opposed to features editor, or
editorial page editor). Within a week one interview was arranged with the news editor of
the Bangkok Post. At this editor’s request, the questions were sent to her for consideration
before the interview.




42
     See Appendix 4


                                             27
At The Nation, the letter was addressed to the general news editor, she did not respond to
the letter so a follow up phone call was made to ensure the arrival of the letter. The news
editor was contacted directly but she declined the interview request. Her staff however
then provided names and contacts of other editors. These contacts were not available for
interview either, and instead another phone number was provided for a journalist dealing
with refugee and minority groups. Nevertheless, this individual reporter also declined to be
interviewed, saying he was not well-versed in migration/trafficking. A final attempt was
made to get an interview with someone from The Nation; by sorting through some Nation
articles to see if there was a recurring by-line. Another phone call to The Nation however
proved to be fruitless and we were told that there was no reporter whose specialty was
migration or human trafficking and no further names would be offered.

The possible weakness with open-ended questions, used in this interview, is that it can be
a great task to analyse the large amount of information that might be recovered. Another
weakness with open-ended questions is that the answers may not be as clear as they
could have been otherwise, or may not be relevant to the content findings (Apples versus
Oranges).

The interview was recorded and transcribed, then the information was categorised and
analysed. By recording and transcribing the interview, interviewer bias is to a large extent
avoided.43 Furthermore, there is less risk of misinterpreting and misunderstandings. But
there were parts of the interview which were not transcribed fully due to privacy issues and
irrelevancy.

As some of the final conclusions in this study are based on just one interview they must be
seen as only indicators of a wider view. Conversely, interviewing only one person might
have resulted in the views of just that person!

But still, the interview provided some information that helped the researcher to better
understand the nature of the sub-regional media coverage on these issues.




43
     Graham Mytton (1999) Handbook on Radio and Television Audience Research p.44


                                                   28
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS – CONTENT ANALYSIS


4.1 Findings of the Content Analysis

This chapter will illuminate the findings of the content analysis. First a short overview will
be provided, and then the main findings will be presented for different aspects covered by
the research. The content analysis showed that there have been changes in the way that
the Bangkok Post and The Nation have reported on the issues of human trafficking and
migration during the last three years. It is hard to detect overall changes and contribute
these to specific changes, projects or policy changes. Instead, the variations detected are
believed to be the result of a combination of various issues.

The coverage of human trafficking and labour/sexual exploitation of in particular migrants
has, as predicted, not been static. The number of articles published and qualified for
analysis in each period is as presented in bar graph 1 below:



4.1.1 Main Findings: Increase in Frequency

Overall during the three years there was a clear trend of an increase in frequency of news
about migration, human trafficking and related sexual/labour exploitation, as the table
below indicates. The spike in the second period (January-July 2005) is further explained
below.

BAR GRAPH 1: Total number of analysed reports (648), divided by period of
     publication

                   180
                   160
                   140
                   120
         No of     100
        articles    80
                    60
                    40
                    20
                     0
                         July- Jan- July- Jan- July- Jan-
                         Dec July Dec July Dec July
                         2004 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007



                                             29
There is some consistency in the way the numbers of articles on these issues have
increased between period 3 and 6. The steady increase of articles could be a result of the
increase in interest and knowledge about these issues. The increase in frequency of
coverage has been basically the same in both the Bangkok Post and The Nation, it is
therefore fair to assume that there has been an increase in overall interest and thus some
change in attitude regarding the issues covered in the analysis since both editors deemed
it “news worthy” to publish.44 Human trafficking and migration have been on the agenda,
for a while, but there seems to be an increase in interest during the last couple of years,
especially in the GMS where the governments have signed MOUs and committed to the
COMMIT process.45 The US TIP (Trafficking in Persons)46 reports have gained notoriety
and there has also been an increase in number of projects and NGOs working on
trafficking/migration issues.

Since there was a peak in the number of reports published on the issues of interest during
period two, the researcher reviewed the articles from this period one additional time. The
intention was to see if the peak could be ascribed any specific event. One of the reasons
for the large amount of reports during this period can be the Tsunami on 26 December
2004 and the reports about migrants (mainly Burmese) who had been victims of the
Tsunami. Out of the 126 articles published during this period, ten were directly related to
the Tsunami, however many articles during this period were indirectly related to these
issues and were presumably published as a result of the increase in interest about these
issues during this specific time. Further, the increasing amount of articles during this
period can also be a reflection of the Thai government’s new policies on migrant workers
and the registration process that came in effect in mid-2004.

Another peak occurred during the final period of research, January to July 2007. There are
various explanations to the increase in number of articles during this period. Firstly, in
June a horrible incident with slave labour on brick kilns in China was uncovered, at least
ten of the articles were directly related to this incident. Secondly, concurrently, the release
of the 2007 TIP report resulted in articles solely related to this report. Finally another issue
during this period has been the Thai government’s decision to deport a group of Hmong,
classified as illegal migrants, to Lao PDR. Despite these three factors, there is an
enormous increase in amount of articles during this period compared to the previous one.
It is therefore fairly safe to assume that there is an evident increase in interest about these
issues during this period.



44
     See Appendix 7
45
     COMMIT: The Coordinated Mekong Ministerial Initiative Against Trafficking
46
  Starting from 2001, the US state has annually released a report about the situation of human trafficking in
the world


                                                      30
4.1.2 Primary Focus of Media Coverage

The main focus of the news reporting concentrated on issues concerning foreign migrants
in Thailand. As previously discussed, the main focus of the articles are most often
involving either Thais or Thailand. For a full breakdown of the result, see bar graph below;

BAR GRAPH 2: Primary focus of the articles


                  140
                  120
                  100

  No of             80
 articles           60
                    40
                    20
                      0
                            1      2     3      4      5      6     7    8     9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16



BOX 1: Explanation to Bar Graph 2                                        8. Clearly defined report about labour exploitation in another
                                                                         country/countries
1.Foreign migrant workers in Thailand (non sex, no direct trafficking
reference)                                                               9.Prostitution/sex work* in Thailand (adults without
                                                                         trafficking/exploitation reference)
2. Stateless people/ethnic minority migrant workers in Thailand (no
direct trafficking ref.)                                                 10.Prostitution/sex work* in another country (adults without
                                                                         trafficking/exploitation reference)
3.Thai migrant workers in another country (no direct trafficking ref)
                                                                         11. Prostitution/sex work* in Thailand (with a
4.Non-Thai migrant workers in a country (other than Thailand) (no        trafficking/exploitation reference)47
direct trafficking ref)
                                                                         12.Prostitution/sex work* in another country (with a trafficking/
5.Clearly defined report about human trafficking in Thailand             exploitation reference)48

6.Clearly defined report about human trafficking in another              13. Administrative actions by Governments, Police and/or other
country/countries                                                        State authorities

7. Clearly defined report about labour exploitation in Thailand          14.More than one of the above

                                                                         15. None of the above

                                                                         16. Unclear




                                                                        31
This bar graph shows that the most common issue reported on during the three years
selected for research was (1)”Foreign Migrants in Thailand”, about 20% of the articles. The
issue least reported on was (4)”Non-Thai migrant workers in a country other than
Thailand” and (10)”Prostitution/sex work in another country (than Thailand) without
reference to exploitation/trafficking”. This table indicates that there is an extensive amount
of reports about Thailand compared to the rest of the sub-region. Due to the location of the
newspapers (in Bangkok), this is not surprising. As previously mentioned, this is still
considered as a sub-regional analysis of the news coverage given the fact there are no
‘formal’ sub-regional newspapers, and the two chosen are the most authoritative in the
sub-region.



4.1.3 Secondary Focus of Media Coverage

Each of the articles was also coded to see if there was a secondary focus of the news
article in order to try to get a more (3D) image of the article’s objective. In other words, one
out of five articles might be about foreign migrants in Thailand, but what else did it have to
say? While most often it is difficult to find a secondary focus nearly one third (200 articles)
did not have a clear secondary focus, 21.5% of the articles had a secondary focus which
related to administrative issues, e.g. government negotiations about trafficking, cross-
border agreements for labour migration, police actions against migrants, etc.

When the primary focus is compared with a valid secondary focus, a clearer picture
emerges of the type of news that is prevalent when reporting trafficking and migration
related issues. In this manner we can specify the issues that are of main concern in the
media coverage. There are 16 different variables; different answers to questions 5 and 6 in
the coding schedule, so evidently there are many different combinations. For the purpose
of giving a comprehensive and useful overview, the three most common variations are
described. Many of the combinations of primary and secondary focus had only a few
articles that fell into those categories.

Most of the reports that where about foreign migrants in Thailand were also about
administrative issues (79 cases). The combination of Stateless people and administrative
issues was the second most frequent result, a total of 32 cases. The third most common
result, involved Thais migrant workers and labour exploitation in a country other than
Thailand, a total of 8 cases. The bar graph below shows these previously discussed
findings.




                                              32
BAR GRAPH 3: Most frequently combined primary and secondary
focus

               80
               70
               60
               50
       No of
               40
      articles
               30
               20
               10
                 0
                  Foreign Migrant         Stateless People and     Thai migrant workers
                 workers in Thailand      Administrative/police         and Labour
                 and Administrative              issues               exploitation in
                       issues                                        another country




4.1.4 Coverage: Bangkok Post or The Nation? Type of Article?

Throughout the research, the Bangkok Post has been the physically bigger newspaper of
the two. From the research we can find out if the interest in these issues is steadily
increasing in both of the newspapers or if there are any differences. Except for the first
and the last period of the research there was actually a decrease in the amount of reports
being published in the Bangkok Post, in comparison to The Nation. From almost 66% of
the total amount of articles during period 2, down to 51% during period 5, this however
changed during the final period where almost 64% of the articles on migration and human
trafficking were published by the Bangkok Post. There has not been a decrease in number
of articles published on these issues in the Bangkok Post, but in relation to the amount of
articles published by The Nation, there have. The overall division of articles in the Bangkok
Post versus The Nation: Bangkok Post 60.5% and The Nation 39.5%.

Related to this is the “type” of articles that are being published. In regards to type of
articles, this analysis separated news articles from editorials and opinion pieces to shed
some light on the way the public gets its voice heard in the newspapers. Apart from slight
ups and downs, the degree of editorials and opinion pieces remained rather static
throughout the research.




                                             33
TABLE 1: Change in type of articles during the period of research



                                                       Type
                                                           Editorial/
                                                            opinion
                                                  News      pieces      Total
            Period   1                                82          11        93
                                                   88,2%      11,8%     100,0%
                     2                               116          10       126
                                                   92,1%       7,9%     100,0%
                     3                                64           6        70
                                                   91,4%       8,6%     100,0%
                     4                                70          12        82
                                                   85,4%      14,6%     100,0%
                     5                                86          13        99
                                                   86,9%      13,1%     100,0%
                     6                               156          22       178
                                                   87,6%      12,4%     100,0%
            Total                                    574          74       648
                                                   88,6%      11,4%     100,0%




There were no significant changes during the period of research; the percentage of
opinion pieces and editorials versus news stories has been around 11% versus 89% of the
full amount of articles, this leads us to conclude that the public has a very limited voice in
the news (e.g. few letters to the editor published), Whether or not this is to blame on the
newspapers or if the public actually has only a limited interest in these issues is not
determined in this analysis. Also the ratio of editorials versus news reports remain the
same, which confirms to some degree the views of the news editor who was interviewed.
She said that there had not been significant changes in editorial interest, thus the increase
in amount of articles can be attributed to either more occurrences of human trafficking and
related labour/sexual exploitation or more spotlighting of the issues by news makers (e.g.
government, police, NGO, ILO, etc.) as the next section indicates.



4.1.5 Source of Information

There is clearly a preference by both newspapers to rely on official sources for
information. “Governmental sources” are overall the most frequent information sources in
the reports. However during the fourth period, victims of exploitation were equally the main


                                             34
source of information, and during the fifth period, Non governmental sources advocating
for those who have been exploited were the main source of information.



TABLE 2: Information source

                                          Information source per period

                                                    Information source

                                                           NGOs          NGOs
                              People                        and           and
                              that are                     others      others not
                             beign or       People at    advocatin     advocatin
                  Governm       have         risk of        g for         g for      More than
                   ental        been         being       exploited     exploited     one of the
                  sources    exploited      exploited     persons       persons        above      Others    Total
  Period   1            29           13              5            26             5            8         7        93
                    31,2%        14,0%          5,4%         28,0%          5,4%         8,6%       7,5%    100,0%
           2            50           17              6            23             6           16         8      126
                    39,7%        13,5%          4,8%         18,3%          4,8%        12,7%       6,3%    100,0%
           3            25           10              3            13             2           13         4        70
                    35,7%        14,3%          4,3%         18,6%          2,9%        18,6%       5,7%    100,0%
           4            21           21              5            18             5            8         4        82
                    25,6%        25,6%          6,1%         22,0%          6,1%         9,8%       4,9%    100,0%
           5            24           17            10             26             5            6        11        99
                    24,2%        17,2%         10,1%         26,3%          5,1%         6,1%      11,1%    100,0%
           6            68           36            12             36            10           11         5      178
                    38,2%        20,2%          6,7%         20,2%          5,6%         6,2%       2,8%    100,0%
  Total                217         114             41           142             33           62        39      648
                    33,5%        17,6%          6,3%         21,9%          5,1%         9,6%       6,0%    100,0%



These are the most significant results of the research regarding this variable. To conclude,
the government are the main source of information in most of the articles. People that
have been or are at risk of being exploited do not have the same strong voice according to
the answers of this variable. When we add this result to the findings of the primary and
secondary focus, we can indeed see that not only are the majority of articles related to
administrative issues, many also have governmental sources, such as local governments
and police as the main source of information. Is it a lack of news reporters, laziness,
disinterest, or cultural sensitivity that the voices of the vulnerable are not heard from more
often?



4.1.6 Countries and Nationalities of Exploited Individual/s

To further try to analyse the findings, it is essential to determine which countries are
referred to and which nationalities.

In regards to country, the analysis has shown that Thailand is by far the country in main
focus in the articles. This is not a surprising fact when considering that both newspapers


                                                         35
are Thailand based, the target readership are Thais and are more likely to be interested in
reports about Thailand.



TABLE 3: Countries primary referred to

                                     Country/s primarily referred to

                                                       Country
                                                                                     More
                                                                                     than
                                                                                    one of
                                                                                      the     Unclear/
                                                                                    above,       no
                                                                            More    and a     specific
                                                                          than one country/   referenc
                           Myanma    Lao Cambod         Viet                of the s otside     e to a
                Thailand      r      PDR    ia          Nam      China      above    GMS       country Total
  Period 1           57          0      1       7            2        3           7      16           0   93
                 61,3%        ,0%    1,1%  7,5%         2,2%      3,2%       7,5% 17,2%            ,0% 100%
          2          90          1      3       7            1        3           7      14           0 126
                 71,4%        ,8%    2,4%  5,6%          ,8%      2,4%       5,6% 11,1%            ,0% 100%
          3          56          1      0       0            0        2           1      10           0   70
                 80,0%       1,4%     ,0%    ,0%         ,0%      2,9%       1,4% 14,3%            ,0% 100%
          4          50          1      0       2            1        2           3      23           0   82
                 61,0%       1,2%     ,0%  2,4%         1,2%      2,4%       3,7% 28,0%            ,0% 100%
          5          71          1      1       4            3        2           3      14           0   99
                 71,7%       1,0%    1,0%  4,0%         3,0%      2,0%       3,0% 14,1%            ,0% 100%
          6        107          12      0       3            8       16          16      15           1 178
                 60,1%       6,7%     ,0%  1,7%         4,5%      9,0%       9,0%     8,4%         ,6% 100%
  Total            431          16      5      23          15        28          37      92           1 648
                 66,5%       2,5%     ,8%  3,5%         2,3%      4,3%       5,7% 14,2%            ,2% 100%




As the table indicates, 66.5% of the total amount of articles was about Thailand; this
number of reports increased in the second and third period and then decreased before
increasing again. Articles that primarily referred to Lao PDR were the least common.

There have neither been steady increases nor decreases during the research in regards to
the nationalities of individuals appearing in newspapers. However when exploitation of
individuals where exploited it is significant to note a sudden increase in amount of articles
about Burmese being exploited; from 8.6% during the first period to 19.8% in the second
period. The number of articles about Burmese then decreased again and stayed around
10% during the remaining periods. This can reinforce the conclusions that were previously
drawn in relation to the increase in articles during the second period, many of the articles



                                                  36
were about Burmese migrants, perhaps as a result of the sufferings they underwent after
the Tsunami.




4.1.7 Migrant Labour and Related Exploitation

This is one of the core elements of the research; how has the news coverage about
migrant workers in particular changed during the three years of research? The table below
indicates the changes;

TABLE 4: Articles about Migrant Labour

                                  Articles about Migrant Labour

                                             Migrant Labour
                                                                             The
                                                                            article
                                Problems Administr                         was not
                    Problems     caused ative/legis More than               about
                    faced by       by      lative   one of the None of     migrant
                    migrants    migrants  issues      above    the above   labour      Total
  Period   1               24           1        13          6         3          46        93
                       25,8%        1,1%    14,0%       6,5%       3,2%      49,5%     100,0%
           2               44           5         9          5         2          61      126
                       34,9%        4,0%     7,1%       4,0%       1,6%      48,4%     100,0%
           3               22           3        13          6         2          24        70
                       31,4%        4,3%    18,6%       8,6%       2,9%      34,3%     100,0%
           4               22           2        15          9         6          28        82
                       26,8%        2,4%    18,3%      11,0%       7,3%      34,1%     100,0%
           5               38           8         8        14          3          28        99
                       38,4%        8,1%     8,1%      14,1%       3,0%      28,3%     100,0%
           6               69          13        18        13          5          60      178
                       38,8%        7,3%    10,1%       7,3%       2,8%      33,7%     100,0%
  Total                  219           32        76        53         21         247      648
                       33,8%        4,9%    11,7%       8,2%       3,2%      38,1%     100,0%




The most significant change regarding this issue is that there has been an increase in
reports about migrant labour, from 50.5% (out of all the articles published on these issues)
in the first period to 69.8% during the sixth period. This can indicate that there has been an




                                               37
increase in interest about migrant workers in the news coverage, or as the news editor
claims that there is an increase in occurrences of exploitation revealed to journalists.49

The majority of these articles were about problems faced by migrants, the second most
common issue was administrative issues and the least frequent answer was problems
caused by migrants. During the first period 25.8% of the articles were about problems
faced by migrants, this increased and during the sixth period 38.8% of the articles had this
focus. Except for the fourth period, there has been a steady increase in reports about
problems faced by migrants; the fourth period showed instead a larger amount of articles
about administrative issues.

When it comes to exploitation of migrants, (question 12 in the coding schedule addressed
this issue), the research showed that there had been significant changes. However these
changes have not been entirely consistent, they have varied a great deal. But the increase
in articles about labour exploitation of migrants is increasing and this is a trend that cannot
be denied. The overall percentage of reports (covering all the periods) covering
exploitation of migrants is 41.7%.

TABLE 5: Exploitation of migrants

                                         Exploitation of Migrants

                                                 Form of Exploitation
                                                                                    The
                                                                                   article
                                                                                  was not
                                                                                   about
                            Labour        Sexual                                 exploitatio
                           exploitatio   exploitatio                 None of        n of
                               n             n          Both        the above     migrants     Total
     Period    1                   11              8            3            9            62        93
                              11,8%           8,6%          3,2%         9,7%        66,7%     100,0%
               2                   13              6            6           31            70      126
                              10,3%           4,8%          4,8%        24,6%        55,6%     100,0%
               3                   12              1            3           12            42        70
                              17,1%           1,4%          4,3%        17,1%        60,0%     100,0%
               4                   10              9            5           13            45        82
                              12,2%         11,0%           6,1%        15,9%        54,9%     100,0%
               5                   34              2            2            4            57        99
                              34,3%           2,0%          2,0%         4,0%        57,6%     100,0%
               6                   44              6            6           20          102       178
                              24,7%           3,4%          3,4%        11,2%        57,3%     100,0%
     Total                        124            32            25           89          378       648
                              19,1%           4,9%          3,9%        13,7%        58,3%     100,0%




49
     See Appendix 5 interview


                                                       38
Most of the reports were about labour exploitation. During period five there was a peak,
34.3% of the articles about exploitation of migrants were about labour exploitation,
compared to 11.8% during the first period and 19% as the average, covering all the six
periods. This result will be further discussed in the overall findings. Sexual exploitation of
migrants on the other hand has decreased during the time of the research. To assume
from solely this result that there has been an increase in interest/coverage of labour
exploitation, would be a mistake, however, when considering the results about human
trafficking that will be presented below, a clearer picture emerges.



4.1.8 Human Trafficking

It is essential to establish the extent of reports about human trafficking, for which purposes
and whether the reports are about cross border or internal/domestic trafficking. The
number of articles that have mentioned human trafficking, directly or by inference have
changed a lot during the time of the research. During the first period, about 56% of the
total amount of articles was about human trafficking and during the sixth period the
number was about 42%. During the three years there has been between 0 and 10% of the
reports about internal trafficking and between 11% and 28% on cross border trafficking. Of
significance is that during the fourth period, there were no reports about internal trafficking.

The most significant finding to note here is that compared to the first period, trafficking for
the purpose of sexual exploitation has decreased from 17 articles – 32.7% during Period
1:to 13 articles – 17.8% in Period 6 (out of articles about human trafficking). On the other
hand, trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation has increased over the three years,
from 4 articles – 7.7% in Period 1 to 26 articles - 35.6% (out of articles about human
trafficking) in Period 6. These changes have not been entirely systematic, but they are
significant, in particular in regards to the findings about migrant labour and related
exploitation, discussed in the previous section. It is therefore quite obvious that more
attention is given to labour exploitation in the sub-regional media coverage.



4.1.9 ‘Tone’ of the Articles

In order to determine the ‘tone’ of the article, three questions were used in the coding
schedule;50 1. How the victims of exploitation were viewed (as victims, villains or both), 2.
If the authorities were helpful or not, and 3. If the writer of the article wrote the story in a
sympathetic way toward the individuals being the subject of the article.




50
     Appendix 2: 16, 17,21


                                              39
Around 50% of the articles throughout the research period perceived the individuals who
faced exploitation as victims in need of assistance and/or protection. Further, another 5-
10% was regarded as both victims and villains.

When it comes to the attitude of the authorities, the research showed that the majority of
articles portrayed the authorities as not helpful to the individuals that faced exploitation.
The most common answer was not helpful (overall 32.6%), secondly unable to determine
(overall 32.1%) and thirdly as helpful (overall 10.2%). The period with the highest amount
of articles that described the authorities as helpful was the sixth period, 14.5%. The period
where there were most articles where the authorities were considered as not helpful
towards the people being exploited was also the sixth period, 40.6%. On the other hand
there was a low amount of articles on the unable to determine answer. This shows either
that there have been mistakes in the coding, or that the articles are clearer in its focus on
the way the authorities are perceived. This will most probably be answered in the next
research that will use the same methodology.

Finally in regards to ‘tone’ of the article, we measured changes in the way the reports were
sympathetic or not towards the exploited person/s, what we found was that there were
only slight changes in the amount of reports considered sympathetic. During the first
period 58.1% of the articles were categorised accordingly, during the same period, 6.5%
portrayed the individuals that faced exploitation as not worthy of the readers sympathy.
The same numbers for the final period is 60.9% and 8.7%. So on the whole the articles are
rather sympathetic towards the people that are being exploited.

To conclude, overall the articles are rather sympathetic and fair towards people that are
being exploited; we can however see that the authorities in the country of exploitation are
considered less helpful. To further analyse this and break it down into nationalities etc.,
some questions have been cross tabulated in the next part of the report.



4.1.10 Age and Gender

The purpose of determining the trends in age and gender of the people that are being
exploited is to some extent to determine whose voices are heard in the media coverage.
We know that women and children are the most vulnerable to human trafficking. This is
also expressed in the media coverage. Table 6 and 7 below show the full breakdown of
gender and age for the entire research period, divided into the six different periods.

TABLE 6: Gender




                                             40
                                    Gender of the Exploited Person/s

                                                      Gender
                                                                                             No
                                                                                        individual/
                                                                       Unable to          s faced
                                                                       determin         exploitatio
                        Male         Female             Both               e                 n           Total
  Period   1                   2             30               13                 31                17           93
                           2,2%          32,3%            14,0%              33,3%             18,3%       100,0%
           2                   9             30               23                 39                25         126
                           7,1%          23,8%            18,3%              31,0%             19,8%       100,0%
           3                   2              9               16                 21                22           70
                           2,9%          12,9%            22,9%              30,0%             31,4%       100,0%
           4                   3             23                7                 19                30           82
                           3,7%          28,0%             8,5%              23,2%             36,6%       100,0%
           5                   6             18               28                 25                22           99
                           6,1%          18,2%            28,3%              25,3%             22,2%       100,0%
           6                  11             31               50                 43                43         178
                           6,2%          17,4%            28,1%              24,2%             24,2%       100,0%
  Total                       33           141              137                178               159          648
                           5,1%          21,8%            21,1%              27,5%             24,5%       100,0%



TABLE 7: Age

                                   Age of Exploited Person/s

                                                      Age
                                                                                           No
                                                                                      individual/
                                                                   Unable to            s faced
                      Children                                     determin           exploitatio
                       Youth         Adults           Both             e                    n           Total
  Period   1                 23            5                15            33                   17            93
                        24,7%          5,4%             16,1%         35,5%                18,3%        100,0%
           2                 33           10                 9            49                   25          126
                        26,2%          7,9%              7,1%         38,9%                19,8%        100,0%
           3                 12            3                 8            25                   22            70
                        17,1%          4,3%             11,4%         35,7%                31,4%        100,0%
           4                 14           10                 3            25                   30            82
                        17,1%         12,2%              3,7%         30,5%                36,6%        100,0%
           5                 24            5                18            30                   22            99
                        24,2%          5,1%             18,2%         30,3%                22,2%        100,0%
           6                 43           13                34            46                   42          178
                        24,2%          7,3%             19,1%         25,8%                23,6%        100,0%
  Total                    149            46                87           208                  158          648
                        23,0%          7,1%             13,4%         32,1%                24,4%        100,0%


As table 6 shows the amount of articles about males has increased from the first to the last
period, 2.2% to 6.5%, the number of articles referring primarily to females has decreased
to some extent, from 32.3% in period 1 to 21.7% in the sixth period.

In regards to age, 23% of all reports were about children and about 7.1% about adults.



                                                   41
This showed that there are only slight changes up and down in regards to gender and age.
Women and children remain the most visible groups in the sub-regional media coverage
throughout the research.



4.1.11 ILO IPEC TICW in the Media Coverage

Finally the research determined to what extent the project is being mentioned, either direct
or by inference. This intended to show the actual visibility of the project in regards to the
issues of human trafficking, migration and related exploitation. As expected, most of the
articles did not refer to the project directly. However, we can still see that the final period
showed the highest amount of articles referring directly to the project, future analyses can
tell if it a phenomenon on the rise or if the change is only temporary. Table 8 below
displays the full depiction;



TABLE 8: References

                                     Reference to ILO IPEC TICW

                                                   Reference

                                                   Referenc
                                                   e to same                    No
                         Direct       Indirect       kind of                relation at
                       reference     reference        work        Unsure        all       Total
  Period   1                     4             2            25          2            60        93
                             4,3%          2,2%         26,9%        2,2%        64,5%    100,0%
           2                     3             2            28          1            92      126
                             2,4%          1,6%         22,2%         ,8%        73,0%    100,0%
           3                     1             1            11          0            57        70
                             1,4%          1,4%         15,7%         ,0%        81,4%    100,0%
           4                     3             2            15          0            62        82
                             3,7%          2,4%         18,3%         ,0%        75,6%    100,0%
           5                     4             8            18          0            69        99
                             4,0%          8,1%         18,2%         ,0%        69,7%    100,0%
           6                     9             4            33          0           132      178
                             5,1%          2,2%         18,5%         ,0%        74,2%    100,0%
  Total                         24            19          130           3           472      648
                             3,7%          2,9%         20,1%         ,5%        72,8%    100,0%


As previously mentioned, the analysis showed that most of the articles did NOT refer to
the project. However, although decreasing, between 26% and 17% referred to the same
kind of work as the ILO/IPEC TICW. The project was quoted or directly referred to in 24 of
the 648 articles and indirectly referred to in 19 of the articles; hence the project was
involved, in some way, in 43 articles, 6.6% of the total amount of articles (648).




                                                   42
All of the findings discussed above are provided in order to give a brief overview of the
main findings of the analysis. The following part will analyse the findings more in depth, by
cross tabulating different variables from the coding schedule. In this way it is possible to
see how the different questions and answers are dependant on each other and related.
The findings of such an analysis provide more in-depth information about the research.



4.2 Cross Tabulations52

Many questions cannot be analysed properly with solely a table or a graph. In some
instances it is insufficient just to analyse one question at a time. The SPSS has a feature
where it is possible to cross tabulate the answers for different questions; this can generate
more interesting facts than an analysis of one question alone. The purpose with the cross
tabulations below is to provide a broad overview of the way the reports have been coded
and to show how the questions are related to each other.



4.2.1 Perceptions of Migrants

The results from question 12 and 16 in the coding schedule were cross tabulated in
relation to the period of publication. The aim was to determine which forms of exploitation
migrants endured and how this was related to how they were perceived in the reports.

An analysis of all six periods showed that in 93.5% of the articles where migrants had
been sexually exploited they were seen as victims in need of protection and assistance.

On the other hand, overall, in 77.9% of the articles where migrants had been enduring
labour exploitation, they were seen as victims in need of protection and assistance.

In regards to these variables, Period 3 and 6 stands out. In Period 3, only 50% of the
reports where migrants that had endured labour exploitation portrayed the migrants as
victims in need of protection and assistance. 33% of the same group were both seen as
victims and persons that should be prosecuted and/or deported. 100% of the sexually
exploited persons were seen as victims.

In Period 6, there were for the first time a larger proportion of people being seen as victims
in the labour exploitation group than in the group where people have been sexually
exploited. 85.2% (labour exploitation) versus 83.3% (sexual exploitation). There has thus
been an increase in articles where persons that are being exploited for slave labour are
seen as victims. Whether or not this depends on a greater awareness of the plights of
migrant workers is hard to determine here, but the analysis can at least shed some light on
the issue. This finding can be related to the previously discussed issue, that labour


52
     For an example of cross-tabulations see Appendix 8


                                                      43
exploitation seems to have been put on the agenda during the research. There seems to
be greater awareness about this form of exploitation, this will be further discussed in 4.2.2.

Moreover, by cross tabulating question 9, the nationality of the person/s being exploited
and question 1753 we can determine towards which nationalities the authorities are
helpful/unhelpful. The most significant things that we found were that slightly more than
25% (60 articles) of the reports about authorities being unhelpful were about Stateless
people/ethnic minorities, and out of all the articles about Stateless people/ethnic
minorities, 75% were reports where the authorities were unhelpful. This group of people
stood out in this cross tabulation. On the other hand, by cross tabulating nationality
(question 9) and impression of the reader (question 21) we can detect that in the great
majority of articles published about Stateless people/ethnic minorities, the article was
sympathetic towards this group. 77.5% of all articles about Stateless people/ethnic
minorities in this group and only 6.3% of the articles did not have a sympathetic view. This
tells us that the articles are rather critical when it comes to authorities; there is a space to
criticise and be sympathetic. Another thing that became clear is that out of the total
amount of articles that were written in a sympathetic way, slightly less than 25% were
about Thais. This was the nationality which got most sympathies. This is rather expected
due to the fact that the newspapers are based in Thailand.



4.2.2 Labour Exploitation versus Sexual Exploitation

During the period of the research, there has been a change regarding reports about
exploitation of migrants. In Period 1, 35.5% of the reports about exploitation of migrants
were about labour exploitation and 25.8% were about sexual exploitation. In Period 5,
31.8% of these reports were about labour exploitation and 6.3% about sexual exploitation.
Period 6 showed that 57.9% of these reports were on labour migration and 7.9% were
about sexual exploitation. These numbers show that there has been an increase in interest
for labour exploitation during these three years. When we add this finding to first
crosstabulation, discussed in 4.2.1 we can see that there is a systematic change
concerning exploitation of migrants, reports about labour exploitation has been put on the
agenda to a larger extent during the last parts of the three year period of research. To be
able to detect trends and consistencies, the next sub-regional analysis can display the
changes and maybe validate the assumptions and claims about trends in this analysis.

This increase in reporting labour exploitation can also be seen in the analysis of the
reports about human trafficking. There has been a slight decrease in the amount of reports
published about human trafficking during the course of the research. In the first period
55.9% of all articles referred in some way to human trafficking, but during Period 6, only
42% of the total amount of articles was about human trafficking. Regarding labour

53
 How were the authorities in the country where the exploitation took place seen, (1) As Helpful (2)
Unhelpful (3) Unable to determine (4) No person/s were exploited


                                                     44
exploitation, the percentage of articles has increased from 7.7% in Period 1 to 35.6%
during Period 6. Conversely, the number of articles about trafficking for the purpose of
sexual exploitation has decreased, from 32.7% during Period 1 to 17.8% of the articles
during Period 6. The sample of this variable is rather small, but it is not considered as too
small to draw conclusions from the results. The conclusions we can draw is that there has
been an increase in overall interest as well as what seems to be as increasing awareness
of labour exploitation in the sub-regional media coverage.




                                             45
CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS - INTERVIEW

This chapter will discuss the major findings of the interview with the news editor of the
Bangkok Post. The aim was, within the hour that was made available, to find out what she
thought about the changes that could be identified through the results of the content
analysis and further, another objective was to discuss the way she experienced the issues
of labour migration and human trafficking in the media coverage during the designated
period of the research (July 2004 - end of June 2007).



5.1 Findings In-depth Interview

Before she started her position in early 2006, as a news editor for the newspaper, she was
the editor for the regional desk.54 Due to her previous experience as well as her current
position, she can certainly be seen as a specialist regarding news coverage in the sub-
region. Therefore she was considered an ideal person to interview. The aim of the
interview was, as previously mentioned; to gain in-depth knowledge about these issues
and place the content analysis findings into a larger framework.

The interview was conducted at her office in the Bangkok Post building and was recorded
and then transcribed.55 The pre-determined questions were utilised and most of the time
followed. Occasionally during the interview, side tracks were discussed and some of the
issues, due to the limited time that was provided, were not discussed as much as would
have been preferred.

The main objective was to gain further understanding about the findings of the content
analysis and the sub-regional media coverage on migration and human trafficking. The
content analysis with its aims and main findings were shortly described to the news editor
to give her an idea about the aims of the interview. Even though the interview left more to
wish for, issues were discussed that are worth considering more in depth, these will be
analysed below.



5.1.1 Focus of newspaper – What is Newsworthy to the Bangkok Post?


54
  The Editor is not referred to by name since this is not relevant for the analysis. Her position as a news
editor is of essence to the analysis and not her person.
55
     For the full transcription of the interview see Annex 6


                                                         46
The main issue that came out of the interview was that there had not been any conscious
changes in editorial direction and subject interest during the three years covered by the
research. The news editor assumed that the interest in labour migration, exploitation of
migrants and human trafficking had actually decreased during the last couple of years. On
the other hand, she said that if there actually had been an increase this would most likely
depend on the fact that there had been more occurrences of human trafficking and
exploitation of migrants during this period, and not increasing interest from the point of
view of the newspapers.

This answer allows us to once again ponder the relevancy of TICW Indicator 3.1 “level of
Press interest”

From the editor’s perspective there is no inherent heightened interest in the topic, but the
level of coverage may well have increased – put down to more events or more cases of
trafficking and related labour/sexual exploitation! Rather than answering whether there is
press interest it may actually be telling us that there is simply more
trafficking/labour/sexual exploitation going on. However it may also tell us that the
authorities, NGOs, media and others are simply becoming slowly more aware of the
issues and that accounts for an increase in frequency of coverage.

The Bangkok Post reports on issues that are newsworthy and cases and issues they get
information about from the NGOs, which provide them with information on these issues.
Indeed the editor also said that the amount of articles is dependent on the contacts the
journalists and others working on the newspaper have with NGOs and international
organisations working with migration and human trafficking. Again, an increase in
frequency of coverage could mean that NGOs and UN agencies – including the ILO-TICW
project – are contributing to this increase in coverage.



5.1.2 Migration and Migrants

The interview discussed labour migration and perceptions of migrants in Thailand. The
news editor said that migration in Thailand is an old phenomenon and that there is no
specific interest at the moment that puts labour or sub-regional migration on the front page
of the newspaper. There was also a discussion about migrants being seen as a threat to
national security. Despite the already inferior and vulnerable position many cross-border
migrants find themselves in, they are sometimes portrayed in the newspapers as a threat
to national security in Thailand. The news editor said that it is the rhetoric that the
government uses, whenever there is somebody who is not like everybody else they are
seen as a threat. This is an important issue to consider since the way that the media
portrays migrants will affect the public’s perceptions.

When it comes to sympathy towards migrants, she believed that the Bangkok Post
published similar views to those presented in the Thai vernacular newspapers such as
Thai Rath. However, she added that it was likely that the Bangkok Post could be more


                                            47
critical towards the government than the Thai language newspapers, since many of the
readers of the Bangkok Post are highly educated people that have the opportunity, as well
as the views, to be critical when it comes to political issues. But, she still acknowledged
that migrants and victims of exploitation are still being stigmatised and regarded as a
threat towards national security.

The news editor also said that people feel more sympathy for refugees than for migrants
“you actually saw them living in camps”.56 According to the news editor, Thai people would
be more sympathetic towards refugees since their suffering is more apparent; this despite
the fact that there are many migrants from the other countries in the sub region who are
being exploited.

Interestingly though, while she viewed the recent wave of North Koreans making their way
to Thailand to claim refuge as victims in need of assistance, and also sympathised with
economic migrants from mainland China who have paid smugglers and faced harrowing
ordeals en route to Europe, she thought that people had a different view of Burmese
migrants who cross the border into Thailand to escape economic desperation in Myanmar:

             “Burmese migrants, we have lived with it for so long, long before the Tsunami, they started
             coming here 1988, then the Tsunami came and they were taken advantage of, and that
             was horrible. But the Burmese story, to me it didn’t draw as much interest as the Koreans
             have, because there they are fleeing an oppressive regime. And they have made this trek
             across Laos, across China by the time they get here, and when they get here they get
             diddled again. It is horrible.”57

The editor pointed out that migrants are not as easy to notice as the refugees who are
confined to special camps. The mindset seems to be; “out of sight out of mind”. This raises
the question as to whether the Thai media has a responsibility to investigate and display
the suffering of the migrants in order to make people more aware of the extent of the
problem – or whether the newspapers will only do so if an NGO or international
organization drops such a story neatly in the laps.

Furthermore, from the content analysis we detected that the majority of articles analysed
had governmental sources as their main information source. This shows that it is hard for
the newspapers to display these issues in a different way, unless they make a conscious
choice to do so. This relates to the most significant change observed from the news
editor’s point of view during the last couple of years regarding the overall news coverage.
She said that there has been an increased focus on politics and economy rather than
social issues. It takes more for a report about social issues to reach the front page than a
report about the political climate in Thailand, perhaps understandably since the
extraordinary events in recent months including the coup d’etat of a popularly elected Thai



56
     News Editor, the Bangkok Post, Interview 14 June 2007, See Appendix 6
57
     Ibid.


                                                     48
government! Further, the news editors said that she, neither as a Thai, nor as a news
editor would have any problems or hesitations with publishing articles critical towards the
Thai government. But still from the content analysis we saw that governmental sources
are still the main sources of the articles, they are also frequently quoted in many other
articles, thus one can assume that the criticism is limited. One can also assume that as
long as the newspapers continue to report what the governmental sources say without
criticising it, it is hard to change the way the reports portray migrants, hence the public’s
perceptions will not change.58



5.1.3 Human Trafficking

On the issue of human trafficking the editor said she believed that there was less interest
now than there had been a couple of years ago. It was thought to depend on the fact that it
is not a new problem; but she said that the actual term “human trafficking” was more
widely used now.

           “I know that there was a time when there were a lot                                    of
           seminars organised here on human trafficking, especially last year. I think that all of a
           sudden international agencies and foreign governments realised that there is a problem,
           money was around for people to organise seminars. For a while there was compassion
           fatigue from my part, because there were so many seminars, how can you go forward when
           there are so many things going on at the same time.”59

Thus, the news editor believed that this interest had faded. She said that there was a
greater amount of articles and interest when it was found that the previously discussed
Chinese migrants were illegally working under horrendous circumstances in England and
when the North Koreans were fleeing to Thailand. However, overall the new editor
believed that the interest in human trafficking has faded in the last couple of years, due to
the fact that there is nothing new about it anymore.



5.1.4 Coverage

Another important issue to ponder on is the lack of follow-ups. A review of the articles
shows that there is a lack of interest in doing follow-ups and to have more in-depth
reporting on these issues. The news editor confirmed this fact and pointed out that they
wish to have follow-ups on the big stories, but it is not always possible to find the right
source or to get in contact with the victim.




58
     McCargo, D. already cited.
59
     News Editor, the Bangkok Post, Interview 14 June 2007, See Appendix 6


                                                     49
The news editor also stated that the Bangkok Post is following the “flow” and unless the
migrants do something in particular, something new, reports will not be in the news.



The interview was beneficial for this research since it provided an insight to the
background of the coverage on these issues. Exploitation of migrants and victims of
human trafficking are being displayed to the public through newspapers and other forms of
media on an ad hoc basis. It is essential for the media to make more conscious choices
regarding the way they portray the issues.




                                           50
CHAPTER 6: FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Final Conclusions

This part of the report will discuss the collected findings of the content analysis and
attempt to align some of them with the interview from the Bangkok Post. The main
objective stated in the beginning of the report was to determine if the media coverage had
changed, if it had increased or decreased. Furthermore the aim was also, with the
assistance of the interview and the features of the content analysis, to determine ‘how’ the
coverage had changed – while attempting to measure the ‘tone’ of that coverage.



6.1.1 Coverage

The results of the content analysis showed that there has been an increase in frequency of
articles about labour migration and human trafficking since the third period of research
(July 1st – December 31st 2005). The highest amount of articles published on these issues
was in the most recent period of research (January 1st – June 30th 2007). Since the
increase was observed simultaneously in both newspapers, it is rather fair to assume that
the increase in articles will continue and due to the rather long period of increase (2 years)
the change is most likely not temporary. However, who or what is responsible for this
increase in frequency is less clear. There have been various explanations provided, such
as the uncovering of labour exploitation on brick kilns in China and the Thai government’s
decision to deport a group of Hmong from Thailand to Lao PDR. But these things do not
fully describe the great increase in articles on these issues. A future analysis conducted
with the same methodology might shed some light on this peak, if it was temporary or if
the trend is systematic.

The interview with the Bangkok Post editor revealed her assumption that the increasing
frequency of reports were probably a result of more instances of exploitation being
revealed, and not related at all to any changes or heightened interest by news editors in
relation to migration or human trafficking as an area of specific “Press Interest”– if
anything, she said trafficking was becoming less interesting – and while she didn’t say so
directly, the inference taken by the researcher was that trafficking and migration were in
some ways being viewed as ‘yesterday’s story.’

When it comes to the way the media coverage has specifically changed during the
research period, it is fair to say that there has been an increasing focus on labour
exploitation in comparison to a slight decrease in articles about sexual exploitation, both in


                                             51
regards to exploitation of migrants and human trafficking. The formerly discussed results
of the content analysis showed that labour exploitation is increasingly being put on the
agenda. In accordance with what the news editor said about these issues, it might be the
case that there are more occurrences of this form of exploitation. Another reason to the
increase in articles about labour exploitation might be that there is more awareness of the
problem now than there were before. NGOs and international organisations, such as ILO
are working to raise awareness about the plight of migrant workers. To attribute the
change in coverage to that factor solely would be unreasonable, but in combination with
the increasing interest from the governments in the sub-region to handle these issues and
the increase in cases being uncovered, we can then draw inferences and say that these
are the factors that have made the increase so dramatic the last periods of research. This
is not in any way to say that sexual exploitation is decreasing or that it is less of a problem
than labour exploitation, but rather that there might be a clearer and more balanced picture
emerging in the media coverage.



6.1.2 Administrative Issues in the Media Coverage60

Through the content analysis we found that there were many reports which either had
governmental sources as the main sources of information or administrative issues as
primary or secondary focus of the article. This correspond to the news editors claims that
she had seen an increase in interest in economic and political issues in the coverage. Both
human trafficking and migration have become important political issues for the
governments in the sub-region so many of the articles that are related to these issues are
also about administrative issues. In 2004, Thailand initiated their new registration process
for migrant workers from the other countries in the sub-region. Concurrently, MOUs have
been signed with the aim to regulate migration for employment. In regards to human
trafficking, most of the governments have engaged in the sub-regional fight against human
trafficking and have signed MOUs to respond to trafficking too. So evidently, many of the
articles during these three years have been about these inter-governmental and sub-
region agreements. The fact that these issues have come up on the agenda for the
governments in the sub-region shows that there is increasing awareness of the problem at
a policy-level and the content analysis has shown us that this change in government
interests has (as expected) coincided with an increasing amount of articles published. The
editor’s remarks that the Bangkok Post doesn’t actively pursue these stories but rather
waits for governments, NGOs or international organizations to bring them to their attention
would seem to confirm this finding. The media also seems to rely on the governmental
sources to address these issues and less so on reports directly from the victims
themselves – this also confirms the previous findings of researcher Duncan McCargo.61


60
     By Administrative issued I mean, e.g. the registration process, police actions, governmental actions etc.
61
     McCargo, D. already cited.


                                                         52
As long as these sources of information are correct and fair, there is no problem of letting
them have their say, but it is also of relevance to give the victims of exploitation and
people that are at risk of exploitation a voice, so that the public can better see the reality of
the situation from a human perspective. When we cross tabulated primary and secondary
focus, we saw that administrative issues and foreign migrants in Thailand made up the
overwhelming majority of articles, in comparison to other combinations. So the coverage is
to a large extent built on the views and actions of the governments in the sub-regions (in
this analysis mainly the Thai government since the newspapers analysed are Thai
newspapers). One thing that might change the coverage is if the newspapers would make
an active effort to include more people that have been exploited – to tell their stories - and
those advocating on behalf of them, in order to display an as accurate picture as possible
to the public.



6.1.3 The ‘Tone’ of the Articles

Regarding sympathies towards people that have been exploited, we can see from the
cross tabulations previously discussed that Thai migrants/victims of trafficking and
exploitation are the group that get the most sympathy according to the articles analysed.
This was discussed in the interview with the news editor, and she confirmed the fact that
they are more likely to be sympathetic towards Thais since that is their main target
readership. The articles were also rather sympathetic towards Stateless people/ethnic
minorities; however the authorities in the countries of exploitation were not seen as helpful
towards this group. This is problematic in the sense that Stateless people/ethnic minorities
are vulnerable to human trafficking and exploitation, in order for this to change; efforts are
needed not only from NGOs and international organisations but also from the
governments. But the fact that the articles are sympathetic62 is also positive in the sense
that it shows the public that they are a vulnerable group.

Other nationalities did not get as much sympathy in the articles as the Thais did, the
sample was too small in some of the cases, and the conclusions would only be ‘best
guesses’. But it is clear, as the news editor pointed out, that there is a lack of interest
about the migrants and trafficked people from other countries in the sub-region. The
location of the newspapers in Thailand and the Thai target readership makes this a rather
expected finding. The phenomena of human trafficking and migration are not new and as
long as nothing new happens, then it will not make it into the news.

Overall, the articles did paint a fairly positive picture of the situation in regards to
sympathies. 59% of the articles had a sympathetic view; only 6% were not sympathetic
towards those who had been exploited. Further, more than 50% of the articles portrayed
the people that had been exploited as victims while only 9% were viewed as villains and

62
 This finding was found in Question 21 in the coding schedule, for a full breakdown of numbers, see
Appendix 7


                                                    53
7% as both victims and villains. However the negative finding in this regard is that only
10% of the authorities were considered helpful and 33% as not helpful.63 But this final
finding on the other hand seems to confirm that the Bangkok Post can be critical towards
authorities in their articles.64 If this then is the true picture, then action is needed in this
regard to change the way the authorities address individuals that have been exploited.

Finally another thing to note in regards to perceptions of migrants is that only 32 of the
articles, 4.9% were about migrants causing problems. This finding is contrary to the
findings from, e.g. the Abac poll where most of the Thais, 79.9% (of those who took part in
the poll) could recall reading about migrants being responsible for criminal activity in the
newspapers, but only 41.1% could recall reading articles about migrants being abused or
cheated (in the industrial and agricultural sectors). This is one of the findings that was
rather surprising in regards to previous research. To determine what this variation in views
depend on is outside the scope of this research, but it might be beneficial to analyse the
vernacular press in Thailand to see if there are similar proportions of articles about
migrants that are causing problems.

This analysis has showed that there is an increase in news coverage if not “interest” in the
broader definition, and thus one might assume in awareness of the problems related to
migration and human trafficking.

There are clearly limitations and weaknesses in content analysis, but the findings here do
show a trend in frequency and tone of news reporting. The addition of qualitative In-Depth
interview can help to further decipher the findings of the quantitative methods.

Given the time and resources, further qualitative efforts were not possible. The findings
here would suggest another survey be conducted as the TICW project approaches its final
reporting period to see if the trends continue, and that more time be allowed for a greater
number of interviews with news reports and editors in the sub-region be included in that
research.

6.2 Recommendations

     •   Closer cooperation with the newspapers with the aim of presenting a more
         diversified picture of migrants and victims of human trafficking. Assist the
         newspapers in finding newsworthy stories which are reflecting the reality of migrant
         workers and victims of exploitation.




63
  These are findings from Question 16, 17 and 21 from the coding schedule, see Appendix 7 for the full
numbers
64
  Since there was only one interview, with the news editor at the Bangkok Post, it is impossible to draw any
conclusions about the views of The Nation on this point.


                                                     54
       •   Encourage the newspapers to follow-up on reports about people being charged for
           labour exploitation and human trafficking (e.g. abusive employers, etc).



       •   Awareness raising campaign in the media on the reality of cross-border migration-
           related human trafficking. With the aim to change the negative stereotypical views
           of migrant workers in Thailand.65



       •   Analyse the local language news papers in Thailand to detect which messages are
           being conveyed to the Thai people. The results of such an analysis can be
           interesting to compare with the findings of this research. Similar research in other
           countries in the sub-region can also be beneficial to determine which messages
           are being portrayed to the public in the other countries. This kind of research is
           believed to be beneficial when designing mass media awareness raising
           campaigns.



       •   For the purpose of further similar analyses – change the following in the coding
           schedule;

              I. add a question to determine who wrote the article, international news
                 agencies or the newspaper’s “own” hired journalists

              II. determine in which part of the newspaper the article was published, e.g.
                  business, local etc.

             III. differentiate in some way between illegal migrants and legal migrants

             IV. revisit the question about employment sectors, as it is now, the question did
                 not add anything specific to the findings of the content analysis as a whole




65
     Abac Poll results show that there are these negative views and it is time to take action


                                                         55
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dow, Allan An American Angle: Foreign news in the United States and the United States
in Foreign News (A Masters Degree dissertation accepted by the Faculty of Social
Sciences) University of Leicester, 2005

Hansen, Anders et al Mass Communication Research Methods 1998, London: Palgrave

Martin, Phil The Contribution of Migrant Workers to Thailand: Towards Policy
Development (Draft Report), ILO, 2007

McCargo, Duncan Politics and the Press in Thailand: Media Machinations, 2000, Garuda
Press: Bangkok

Milivojenic, Snjezana Media Monitoring Manual, 2003, Media Diversity Institute,
European Commission, London

Mytton, Graham. Handbook on Radio and Television Audience Research, 1999, BBC
World Service Training Trust, UNESCO, UNICEF

Pearson, Elaine The Mekong Challenge: Underpaid, Overworked and Overlooked, 2006,
Bangkok: ILO IPEC TICW. Found at www.childtrafficking.net

The Image of Migrants in              Society,   2004,    IOM.    Found     at     www.iom-
seasia.org/resource/pdf/image.pdf



Other sources:

Broadmoor, Tony 2002 “Land of Guile: Migrant Workers in Thailand” Mae Sot, Thailand

ILO/MIGRANT, “Singapore Symposium” May 2007, Conference address by Manolo
Abella, ILO

Abac poll 2006 found at www.childtrafficking.net

Know your Audience: chapter 16 Content Analysis www.audiencedialogue.org/kya.html
Audience Dialogue, 2005 Edition



Web Pages:

www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/child/trafficking/presscentre.htm

www.childtrafficking.net



                                            56
www.bangkokpost.com

www.nationmultimedia.com

www.audiencedialogue.org/index.html




                                      57
Appendix 1: Terms of Reference for the research




              ILO-IPEC Mekong Sub-regional Project to Combat Trafficking

                         in Children and Women (ILO-TICW)




         Terms of Reference for a Content Analysis of Newspaper Reports

     on the subjects of Trafficking, Migration and Labour/Sexual Exploitation

             in the Greater Mekong Sub-region (sub-regional analysis)




1.    Background:



      As part of a response to project outputs to meet Immediate Objective 3, a
      systematic method is needed to gauge the ‘extent’ of press interest as specified in
      Output 3.1:



             3.1 OUTPUT (IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE) INDICATOR

             Extent of press interest and coverage of project related messages and
             activities, both in opinion pages and news articles in countries, sub-
             regional and/or international media



      That ‘extent’ will presumably not remain static but will indeed change as the project
      progresses and its work, and the work of others, results in greater press interest in
      the areas of trafficking, labour and sexual exploitation of migrants, etc




                                           58
     Therefore, a way to monitor, measure and report on the increase (or decrease) in
     the ‘extent’ of that press interest is required.



     Since early 2004, the project has collected literally hundreds of news reports from,
     among others, the two main journals of record in the GMS: The Bangkok Post
     and The Nation – both English-language newspapers based in Bangkok.



2.   Proposed Research:



     Using established mass communication research methods, under the overall
     supervision of the CTA, and specifically the Communications Officer, an Intern
     attached to the TICW project, Ms Jenny Bjork, has been assigned the task of
     systematically sorting the news articles into specific time periods (to coincide with
     the TPRs) and systematically analyzing their content.



     Since the word ‘press’ is specifically used in the project document’s Objective 3
     Indicator, ‘newspapers’ are being used as the common medium to be examined.



     The news articles will be analyzed to determine if they meet a certain set of criteria
     (see Item 3 below). Those that meet the criteria will be examined to determine not
     just the extent or amount of press interest in various pre-selected topics (see
     below), but also how those issues, individuals and groups are portrayed in the
     reports.



     A coding schedule will be developed to analyze the content, the results of which
     will be aggregated via SPSS or similar research software. An analytical report of
     the main findings including various cross-tabulations will then be submitted to the
     CTA for her consideration.



     The first group of articles to be selected is those which appeared in the two
     newspapers of record between 1st July 2004 and 30th June 2007.




                                           59
     The ‘extent’ of press interest will then be accounted for in Technical Progress
     Reports (TPRs) every six months, beginning with the TPR for July – December
     2007. The aggregate will also be entered at this time with an appropriate
     explanation as a footmark in that TPR. However, a baseline will be set using the
     outcome of the analysis from July – December 2004 as the initial ‘indicator’ of
     extent of ‘press interest’.



     It is anticipated that a second content analysis will take place later using the same
     coding schedule (for the purposes of systematic comparison) to cover the periods
     July 2007 to the end of June 2008. Therefore the final period for the purpose of
     comparison (to the baseline) will be January – June 2008. This will form the basis
     of a final narrative and quantitative report on the change in extent of press interest
     from Output 3.1, and will be written in August 2008, prior to winding up of the
     project.




3.   Selection of news reports:



     The selection of news articles must also be systematic and therefore a specific ‘list’
     of potential ‘issues’ has been agreed upon. In order to be considered for coding,
     the article or report must include at least one or more of the following references by
     mention or inference:



     1. Trafficking (e.g. as in human trafficking – not drug trafficking)

     2. Migration or Migrant

     3. Prostitution

     4. Labour

     5. Stateless people

     6. Begging/beggars

     7. Maids/Domestic Workers

     8. Fishing boats or seafood processing

     9. Agricultural workers


                                            60
     10. Manufacturing workers



     AND must also include at least one or more of the following references by mention
     or inference:



     1. Thailand

     2. Cambodia

     3. China’s Yunnan Province

     4. Lao PDR

     5. Viet Nam

     6. Myanmar



4.   Research Question:



            “How are the issues of human trafficking and labour/sexual
            exploitation of individuals, especially migrants, covered in the main
            sub-regional journals of public record and what are their frequencies
            of coverage, and how, if at all, does coverage of these issues change
            over time (Quantitatively and Qualitatively)?”



     Aside from counting how many news reports fall into the above categories or how
     many times a certain word is mentioned (e.g. “trafficking”), the overriding purpose
     of this content analysis is to determine the ‘way’ in which the issues of trafficking,
     migration – especially involving foreign or cross-border migrants and the labour
     and sexual exploitation they may face – is covered in the sub-region.



     When there were reports of migrant exploitation or cross-border trafficking, how
     was it reported? Were the people being trafficked/exploited seen as victims in need
     of assistance, causing problems in their own right, or people who should have
     realized they were asking for trouble? Were individuals the main focus of the
     reports? Or were the news reports focused less on the problems faced/caused by



                                           61
trafficking/migration/exploitation of individuals and more on ‘administrative’ issues
such as bi-lateral and multi-lateral inter-governmental approaches?



5. Limitations of Content Analysis



As with all content analysis there are various limitations beyond those normally
associated with other types of analytical research. Since the material being
analysed already exists, there is no way to ‘ask questions of it’ – unlike in a
random-sample survey of individuals is one of the more obvious examples of these
special limitations.



Since the news reports are being selected through a pre-set ‘criteria’ – the criteria
itself can be questioned. Why weren’t other criteria used? If other criteria had been
used would that have changed the ‘tone’ of the overall narrative and findings of the
final report? When choosing the criteria, are we choosing criteria that suit a pre-
determined or desired outcome – a real bias?



Why use only English-language publications to gauge sub-regional trends in news
reporting about these issues?



These are fair questions and the answers are not easy. However, given the
limitations of time and resources, primarily a systematic way needed to be
developed to select reports which needed to be limited in criteria so as not to make
the task overly cumbersome. Two English-language journals were chosen from
Thailand as they are the two most visible and substantial papers in the sub-region.
However, even given their supremacy is editorial content and quality of reporting, it
could easily be argued that these papers will automatically bias their reporting in
both quality and (arguably) sympathetically to issues about Thailand. Does that
then mean that this is not a ‘true’ sub-regional sampling?



The main point here is to be consistent in the way the analysis is conducted and to
be sure that the next analysis, anticipated in a year’s time, will follow the same
systematic and consistent methods for analysis and then comparison.




                                      62
Appendix 2: Coding Schedule

    ILO-TICW SUB-REGIONAL NEWS CONTENT ANALYSIS CODING SCHEDULE




    1. Article Number:

    2. Period:

             1. July – Dec. 2004

             2. Jan. – June 2005

             3. July – Dec. 2005

             4. Jan. – June 2006

             5. July – Dec. 2006

             6. Jan. – June 2007

    3. Newspaper:

             1. Bangkok Post

             2. The Nation

    4. This article is:

             1. A news report

             2. An opinion piece/letter to the editor:

    5. The “Primary” focus of this report/editorial is about:

    (* Indicates direct and indirect sex work such as massage, karaoke, bar-beer, snooker
bar, etc.)

             1. Foreign migrant workers in Thailand (non sex, no direct trafficking
             reference)


                                               63
                2. Stateless people/ethnic minority migrant workers in Thailand (non sex, no
                direct trafficking reference)

                3. Thai migrant workers in another country (non sex, no direct trafficking
                reference)

                4. Non-Thai migrant workers in a country (other than Thailand) (non sex, no
                direct trafficking reference)

                5. Clearly defined report about human trafficking in Thailand

                6. Clearly defined report about human trafficking in another country/countries

                7. Clearly defined report about labour exploitation in Thailand

                8. Clearly defined report about labour exploitation in another country/countries

                9. Prostitution/sex work* in Thailand (adults without trafficking/exploitation
                reference)

                10. Prostitution/sex work* in another country (adults without
                trafficking/exploitation reference)

                11.           Prostitution/sex work* in Thailand (with a trafficking/exploitation
                             66
                reference)

                12. Prostitution/sex work* in another country (with a trafficking/ exploitation
                reference)67

                13. Administrative actions by Governments, Police and/or other State
                authorities

                14. More than one of the above

                15. None of the above

                16. Unclear


66
     Will also include all those under 18 years of age in sex work as being ‘exploited’
67
     As above


                                                         64
       6. The “Secondary” focus of this report/editorial is about:

       (* Indicates direct and indirect sex work such as massage, karaoke, bar-beer, snooker
bar, etc.)

                1. Foreign migrant workers in Thailand (non sex, no direct trafficking
                reference)

                2. Stateless people/ethnic minority migrant workers in Thailand (non sex, no
                direct trafficking reference)

                3. Thai migrant workers in another country (non sex, no direct trafficking
                reference)

                4. Non-Thai migrant workers in a country (other than Thailand) (non sex, no
                direct trafficking reference)

                5. Clearly defined report about human trafficking in Thailand

                6. Clearly defined report about human trafficking in another country/countries

                7. Clearly defined report about labour exploitation in Thailand

                8. Clearly defined report about labour exploitation in another country/countries

                9. Prostitution/sex work* in Thailand (adults without trafficking/exploitation
                reference)

                10. Prostitution/sex work* in another country (adults without
                trafficking/exploitation reference)

                11.           Prostitution/sex work* in Thailand (with a trafficking/exploitation
                reference)68

                12. Prostitution/sex work* in another country (with a trafficking/ exploitation
                reference)69


68
     Will also include all those under 18 years of age in sex work as being ‘exploited’


                                                         65
                13. Administrative actions by Governments, Police and/or other State
                authorities

                14. More than one of the above

                15. None of the above

                16. There is no clearly defined “secondary” focus of this report




      7. Which person or group(s) provides the main source(s) of information (or
          quotes) in this report:

                1. People in positions of authority (e.g. government bodies, police)

                2. People that are now being, or have been, exploited by others

                3. People directly at risk (or afraid) of being exploited by others

                4. Non-governmental sources/people who are advocating on behalf of those
                   who have been exploited or are at risk of being exploited (e.g. NGOs,
                   Academics, UN agencies, unions, employer’s groups, etc.)

                5. Non-governmental sources/people, but those who are not specifically
                   advocating on behalf of persons who have been, or fear, exploitation (e.g.
                   NGOs, Academics, UN agencies, unions, employer’s groups, etc.)

                6. More than one of the above

                7. Others/none of the above




      8. Which country is referred to primarily:

                1. Thailand

                2. Myanmar


69
     As above


                                                  66
       3. Lao PDR

       4. Cambodia

       5. Viet Nam

       6. China

       7. More than one of the above

       8. One or more of the above and one or more countries outside the GMS

       9. Unclear/no specific reference to a country




9. If the story makes reference to exploitation of individuals, to which
   nationality did the ‘exploited’ person/s primarily belong:

       1. Thai

       2. Burmese

       3. Laotian

       4. Cambodian

       5. Vietnamese

       6. Chinese

       7. Ethnic minorities/stateless people

       8. More than one of the above

       9. None of the above

       10. Unable to determine

       11. There were no person/s being exploited in the news story




10. If the news story was about migrant labour, was the main focus on:

                                       67
       1. Problems faced by migrants

       2. Problems caused by migrants

       3. The registration process or other administrative legislative issues

       4. More than one of the above

       5. None of the above

       6. The news story was not about migrant labour




11. If the news story was about problems caused by migrant workers, were they:

       1. To highlight the need for better regulation/enforcement of the workers

       2. To highlight that the workers are in poor health and/or spreading diseases

       3. To highlight that the workers are taking jobs from nationals of the country
          they work in

       4. To highlight that they are responsible for criminal activity

       5. More than one of the above

       6. None of the above

       7. The story was not about problems caused by migrant workers




12. If the news report was about exploitation of migrants, was it about:

       1. Labour exploitation

       2. Sexual exploitation

       3. Both

       4. None of the above

       5. The news story was not about exploitation of migrants

                                         68
13. If the news story made specific references to human trafficking (of anyone),
   was the main reason for exploitation:

       1. For the purpose of forced/coerced marriage

       2. For the purpose of adoption

       3. For the purpose of sexual exploitation

       4. For the purpose of labour exploitation

       5. More than one of the above

       6. The news story referred to human trafficking but did not specify any of the
          above

       7. There was no specific reference to human trafficking




14. If the news story made specific references to human trafficking, was it
   referring to:

       1. Internal trafficking

       2. Cross-border trafficking

       3. Both internal and cross-border trafficking

       4. The news story referred to human trafficking but did not specify any of the
          above

       5. There was no specific reference to human trafficking




15. Was the individual/s who faced exploitation a national of the country where
   the exploitation took place:

       1. Yes


                                        69
      2. No

      3. Unable to determine

      4. No individual/s faced exploitation




16. How were the individual/s who faced exploitation perceived in the report?

      1. A victim in need of assistance and/or protection

      2. An individual who was or would be detained, and/or prosecuted and/or
          deported

      3. Both 1 and 2

      4. None of the above

      5. Unable to determine

      6. No individual faced exploitation




17. How were the authorities of the country where the exploitation took place
   perceived in the report?

      1. Helpful to the person/s being exploited

      2. Not helpful

      3. Unable to determine

      4. No individual faced exploitation




18. If this news report included people who where exploited, where they
   primarily:

      1. Male



                                       70
      2. Female

      3. Both

      4. Unable to determine

      5. No individual/s faced exploitation




19. If this news report included people who were exploited and/or trafficked, in
   which age group were they?

       1. Children/Youth

       2. Adults

       3. Both

       4. Unable to determine

       5. No individual/s faced exploitation




20. Which employment sector did the news report primarily refer to:

       1. Domestic work

       2. Agriculture

       3. Fishing boats and fish processing

       4. Manufacturing

       5. Construction

       6. Begging, Street Vending or other Informal work

       7. Direct sex work (prostitution)

       8. Indirect sex work (karaoke, massage parlours, bar-beer, etc.)




                                           71
       9. Other entertainment venues (beer promotion, undetermined as indirect sex,
          etc.)

       10. None of the above

       11. More than one of the above

       12. Employment sectors were not directly referred to in the news report




21. As a reader, are you left with the impression that the reporter wrote this story
   in such a way that the exploited person/persons was deemed to be:

       1. Worthy of your sympathy or empathy

       2. Not worthy of your sympathy or empathy

       3. Unclear/None of the above

       4. No individual/s faced exploitation




22. If the news report refers to migration or trafficking which geographic areas
   are of main concern?

       1. Source areas

       2. Transit areas

       3. Destination areas

       4. More than one of the above

       5. Refers to migration and/or trafficking, but does not specify or is unclear on
          areas

       6. Does not refer to migration or trafficking




23. Does this article refer to the ILO-IPEC Mekong project’s work?


                                         72
          1. Yes, directly

          2. Yes, but indirectly (e.g. through partners doing project-sponsored work)

          3. No, but it does refer to the same kind of work or has the same or similar
             messages/advocacy that the project is trying to promote

          4. Not sure

          5. No relation at all




Appendix 3: Justification of Questions in the Coding Schedule




                                           73
This Appendix will provide comments on each of the questions in the coding schedule,
used to answer the research question and to determine the way these issues are reported
on. The rationale is to provide a description of the reasons to why these specific questions
were chosen and considered important for the study.



1. This question is used to number the articles to make them easy to locate, there are
articles between 0001 and 0648.



2. This question is determining which period the report was published in, the first period
works as a baseline for the study. The analysis covers six months periods, during the
three years between July 1st 2004 and June 30th 2007, thus 6 research periods.



3. This question is used here to find out which newspaper the unit of analysis were
published in. It shows the differences in reporting about these issues.



4. This question is determining whether it is 1) a news report or 2) an opinion piece/letter
to the editor. The reason for this division is to see if there is an increase or decrease in the
different types of articles. If there is an increase in the number of editorials and opinion
pieces on the issues analysed, then it can be fair to assume that the issues have created a
greater interest among the public. The fact that news are often sensational makes the
impact greater if there is a rise in the opinion pieces and editorials, which expresses the
views of people that are usually not advocating for vulnerable people. The media is
supposed to create a space for the public to express their views on various issues and this
question can determine to which extent the public is getting its voice heard.



5. and 6. These questions were included to determine primary and secondary focus of the
units of analysis. The first coding schedule had only primary focus of the articles, but when
the coding schedule was pilot tested, it became evident that a secondary focus could shed
some extra light on the issues that were reported on. This was helpful in the coding of the
articles since many of them had two strong stories in the same article. Not only can the
content analysis and these specific questions tells us things about trends and changes,
there is also a possibility of detecting what is not reported on. By having many possible
answers to the questions of primary and secondary focus, we have detected the issues
that are well covered in the selected media. Thus, it is a beneficial method of
understanding the inadequate coverage of a number of issues as well as determining the
extent of the coverage on other issues.



                                              74
7. This question is determining which person/s is providing the main source/s of
information. This question can provide important information on who gets their voice/s
heard in the media.



8. This question determines which country is referred to in the article. This is a sub-
regional analysis, but since both newspapers are situated in Bangkok and has a Thai
target group, there is an awareness of the fact that the majority of articles will be about
Thailand.



9. This is determining the nationality of the possibly exploited person/s. This question was
added with the intention to see if there were any particular nationalities being exploited.
This can provide us information on where to focus research and projects. The
preconceived notion was that the majority of individuals exploited were going to be
Burmese. This is based on the fact that about 75 to 80 percent of legal migrants in
Thailand are from Myanmar.



10. If the story was about migrant labour, what was the main reason for the article? This
question can determine whether or not there are a large amount of articles written about
problems caused by migrants. Polls and previous research has shown that a large number
of Thais do not believe that migrant workers should have the same rights as Thai workers.
This variable can tell us if this fact is reflected in the selected coverage.



11. This question is connected to the previous one and addresses the issues of migrants
causing problem. The different available answers should determine which problems
migrants usually are associated with.



12. This question addresses the problem with migrants being exploited and in what kind
of exploitation they are enduring. This question can tell us if there is any change in the way
the media reports about migrant workers, if there is a tendency to report more on sexual
exploitation than labour exploitation or the other way around. The discourse on trafficking
has traditionally been associated with sexual exploitation and since the ILO/IPEC TICW
has a focus on labour exploitation, this is a valid and important variable in determining
impact and focus of future advocacy work.



13. This question is addressing the problem of trafficking and the reasons thereof. The
intention with this question is twofold; firstly it is essential to see how the number of reports

                                               75
about trafficking has changed during the three years of analysis. Secondly, in those cases
the purpose of the trafficking is stated it is important to note which purposes of trafficking
that are highlighted. Just like the previous variable, there has been a tendency towards
reporting more on trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. This has implications
on, not only the public’s knowledge, but also on the resources that are given for combating
the problem. When there are unbalanced numbers of reports, people associate the
problem with what is more apparent in news reports and discourses.



14. Here we are trying to determine if it is internal or cross-border trafficking, which is
attaining most interest in the media coverage. This is also an important issue to address
to be able to gauge the way the media are reporting on trafficking in the sub-region.



15. This question is intended to determine if the persons being exploited were a national of
the country of exploitation or not. The meaning was to determine if there is a bias in
reports dealing with foreign migrants or trafficking victims compared non-foreigners.



16. This is an important part of the research; this variable was included with the intent to
see how migrants are portrayed in the media. We already know from previous research
that a large extent of the Thai public have a negative image of migrant workers in
Thailand.70 This question can determine the extent of negative images in the reports. This
analysis will also discuss how the person/s that was exploited is portrayed, as victims or
people that ought to be detained and/or prosecuted.



17. Here we are trying to determine how the authorities are treating migrants and victims
of exploitation.



18. and 19. The reason for these questions is to see how the media is reporting on these
issues in relation to age and gender. The project has a specific focus on children and
women, being more economically disadvantaged, under-educated, and more vulnerable to
sexual and labour exploitation. These questions can show the extent of the interest in the
most vulnerable groups of the society.




70
     Abac and Mekong Challenge Publications


                                              76
20. Here we are trying to determine if there are any particular employment groups that are
being illuminated, and if certain employment sectors are being excluded from the media
coverage.



21. This question is trying to decide the tone of the article, this is relevant for the analysis
since we are trying to determine, not only the extent of the coverage, but also the way the
coverage has changed. The problem with this question is since it requires careful
consideration of the coder. Since there was solely one coder there was no problem with
defining the different answers.



22. ILO/IPEC TICW is focusing on empowerment at source areas, there is a need to see
if this is emphasised in the media coverage.



23. This question is important in the sense that we can detect the visibility of the project in
the media coverage.




Appendix 4: Letter to the news editors of the Bangkok Post and The Nation



Dear [name]

                                              77
Ms. Jenny Bjork is conducting a research paper for the ILO/IPEC in Bangkok; she would
kindly request the opportunity to meet with you for a short interview. She is conducting a
content analysis of news coverage of trafficking and labour/sexual exploitation of
individuals, especially migrants, in the Greater Mekong Sub-region. The period covered by
this analysis is from July 2004 until July 2007, focusing on reports and editorials published
in The Bangkok Post and The Nation. The main objective is to see if, and how, the
coverage of these issues in the news media has changed during the selected period of
time of the research.



The reason for the interview is the desire to add some depth to this quantitative method of
research. It is believed that an interview with the news editors can shed some light on, and
add information about, the news coverage of these issues. It is relevant for Ms Bjork to
know if there have been changes in editorial direction or subject interest of news editors
when publishing reports on trafficking and foreign migrants working in Thailand and
abroad during this period.



For your convenience she would offer to come to your office, and would not take up more
than one hour of your time. However, it would be greatly appreciated if you could confirm
and meet with her within the next two weeks.



Please, send your confirmation by fax or call the following numbers;



Fax: 02 288 3063

Mr. Allan Dow, Communications Officer: 02 288 2057

Ms. Jenny Bjork: 02 288 1354



Best Regards



Appendix 5: Questions to the news editors

These are the questions which were prepared in advance for the interview, there is no
specific order and the formulation of the questions might change during the interview.



                                             78
Firstly, I wonder about the circulation of the Bangkok Post and which the target groups
your newspaper have, who are your readers?



   1. It seems the whole issue of foreign migrant workers in Thailand is in the news quite
      a bit. Can you explain that?



   2. It seems like there has been an increase in the number of reports on human
      trafficking and migration. Is there any explanation to this, Thailand has traditionally
      had hundreds of thousands of migrants working here routinely for years. Do you
      know why there is so much attention to the topics now?



   3. Have there been any changes in editorial direction and/or subject interest of news
      editors when publishing reports on human trafficking and foreign migrants working
      in Thailand and abroad since 2004?



   4. Do you think the news coverage has become more or less sympathetic to abuses
      that some migrants might face in Thailand? What makes you think that way?



   5. Do you think that coverage (more or less sympathetic) is a mirror reflection of
      changing attitudes in Thai society? Or do think it reflects only the view of the
      middle or upper middle classes?



   6. Do you think that the Thai language newspapers express similar attitudes and
      views?



   7. Is it possible for you to detect changes for example in the way people are writing to
      the opinion pages?



   8. In many of the latest news articles there are a lot of references to "national security
      issues" when the labour migration news is raised in the press. How are these poor
      disenfranchised, disadvantaged migrants a security threat to Thailand? (Isn't that a


                                             79
      bit xenophobic?) Is there a rational argument for framing news reports about
      migrants as 'threats to national security'? Or are reporters just following the lead of
      the PooYai in reporting these things? Perhaps there is a hidden agenda by the
      PooYai in trying to frame stories in such a way?



   9. There have been Letters to the Editors, etc, that ask why the Post and Nation don't
      follow up on reports about migrant abuses. There is an initial story about for
      example an employer being charged for a crime like in the Ranya Paew Seafood
      Factory case, or the young Burmese maid who had her head bashed in by her Thai
      employer and left for dead on a Bangkok street. There are initial reports but then
      no follow up on whether someone goes to prison. (there is one notable exception
      recently -- that's the where the slavery law was used successfully....but this is a
      rare exception.)



   10. As a news editor and as a Thai, would you hesitate to publish or assign a story to a
       reporter about ill-treatment of foreign migrants at the hands of Thai employers if
       you felt it made Thailand 'look bad'?



   11. Which changes have you been able to detect during your time as a news editor
       regarding the reports on these issues?




Appendix 6: Transcription of interview with News Editor at The Bangkok Post, June
14, 2007 at the Bangkok Post building, Klong Thoey




                                            80
I= Interviewer



NE= News Editor



Before the recording of the interview started, the interviewer shortly described the aim of
the interview and described the content analysis that has been conducted.



I- First I want to ask you which your target groups are at Bangkok Post?

NE- Readers? Our readers are mainly middle class educated Thais who buy the paper to
keep up the English as well as the news. There is also the international community but
they are very much a minority.

I- How many papers do you distribute each day?

NE-      I haven’t got a clue. You are asking about the circulation?

I- Yes

NE-     I don’t know, this is supposed to be a secret. We used to run the audited number
on the front-page, but we don’t any more. It is something like 60 000 – 70 000 it is not big,
but that is a figure since god knows when.



I-     First of all, we can see from this content analysis that there has been an increase
in amount of articles about migration issues.

NE-      Since when?

I-     Since 2004, we started the content analysis, and there has been quite a steady
increase, do you have any idea of what this can…

NE-      Since 2004, I wonder why. I know that there was a time when there were a lot
of seminars organised here on human trafficking, especially last year. I think that all of a
sudden international agencies and foreign governments realised that there is a problem,
money was around for people to organise seminars. For a while there was compassion
fatigue from my part, because there were so many seminars, how can you go forward
when there are so many things going on at the same time. So that is one reason (to the
increase of the number of reports) all of a sudden there was this interest. 2004, do that
coincide with the Chinese going to England, they went all the way to Dover. Cause that
was the first horrible case, for me anyway.



                                               81
I- In the beginning of 2005 there was a very high increase in amount of articles and
many of them were about Burmese migrants, results from the Tsunami. Do you think that
this can be related?

NE- Well, I certainly do not link the Tsunami to the high increase, not at all. My personal
thing is that case in Dover, the Snakeheads in South China. I think that they were the first
scandalous cases.



I-     So since 2004, you haven’t had any change in editorial interest regarding migrants,
migrant workers…

NE-      No we just go by the… whatever comes. Yes, for a while after the tsunami there
were of course the question of Burmese, but I don’t remember going big on it. But as I told
you earlier I only took on this job earlier last year. So before that, there was a bit on the
Burmese, but this year, starting since last year, the North Koreans. But I think why is there
an interest in human trafficking in particular. Because people fleeing their home countries.
At the end of the Indochina war and all that we talked about refugees and economic
migrants, but people who are being victims of human traffickers, these are economic
migrants, right, more than refugees fleeing prosecution, and I think it is less of an appeal
to me personally. It is a real problem, but I think that, even from China, they are not purely
economic migrants, they are fleeing a repressive regime and they have got the money to
flee.



I-      So you do not contribute the high increase in amount of articles to anything you
have done in the paper to change the view about migrants, human trafficking and these
issues?

NE-       No, it is whatever the NGOs kick up and we send reporters along, there is no
conscious policy to specifically zero in on this topic. Whereas after the Indochina war there
was a conscious effort because it was so big. Hundreds of thousands of Cambodians,
Vietnamese and Lao in Thailand, then it was a political story, then there was a conscious
effort, whereas the traffickers are a part of the globalisation, the economic…it is less
appealing than the refugee issues. But I don’t censor I just go with it, we just go with the
flow, there is no conscious attempts.



I-     Is there a problem in reporting about trafficking, contrary to the refugees that can be
measured, it is impossible to put a figure on the number of people being trafficked. Is it
less appealing for you due to this?



                                             82
NE- Because the numbers are smaller? No. The refugees was a big wave yes. But it is a
terrible thing (human trafficking), the (North) Koreans, I think that’s… Burmese migrants,
we have lived with it for so long, long before the Tsunami, they started coming here 1988,
then the Tsunami came and they were taken advantage of, and that was horrible. But the
Burmese story, to me it didn’t draw as much interest as the Koreans have, because there
they are fleeing an oppressive regime. And they have made this trek across Laos, across
China by the time they get here, and when they get here they get diddled again. It is
horrible.



I-      And do you think that the news coverage has been more or less sympathetic
towards these migrants in Thailand?

NE- Last couple of years? More or less sympathetic? I think the same, it is just that… I
don’t think that we are less sympathetic. I forgot…After the Koreans we have had the
Cambodians who are going down south, that is a case of human trafficking. But you don’t
feel for them as much as you did for the refugees, I don’t know why, I suppose that
numbers helped, and you actually saw them living in camps. These people I suppose
haven’t been as… Since I have been an editor I haven’t actually seen how they live.



I-    Do you think that your paper, Bangkok Post and The Nation, these English language
newspapers presents a different view of migration issues and trafficking than Thai Rath or
the other Thai language newpapers?

NE- I think a different view… no I don’t think so, I don’t really read reports about human
trafficking in Thai Rath. I read Thai Rath for Thai politics, so it is hard for me to say many
big headlines and pictures, sensational. I don’t really know what the stories are about.



I-       The last couple of…I don’t know… months, or maybe a year, in the newspapers,
there has been references to migrants being a threat to national security. Do you think that
it is a fair assumption to say that these poor, uneducated people…

NE- This is very much Thai government thinking. The refugees were a threat to national
security. Everything that causes a hitch in somebody’s routine that is a threat to national
security, it is normal, you get to be blasé about it because…when there isn’t much to say,
that comes up.

I- so it is more a reflection of Thai politics than the public’s perceptions?

NE- Yes it is how government officials talk, they don’t really know how to explain things. I
mean in a way it is true, they are a threat to national security, cause it could lead to, well
for instance the Cambodians I mean if they are here to fight for the militias then they are a


                                               83
threat to national security. But if they are going down there just to get their patch of rice
field, then they are not. But you just don’t know.



I- Could you like…as an editor of a Thai newspaper and as a Thai could you publish
articles about…critical towards Thai politics on these issues?

NE- Yes

I- So that is no problem for you?

NE- No, we used to a lot more for the Op ed pages, but you know. Since I have been
involved in the news, it is just get the news out. Whoever says what, try and get both sides
of the story. The idea is balance but it is not always possible.

I- In comparison with Thai Rath, can you be more or less critical towards the government?

NE- We can be more critical. You are talking about people who were against the former
priminister, very critical, pushed him out of the country basically.



I- Another thing we were thinking about is the fact that there are many articles published
about for example people being charged for forced labour or beating up their domestic
workers and there are seldom follow-up stories on these articles. Do you agree, do you
see it like this is there a reason for this?

NE- The thing is it is a question about access to information, sometimes these things
come up in a seminar and you get the full story, we try to get the follow up. Sometimes it is
not possible. But if it was on the front page we try, unless it is impossible, or I forgot about
it. But if it is big, we insist, some one has been so so so and so on a factory or whatever,
beaten up in a factory, we try to talk to the factory owner. So we do encourage follow-ups
as a principle but it is not always done, I agree. But sometimes it is like the girl in the
labour bit has done the big expose, and the next day is her day off and nobody else have
any contact, practical issues. And sometimes it is just the story that is there, she can’t find
any leads, or there is a lead but she can’t get hold of the guy or the guy won’t talk.



I- So are you cooperating with NGOs in that way?

NE- Yes we are talking with NGOs and we are talking with academics labour specialists
the ILO people

I- So ideally a front page issue should have a follow-up story?

NE- Yes but I haven’t seen labour issues becoming a front page issue the last time.



                                              84
Paus

I- I have one more question about the opinion pieces that you run in your paper, do   you
see any changes there about migration and trafficking, are people sending in more or less
articles?

NE- Not more or less, there is a bit of a desert about migration, except for the Koreans,
there was a bit of a ho ha about that. I haven’t notices anything in the op ed for a long time
about migration.

I- When the government started the registration process there were..

NE- yes, in the beginning there was a bit with the deadline and all that, but now it has
become a brief, three paragraphs and that is finished.

I- So you actually think that there is a decrease in interest?

NE- Yes that is true I have noticed that. Because in 2004 it was a new issues and human
trafficking was new, to Thailand, you know people getting stuck in a container, sent from
China to England, that was horrible. You followed it for a while.

I- And then there was no new..

NE- No nothing, nothing dramatic. I mean the fact that people are trafficked across
borders, it is just that the term has been new, people have been taken advantage of
before, people marginalising people for ages. People have been crossing borders, so for
Thailand it is like nothing new. Holding great seminars, on so called human trafficking but
we have had problems with migration for ages.

I-so you think these views… some of the articles have shown that there is a negative view
of migrants, do you think that this then is deeply rooted in the Thai society?

NE- Migrants, there is something in the Thai society that is a bit racist, you think of
somebody that is not just like you as somebody not quite up to standards so to speak. And
even some people think that about westerners about the farangs. So that is fairly deep
rooted. Is it only the Thai, I mean do Westerners look at the Indians and think, oh they are
a bit funny, isn’t that the same? Or Chinese, they can only do fish and chips or something.

I- Maybe, but the fact that Thai migrants, or migrants from other countries in the sub region
are taking jobs from Thais, and are responsible for spreading diseases…

NE- Well the diseases a little bit, but I don’t think they are accused for taking jobs from
Thias, you see we don’t have an unemployment problem really If we did, there would be
that feeling a bit, but we don’t really have it now, people, if they can’t get jobs, they go get
their pushcarts and start frying up things, you know, people are entrepreneurs, little
people. They are finding a way to get ends meet, we don’t have people living in card box
houses here as much as you do in Europe.



                                              85
Paus

NE- We don’t that, because, well if we think about migrants from Cambodia, Laos and
Burma, if they take our jobs… their jobs is in domestic service, they are not very attractive,
Thais don’t want, they are jobs that Thais don’t want or in fishing factories or canning
factories, hard labour. Who wants that?

I- Because it is beneficial for the Thai society, right? Taking the jobs that Thais don’t want.

NE- It is difficult to get Thai maids, you know, domestic servants, so if we got them we
hang on to them for life.(….)

I- it is interesting to hear you say this about these issues about trafficking that you believe
that there has been a decrease in interest actually. Because in many other places it is the
opposite.

NE- But they are going to Europe more now, cause here there is only next door, from
Cambodia to Thailand, it is not a big change so they don’t, you know, the economic
benefits are, the margins are not that big, ok we are richer, they get to France, oh my god
what do they get, a lot more, the French are willing to give the Indochinas, well not so
much Cambodians, but Vietnamese, they get so many privileges, or they used to. I mean
you see haw many Vietnamese people in the French foreign ministry, you know they get
French nationality…

I- so actually you would be more likely to put a report about thais in Quatar or Quwait in
the paper than Burmese in Thailand? Because it would be more interesting to read or is
that true?

NE- well Burmese in Thailand, what, if they do something new, I mean Burmese in
Thailand has been doing what they are doing for a long time. They are working in
domestic service, they are in the fishing industry, you know if they do something new like if
they start killing people, killing us that is in the news.

I- But from the exploitations side you would be more likely to…

NE-Worry about how Thais are exploited yes, because it is a Thai newspaper.

I- Yes (…) so you don’t see any big changes from your side during these years?

NE- No we don’t there is no conscious policy, to… unless you must give them space,
whatever happens we will cover it, and if there is a big story we will give them more space,
otherwise it is not a privileged sector so to speak.

I- And do you see more, like more journalists trying to pitch stories these issues?

NE- No, not especially since the last year, it is all politics. We have got people on
Burmese, I got my, we used to have an actual regional desk and I used to be the editor of
that, we were a team of four, now the regional desk does not exist but the girl who follows


                                              86
regional issues, she’ll come up with some Burmese story or so. But it is mainly about…no.
Whatever comes is through the NGOs, forum Asia said this yesterday, some dreadful
thing, some statement, Asian human rights commission or whatever. And then it is, it is
just what NGOs say. There is not a… we are a bit limited as to actual feel the work and
seeing the migrants, we haven’t done that for a while, well because for a start it is difficult,
they don’t wanna talk. I know that there are many sad stories but not of them are really
new. I am sure there are some individual variations, but afterwards they are detainees
they are migrants that have migration problems and have been taken advantage of, been
there forever.

I- So there is nothing new basically

NE- nothing drastic has happened to… there is no story that seem to cause your heart to
bleed because it have done something terrible. You know the latest things the catered doll
factory, but that involved Thais. You have had cases of Burmese being suffocated
somewhere, I don’t know where, but it has happened. If you think about tak bay in the
south, what is happening in the south and the political development during the last two
years at least, whatever social issues come up, it is things that affect Thais that comes
first. Ok what happens to our neighbours, refugees, migrants, they’re important too but
sometimes we live that to the wire and that goes on the regional page that is it, there are
so many local stuff to cover.

I- When it comes to feature stories are you publishing more “happy ending stories”?

NE- good stories are feature stories, in the news we only follow the bad news, we don’t
have good news, unless they are about the king or the royal family (….).

I- theses stories, you seem to publish a lot of these stories.

NE- yes the features section, we care and that kind of stories, they do nice stories.

I- cause it is... it seems to be a lot about trafficked people or migrants.

NE- That is right, there is an editor there who is actually interested in these things and
she’s got, contacts, she’s got relatives working in an NGO that deals with this it helps.

I- would you like to see closer contacts with…you and international organisations and
NGOs and have more cooperation, is there a need for it or you already have..?

NE- all our reporters have NGO contacts, I still have NGO contacts, I am in touch with
international organisations, ILO (…) I used to be really close to UNHCR, cause I did
feature issues, but since several have gone (….abroad…), so every once in a blue moon
there is a UNHCR story.

I- Finally, I thought that there would be a change in the way you have decided to report on
these issues due to the increase, we have seen a small increase since 2005

NE- Because there have been more incidents.

                                               87
I- So it is not a change in your way of working

NE- No we just follow the flow, keep covered. Don’t wanna miss out.

I- so it is actually a reflection of the society

NE- it is a social event, it is a social problem, so we follow it. Social problems don’t get as
much space as political problems. Certainly in the past three years. Two years certainly,
three year, since Thaksin it is all politics.




Appendix 7: All Variables Cross tabulated with Period




                                                   88
               Period_2 * Newspaper_3 Crosstabulation

                                        Newspaper_3
                                        1         2           Total
Period_2   1      Count                    60        33            93
                  % within Period_2    64,5%     35,5%        100,0%
           2      Count                    83        43          126
                  % within Period_2    65,9%     34,1%        100,0%
           3      Count                    42        28            70
                  % within Period_2    60,0%     40,0%        100,0%
           4      Count                    44        38            82
                  % within Period_2    53,7%     46,3%        100,0%
           5      Count                    51        48            99
                  % within Period_2    51,5%     48,5%        100,0%
           6      Count                   112        66          178
                  % within Period_2    62,9%     37,1%        100,0%
Total             Count                   392       256          648
                  % within Period_2    60,5%     39,5%        100,0%




                 Period_2 * Type_4 Crosstabulation

                                            Type_4
                                        1            2        Total
Period_2   1      Count                    82            11        93
                  % within Period_2    88,2%         11,8%    100,0%
           2      Count                  116             10      126
                  % within Period_2    92,1%          7,9%    100,0%
           3      Count                    64             6        70
                  % within Period_2    91,4%          8,6%    100,0%
           4      Count                    70            12        82
                  % within Period_2    85,4%         14,6%    100,0%
           5      Count                    86            13        99
                  % within Period_2    86,9%         13,1%    100,0%
           6      Count                  156             22      178
                  % within Period_2    87,6%         12,4%    100,0%
Total             Count                  574             74      648
                  % within Period_2    88,6%         11,4%    100,0%




                                            89
                                               Period_2 * Primary_focus_5 Crosstabulation

                                                                            Primary_focus_5
                       1       2       3        4       5       6       7        8       9       10       11       12       13       14       15       16       Total
Perio 1     Count       14      12     1            1       8   10          1        0       2        3        7    11       13           6        4        0     93
            % within15,1% 2,9% ,1% 1,1% 8,6%10,8% 1,1% ,0% 2,2% 3,2% 7,5%11,8% 4,0% 6,5% 4,3% ,0%00,0%
        2   Count       31         7   2            0   10          9   13           2       4        1        9        9    15           4    10           0    126
            % within24,6% 5,6% ,6%             ,0% 7,9% 7,1%10,3% 1,6% 3,2% ,8% 7,1% 7,1% 1,9% 3,2% 7,9% ,0%00,0%
        3   Count       17         5   6            1       4       4       7        0       2        1        5        0    14           1        3        0     70
            % within24,3% 7,1%8,6% 1,4% 5,7% 5,7%10,0% ,0% 2,9% 1,4% 7,1% ,0%20,0% 1,4% 4,3% ,0%00,0%
        4   Count       12         6   5            1       7   14          7        2       0        0        4        1        8        7        7        1     82
            % within14,6% 7,3%6,1% 1,2% 8,5%17,1% 8,5% 2,4% ,0% ,0% 4,9% 1,2% 9,8% 8,5% 8,5% 1,2%00,0%
        5   Count       21      14     1            2       4       7   18           5       1        1        2        2        4        3    14           0     99
            % within21,2% 4,1% ,0% 2,0% 4,0% 7,1%18,2% 5,1% 1,0% 1,0% 2,0% 2,0% 4,0% 3,0%14,1% ,0%00,0%
        6   Count       30      28     7            5   16          7   16       20          2        2        5        6        8        3    23           0    178
            % within16,9% 5,7%3,9% 2,8% 9,0% 3,9% 9,0% 1,2% 1,1% 1,1% 2,8% 3,4% 4,5% 1,7%12,9% ,0%00,0%
Total       Count      125      72 22           10      49      51      62       29      11           8    32       29       62       24       61           1    648
            % within19,3% 1,1%3,4% 1,5% 7,6% 7,9% 9,6% 4,5% 1,7% 1,2% 4,9% 4,5% 9,6% 3,7% 9,4% ,2%00,0%




                                                Period_2 * Secondary_focus_6 Crosstabulation

                                                                           Secondary_focus_6
                        1       2          3        4       5       6     7     8     9    10   11   12   13  14   15   16 Total
Period1     Count          5       5   0    0     5    3                    7     1     0     0    2    1  19    3  10   32    93
            % within P 5,4%    5,4% ,0% ,0% 5,4% 3,2%                   7,5% 1,1% ,0% ,0% 2,2% 1,1% 20,4% 3,2% 10,8% 34,4% 00,0%
        2   Count         10       1   0    1    10    2                    1     1     1     0    2    4  25    2  23   43 126
            % within P 7,9%     ,8% ,0% ,8% 7,9% 1,6%                    ,8% ,8% ,8% ,0% 1,6% 3,2% 19,8% 1,6% 18,3% 34,1% 00,0%
        3   Count          9       1   1    0     2    0                    4     4     1     0    0    1  17    1  10   19    70
            % within P12,9%    1,4% 1,4% ,0% 2,9% ,0%                   5,7% 5,7% 1,4% ,0% ,0% 1,4% 24,3% 1,4% 14,3% 27,1% 00,0%
        4   Count          3       2   1    2     2    3                    0     4     0     0    0    8  16    5    5  31    82
            % within P 3,7%    2,4% 1,2% 2,4% 2,4% 3,7%                  ,0% 4,9% ,0% ,0% ,0% 9,8% 19,5% 6,1% 6,1% 37,8% 00,0%
        5   Count         16       3   1    1     6    3                    6     0     0     1    1    2  20    6    6  27    99
            % within P16,2%    3,0% 1,0% 1,0% 6,1% 3,0%                 6,1% ,0% ,0% 1,0% 1,0% 2,0% 20,2% 6,1% 6,1% 27,3% 00,0%
        6   Count         10       6   0    3     9    5                   13    11     0     1    0    2  42    3  25   48 178
            % within P 5,6%    3,4% ,0% 1,7% 5,1% 2,8%                  7,3% 6,2% ,0% ,6% ,0% 1,1% 23,6% 1,7% 14,0% 27,0% 00,0%
Total       Count         53      18   3    7    34   16                   31    21     2     2    5  18 139   20   79 200 648
            % within P 8,2%    2,8% ,5% 1,1% 5,2% 2,5%                  4,8% 3,2% ,3% ,3% ,8% 2,8% 21,5% 3,1% 12,2% 30,9% 00,0%




                                                                                90
                                            Period_2 * Info_source_7 Crosstabulation

                                                                          Info_source_7
                                            1            2           3          4             5            6            7            Total
Period_2 1         Count                    29              13           5         26             5            8            7            93
                   % within Period_2    31,2%           14,0%        5,4%      28,0%          5,4%         8,6%         7,5%        100,0%
             2     Count                    50              17           6         23             6           16            8           126
                   % within Period_2    39,7%           13,5%        4,8%      18,3%          4,8%        12,7%         6,3%        100,0%
             3     Count                    25              10           3         13             2           13            4            70
                   % within Period_2    35,7%           14,3%        4,3%      18,6%          2,9%        18,6%         5,7%        100,0%
             4     Count                    21              21           5         18             5            8            4            82
                   % within Period_2    25,6%           25,6%        6,1%      22,0%          6,1%         9,8%         4,9%        100,0%
             5     Count                    24              17          10         26             5            6           11            99
                   % within Period_2    24,2%           17,2%       10,1%      26,3%          5,1%         6,1%        11,1%        100,0%
             6     Count                    68              36          12         36            10           11            5           178
                   % within Period_2    38,2%           20,2%        6,7%      20,2%          5,6%         6,2%         2,8%        100,0%
Total              Count                  217             114           41       142             33           62           39           648
                   % within Period_2    33,5%           17,6%        6,3%      21,9%          5,1%         9,6%         6,0%        100,0%




                                                Period_2 * Country_8 Crosstabulation

                                                                             Country_8
                                    1           2            3        4          5        6           7            8            9      Total
Period_2 1       Count                 57           0           1        7          2         3           7        16             0        93
                 % within Period   61,3%         ,0%         1,1%    7,5%       2,2%      3,2%        7,5%     17,2%            ,0%   100,0%
        2        Count                 90           1           3        7          1         3           7        14             0      126
                 % within Period   71,4%         ,8%         2,4%    5,6%        ,8%      2,4%        5,6%     11,1%            ,0%   100,0%
        3        Count                 56           1           0        0          0         2           1        10             0        70
                 % within Period   80,0%        1,4%          ,0%     ,0%        ,0%      2,9%        1,4%     14,3%            ,0%   100,0%
        4        Count                 50           1           0        2          1         2           3        23             0        82
                 % within Period   61,0%        1,2%          ,0%    2,4%       1,2%      2,4%        3,7%     28,0%            ,0%   100,0%
        5        Count                 71           1           1        4          3         2           3        14             0        99
                 % within Period   71,7%        1,0%         1,0%    4,0%       3,0%      2,0%        3,0%     14,1%            ,0%   100,0%
        6        Count               107           12           0        3          8        16          16        15             1      178
                 % within Period   60,1%        6,7%          ,0%    1,7%       4,5%      9,0%        9,0%      8,4%            ,6%   100,0%
Total            Count               431           16           5       23         15        28          37        92             1      648
                 % within Period   66,5%        2,5%          ,8%    3,5%       2,3%      4,3%        5,7%     14,2%            ,2%   100,0%




                                                                    91
                                      Period_2 * Nationality_9 Crosstabulation

                                                                 Nationality_9
                          1           2          3    4           5   6        7              8         9   10        11       Total
Period 1    Count          16        8          3     7           3      2      13             22      0        5       14        93
            % within Pe17,2%     8,6%       3,2% 7,5%         3,2% 2,2% 14,0%              23,7%     ,0%    5,4%    15,1%     00,0%
        2   Count          18       25          3    15           1      3      13             19      3        8       18      126
            % within Pe14,3%    19,8%       2,4% 11,9%         ,8% 2,4% 10,3%              15,1%    2,4%    6,3%    14,3%     00,0%
        3   Count          11        7          1     0           0      4       9             13      0        3       22        70
            % within Pe15,7%    10,0%       1,4%   ,0%         ,0% 5,7% 12,9%              18,6%     ,0%    4,3%    31,4%     00,0%
        4   Count          22        4          0     4           0      1       7             10      0        4       30        82
            % within Pe26,8%     4,9%        ,0% 4,9%          ,0% 1,2% 8,5%               12,2%     ,0%    4,9%    36,6%     00,0%
        5   Count          11        7          3     3           5      3      14             23      0        9       21        99
            % within Pe11,1%     7,1%       3,0% 3,0%         5,1% 3,0% 14,1%              23,2%     ,0%    9,1%    21,2%     00,0%
        6   Count          22       24          2     5           8    14       34             21      2        5       41      178
            % within Pe12,4%    13,5%       1,1% 2,8%         4,5% 7,9% 19,1%              11,8%    1,1%    2,8%    23,0%     00,0%
Total       Count        100        75         12    34          17    27       90           108       5       34     146       648
            % within Pe15,4%    11,6%       1,9% 5,2%         2,6% 4,2% 13,9%              16,7%     ,8%    5,2%    22,5%     00,0%




                                      Period_2 * Migrant_labour_focus_10 Crosstabulation

                                                                      Migrant_labour_focus_10
                                             1            2               3             4           5          6             Total
Period_2    1     Count                         24            1               13             6          3         46              93
                  % within Period_2         25,8%         1,1%            14,0%          6,5%       3,2%      49,5%          100,0%
            2     Count                         44            5                9             5          2         61            126
                  % within Period_2         34,9%         4,0%             7,1%          4,0%       1,6%      48,4%          100,0%
            3     Count                         22            3               13             6          2         24              70
                  % within Period_2         31,4%         4,3%            18,6%          8,6%       2,9%      34,3%          100,0%
            4     Count                         22            2               15             9          6         28              82
                  % within Period_2         26,8%         2,4%            18,3%        11,0%        7,3%      34,1%          100,0%
            5     Count                         38            8                8            14          3         28              99
                  % within Period_2         38,4%         8,1%             8,1%        14,1%        3,0%      28,3%          100,0%
            6     Count                         69           13               18            13          5         60            178
                  % within Period_2         38,8%         7,3%            10,1%          7,3%       2,8%      33,7%          100,0%
Total             Count                       219            32               76            53         21       247             648
                  % within Period_2         33,8%         4,9%            11,7%          8,2%       3,2%      38,1%          100,0%




                                                               92
                                          Period_2 * Problems_11 Crosstabulation

                                                                       Problems_11
                                          1           2           3          4         5        6             7            Total
Period_2 1         Count                      1           4          1           0        1        1             85            93
                   % within Period_2      1,1%        4,3%        1,1%        ,0%      1,1%     1,1%         91,4%        100,0%
           2       Count                      4           4          1           2        0        0           115            126
                   % within Period_2      3,2%        3,2%         ,8%       1,6%       ,0%      ,0%         91,3%        100,0%
           3       Count                      0           2          3           4        0        0             61            70
                   % within Period_2       ,0%        2,9%        4,3%       5,7%       ,0%      ,0%         87,1%        100,0%
           4       Count                      0           4          1           4        2        1             70            82
                   % within Period_2       ,0%        4,9%        1,2%       4,9%      2,4%     1,2%         85,4%        100,0%
           5       Count                      3           5          0          10        2        0             79            99
                   % within Period_2      3,0%        5,1%         ,0%     10,1%       2,0%      ,0%         79,8%        100,0%
           6       Count                     10           5          2           6        2        1           152            178
                   % within Period_2      5,6%        2,8%        1,1%       3,4%      1,1%      ,6%         85,4%        100,0%
Total              Count                     18          24          8          26        7        3           562            648
                   % within Period_2      2,8%        3,7%        1,2%       4,0%      1,1%      ,5%         86,7%        100,0%




                                       Period_2 * Exploitation_12 Crosstabulation

                                                                     Exploitation_12
                                                  1           2             3              4        5             Total
Period_2       1      Count                           11           8             3          9           62             93
                      % within Period_2           11,8%        8,6%          3,2%       9,7%        66,7%         100,0%
               2      Count                           13           6             6         31           70           126
                      % within Period_2           10,3%        4,8%          4,8%      24,6%        55,6%         100,0%
               3      Count                           12           1             3         12           42             70
                      % within Period_2           17,1%        1,4%          4,3%      17,1%        60,0%         100,0%
               4      Count                           10           9             5         13           45             82
                      % within Period_2           12,2%       11,0%          6,1%      15,9%        54,9%         100,0%
               5      Count                           34           2             2          4           57             99
                      % within Period_2           34,3%        2,0%          2,0%       4,0%        57,6%         100,0%
               6      Count                           44           6             6         20         102            178
                      % within Period_2           24,7%        3,4%          3,4%      11,2%        57,3%         100,0%
Total                 Count                         124           32            25         89         378            648
                      % within Period_2           19,1%        4,9%          3,9%      13,7%        58,3%         100,0%




                                                               93
                           Period_2 * Human_trafficking_13 Crosstabulation

                                                      Human_trafficking_13
                                   1            2      3       4         5        6            7        Total
Period_2 1       Count                 0         5       17       4         4       22            41        93
                 % within Period    ,0%      5,4%    18,3%    4,3%      4,3%    23,7%         44,1%    100,0%
        2        Count                 1         4       15       3         3       18            82      126
                 % within Period    ,8%      3,2%    11,9%    2,4%      2,4%    14,3%         65,1%    100,0%
        3        Count                 0         3        1       3         2       10            51        70
                 % within Period    ,0%      4,3%     1,4%    4,3%      2,9%    14,3%         72,9%    100,0%
        4        Count                 0         0       12       2         4       18            46        82
                 % within Period    ,0%       ,0%    14,6%    2,4%      4,9%    22,0%         56,1%    100,0%
        5        Count                 3         3        7      10         3       10            63        99
                 % within Period   3,0%      3,0%     7,1% 10,1%        3,0%    10,1%         63,6%    100,0%
        6        Count                 7         0       13      26         8       19          105       178
                 % within Period   3,9%       ,0%     7,3% 14,6%        4,5%    10,7%         59,0%    100,0%
Total            Count                11        15       65      48        24       97          388       648
                 % within Period   1,7%      2,3%    10,0%    7,4%      3,7%    15,0%         59,9%    100,0%




                         Period_2 * Human_trafficking2_14 Crosstabulation

                                                      Human_trafficking2_14
                                            1         2        3          4               5             Total
Period_2 1          Count                       8        18        5         21              41             93
                    % within Period_        8,6%     19,4%     5,4%      22,6%           44,1%         100,0%
             2      Count                       4        22        6         12              82            126
                    % within Period_        3,2%     17,5%     4,8%       9,5%           65,1%         100,0%
             3      Count                       2         8        3          6              51             70
                    % within Period_        2,9%     11,4%     4,3%       8,6%           72,9%         100,0%
             4      Count                       0        23        1         12              46             82
                    % within Period_         ,0%     28,0%     1,2%      14,6%           56,1%         100,0%
             5      Count                       2        20        0         14              63             99
                    % within Period_        2,0%     20,2%      ,0%      14,1%           63,6%         100,0%
             6      Count                      23        27        4         19            105             178
                    % within Period_       12,9%     15,2%     2,2%      10,7%           59,0%         100,0%
Total               Count                      39      118        19         84            388             648
                    % within Period_        6,0%     18,2%     2,9%      13,0%           59,9%         100,0%




                                                      94
                 Period_2 * National_country_exploitation_15 Crosstabulation

                                                National_country_exploitation_15
                                              1          2          3            4        Total
Period_2     1       Count                       21         43          12          17         93
                     % within Period_2       22,6%      46,2%      12,9%        18,3%     100,0%
             2       Count                       15         72          13          26       126
                     % within Period_2       11,9%      57,1%      10,3%        20,6%     100,0%
             3       Count                        7         34           7          22         70
                     % within Period_2       10,0%      48,6%      10,0%        31,4%     100,0%
             4       Count                        9         37           6          30         82
                     % within Period_2       11,0%      45,1%        7,3%       36,6%     100,0%
             5       Count                        7         58          12          22         99
                     % within Period_2        7,1%      58,6%      12,1%        22,2%     100,0%
             6       Count                       37         82          16          43       178
                     % within Period_2       20,8%      46,1%        9,0%       24,2%     100,0%
Total                Count                       96        326          66         160       648
                     % within Period_2       14,8%      50,3%      10,2%        24,7%     100,0%




                              Period_2 * Percieved_16 Crosstabulation

                                                        Percieved_16
                                     1        2          3        4       5       6        Total
Period_2 1       Count                  57        9         2         6      2       17        93
                 % within Period_   61,3%     9,7%      2,2%      6,5%    2,2%   18,3%    100,0%
        2        Count                  70       10        12         5      4       25      126
                 % within Period_   55,6%     7,9%      9,5%      4,0%    3,2%   19,8%    100,0%
        3        Count                  31        5         8         4      0       22        70
                 % within Period_   44,3%     7,1%     11,4%      5,7%     ,0%   31,4%    100,0%
        4        Count                  38        1         4         7      2       30        82
                 % within Period_   46,3%     1,2%      4,9%      8,5%    2,4%   36,6%    100,0%
        5        Count                  58       11         5         3      0       22        99
                 % within Period_   58,6%    11,1%      5,1%      3,0%     ,0%   22,2%    100,0%
        6        Count                  95       21        15         4      0       43      178
                 % within Period_   53,4%    11,8%      8,4%      2,2%     ,0%   24,2%    100,0%
Total            Count                349        57        46        29      8     159       648
                 % within Period_   53,9%     8,8%      7,1%      4,5%    1,2%   24,5%    100,0%




                                                      95
                           Period_2 * Authorities_17 Crosstabulation

                                                            Authorities_17
                                              1              2           3        4        Total
Period_2       1     Count                    13                31          32       17         93
                     % within Period_2    14,0%             33,3%       34,4%    18,3%     100,0%
               2     Count                    11                33          57       25       126
                     % within Period_2     8,7%             26,2%       45,2%    19,8%     100,0%
               3     Count                     5                26          17       22         70
                     % within Period_2     7,1%             37,1%       24,3%    31,4%     100,0%
               4     Count                     5                19          28       30         82
                     % within Period_2     6,1%             23,2%       34,1%    36,6%     100,0%
               5     Count                     8                33          36       22         99
                     % within Period_2     8,1%             33,3%       36,4%    22,2%     100,0%
               6     Count                    25                74          36       43       178
                     % within Period_2    14,0%             41,6%       20,2%    24,2%     100,0%
Total                Count                    67               216         206     159        648
                     % within Period_2    10,3%             33,3%       31,8%    24,5%     100,0%




                            Period_2 * Gender_18 Crosstabulation

                                                            Gender_18
                                      1            2            3         4       5        Total
Period_2 1         Count                  2           30          13        31       17        93
                   % within Period_   2,2%        32,3%       14,0%     33,3%    18,3%    100,0%
           2       Count                  9           30          23        39       25      126
                   % within Period_   7,1%        23,8%       18,3%     31,0%    19,8%    100,0%
           3       Count                  2            9          16        21       22        70
                   % within Period_   2,9%        12,9%       22,9%     30,0%    31,4%    100,0%
           4       Count                  3           23           7        19       30        82
                   % within Period_   3,7%        28,0%        8,5%     23,2%    36,6%    100,0%
           5       Count                  6           18          28        25       22        99
                   % within Period_   6,1%        18,2%       28,3%     25,3%    22,2%    100,0%
           6       Count                 11           31          50        43       43      178
                   % within Period_   6,2%        17,4%       28,1%     24,2%    24,2%    100,0%
Total              Count                 33         141          137      178      159       648
                   % within Period_   5,1%        21,8%       21,1%     27,5%    24,5%    100,0%




                                                       96
                                     Period_2 * Age_19 Crosstabulation

                                                                  Age_19
                                              1           2         3        4        5        Total
 Period_2 1          Count                       23           5        15       33       17        93
                     % within Period_        24,7%        5,4%     16,1%    35,5%    18,3%    100,0%
             2       Count                       33          10         9       49       25      126
                     % within Period_        26,2%        7,9%      7,1%    38,9%    19,8%    100,0%
             3       Count                       12           3         8       25       22        70
                     % within Period_        17,1%        4,3%     11,4%    35,7%    31,4%    100,0%
             4       Count                       14          10         3       25       30        82
                     % within Period_        17,1%       12,2%      3,7%    30,5%    36,6%    100,0%
             5       Count                       24           5        18       30       22        99
                     % within Period_        24,2%        5,1%     18,2%    30,3%    22,2%    100,0%
             6       Count                       43          13        34       46       42      178
                     % within Period_        24,2%        7,3%     19,1%    25,8%    23,6%    100,0%
 Total               Count                     149           46        87     208      158       648
                     % within Period_        23,0%        7,1%     13,4%    32,1%    24,4%    100,0%




                        Period_2 * Employmentsectors_20 Crosstabulation

                                                     Employmentsectors_20
                       1       2       3       4       5    6    7     8   9   10  11   12 Total
Period1     Count         0      0       2       2       0    3   15   10    0   1    7   53   93
            % within P ,0%     ,0%   2,2%    2,2%     ,0% 3,2% 6,1% 0,8% ,0% 1,1% 7,5%57,0%00,0%
        2   Count         6      0       3       5       2    5   20     4   0   2   12   67 126
            % within P4,8%     ,0%   2,4%    4,0%    1,6% 4,0% 5,9% 3,2% ,0% 1,6% 9,5%53,2%00,0%
        3   Count         3      1       4       3       1    2    6     3   0   1    7   39   70
            % within P4,3%    1,4%   5,7%    4,3%    1,4% 2,9% 8,6% 4,3% ,0% 1,4% 0,0%55,7%00,0%
        4   Count         3      2       1       3       2    3   13     3   1   0    6   45   82
            % within P3,7%    2,4%   1,2%    3,7%    2,4% 3,7% 5,9% 3,7% 1,2% ,0% 7,3%54,9%00,0%
        5   Count         6      2       7       6       1    6    8     0   0   2   12   49   99
            % within P6,1%    2,0%   7,1%    6,1%    1,0% 6,1% 8,1% ,0% ,0% 2,0% 2,1%49,5%00,0%
        6   Count         6      4       8       6       4    6   17     1   1  13   11 101 178
            % within P3,4%    2,2%   4,5%    3,4%    2,2% 3,4% 9,6% ,6% ,6% 7,3% 6,2%56,7%00,0%
Total       Count        24      9      25      25      10   25   79   21    2  19   55 354 648
            % within P3,7%    1,4%   3,9%    3,9%    1,5% 3,9% 2,2% 3,2% ,3% 2,9% 8,5%54,6%00,0%




                                                          97
                                 Period_2 * Impression_reader_21 Crosstabulation

                                                                Impression_reader_21
                                                  1               2             3            4         Total
Period_2       1        Count                         54                6            16          17         93
                        % within Period_2         58,1%             6,5%        17,2%        18,3%     100,0%
               2        Count                         76                4            21          25       126
                        % within Period_2         60,3%             3,2%        16,7%        19,8%     100,0%
               3        Count                         38                4             6          22         70
                        % within Period_2         54,3%             5,7%          8,6%       31,4%     100,0%
               4        Count                         45                0             7          30         82
                        % within Period_2         54,9%              ,0%          8,5%       36,6%     100,0%
               5        Count                         65                9             3          22         99
                        % within Period_2         65,7%             9,1%          3,0%       22,2%     100,0%
               6        Count                       106                16            13          43       178
                        % within Period_2         59,6%             9,0%          7,3%       24,2%     100,0%
Total                   Count                       384                39            66        159        648
                        % within Period_2         59,3%             6,0%        10,2%        24,5%     100,0%



                              Period_2 * Geographic_area_22 Crosstabulation

                                                           Geographic_area_22
                                        1         2           3         4             5          6     Total
Period_2 1         Count                    4         2          12         7           53       15        93
                   % within Period_2    4,3%      2,2%       12,9%      7,5%        57,0%    16,1%    100,0%
           2       Count                    2         4          16         8           72       24       126
                   % within Period_2    1,6%      3,2%       12,7%      6,3%        57,1%    19,0%    100,0%
           3       Count                    3         0           5         2           43       17        70
                   % within Period_2    4,3%       ,0%        7,1%      2,9%        61,4%    24,3%    100,0%
           4       Count                    2         1          11         3           56        9        82
                   % within Period_2    2,4%      1,2%       13,4%      3,7%        68,3%    11,0%    100,0%
           5       Count                    6         3          28         4           50        8        99
                   % within Period_2    6,1%      3,0%       28,3%      4,0%        50,5%     8,1%    100,0%
           6       Count                   13         1          52        24           75       13       178
                   % within Period_2    7,3%       ,6%       29,2%     13,5%        42,1%     7,3%    100,0%
Total              Count                   30        11        124         48         349        86       648
                   % within Period_2    4,6%      1,7%       19,1%      7,4%        53,9%    13,3%    100,0%




                                                           98
                        Period_2 * Reference_ILO_23 Crosstabulation

                                                 Reference_ILO_23
                                   1          2          3        4       5        Total
Period_2   1   Count                   4          2         25        2       60        93
               % within Period_2   4,3%       2,2%      26,9%     2,2%    64,5%    100,0%
           2   Count                   3          2         28        1       92      126
               % within Period_2   2,4%       1,6%      22,2%       ,8%   73,0%    100,0%
           3   Count                   1          1         11        0       57        70
               % within Period_2   1,4%       1,4%      15,7%       ,0%   81,4%    100,0%
           4   Count                   3          2         15        0       62        82
               % within Period_2   3,7%       2,4%      18,3%       ,0%   75,6%    100,0%
           5   Count                   4          8         18        0       69        99
               % within Period_2   4,0%       8,1%      18,2%       ,0%   69,7%    100,0%
           6   Count                   9          4         33        0     132       178
               % within Period_2   5,1%       2,2%      18,5%       ,0%   74,2%    100,0%
Total          Count                  24         19        130        3     472       648
               % within Period_2   3,7%       2,9%      20,1%       ,5%   72,8%    100,0%




                                             99
Appendix 8: Cross Tabulation (Example)

                                              How are the Exploited Individual/s percieved?

                                                                                                Percieved


                                                                       2. An
                                                     1. A           individual
                                                   victim in            that                                                           6. No
                                                   need of          should be                                                        individu
                                                  assistan          detained,                                           5. Unable       al/s
                                                  ce and/or         prosecute                               4. None         to        faced
                                                  protectio          d, and/or         3. Both 1             of the     determin     exploitat
 Period                                                n             deported            and 2               above           e          ion
 1. July -           Labour Exploitation                    7                  0                   1                2            0            1
 Decemb                                                63.6%                .0%                9.1%             18.2%          .0%        9.1%
 er 2004             Sexual Exploitation                    8                  0                   0                0            0            0
                                                      100.0%                .0%                 .0%               .0%          .0%         .0%
                     Both                                   3                  0                   0                0            0            0
                                                      100.0%                .0%                 .0%               .0%          .0%         .0%
                     None of the Above                      8                  1                   0                0            0            0
                                                       88.9%              11.1%                 .0%               .0%          .0%         .0%
                     Not about exploitation                31                  8                   1                4            2           16
                     of migrants                       50.0%              12.9%                1.6%              6.5%         3.2%       25.8%
             Total                                         57                  9                   2                6            2           17
                                                       61.3%               9.7%                2.2%              6.5%         2.2%       18.3%
 2.                  Labour Exploitation                   11                  1                   0                1            0            0
 January -                                             84.6%               7.7%                 .0%              7.7%          .0%         .0%
 June                Sexual Exploitation                    6                  0                   0                0            0            0
 2005
                                                      100.0%                .0%                 .0%               .0%          .0%         .0%
                     Both                                   6                  0                   0                0            0            0
                                                      100.0%                .0%                 .0%               .0%          .0%         .0%
                     None of the Above                     20                  3                   6                2            0            0
                                                       64.5%               9.7%               19.4%              6.5%          .0%         .0%
                     Not about exploitation                27                  6                   6                2            4           25
                     of migrants                       38.6%               8.6%                8.6%              2.9%         5.7%       35.7%
             Total                                         70                 10                  12                5            4           25
                                                       55.6%               7.9%                9.5%              4.0%         3.2%       19.8%
 3. July -           Labour Exploitation                    6                  0                   4                1                         1
 Decemb                                                50.0%                .0%               33.3%              8.3%                     8.3%
 er 2005             Sexual Exploitation                    1                  0                   0                0                         0
                                                      100.0%                .0%                 .0%               .0%                      .0%
                     Both                                   3                  0                   0                0                         0
                                                      100.0%                .0%                 .0%               .0%                      .0%
                     None of the Above                      8                  1                   0                1                         2
                                                       66.7%               8.3%                 .0%              8.3%                    16.7%
                     Not about exploitation                13                  4                   4                2                        19
                     of migrants                       31.0%               9.5%                9.5%              4.8%                    45.2%
             Total                                         31                  5                   8                4                        22
                                                       44.3%               7.1%               11.4%              5.7%                    31.4%
 4.                  Labour Exploitation                    7                  0                   2                0            0            1
 January -                                             70.0%                .0%               20.0%               .0%          .0%       10.0%
 June                Sexual Exploitation                    8                  0                   0                1            0            0
 2006
                                                       88.9%                .0%                 .0%             11.1%          .0%         .0%
                     Both                                   5                  0                   0                0            0            0
                                                      100.0%                .0%                 .0%               .0%          .0%         .0%
                     None of the Above                      7                  0                   2                3            0            1
                                                       53.8%                .0%               15.4%             23.1%          .0%        7.7%
                     Not about exploitation                11                  1                   0                3            2           28
                     of migrants                       24.4%               2.2%                 .0%              6.7%         4.4%       62.2%
             Total                                         38                  1                   4                7            2           30
                                                       46.3%               1.2%                4.9%              8.5%         2.4%       36.6%
 5. July -           Labour Exploitation                   29                  2                   2                1                         0
 Decemb                                                85.3%               5.9%                5.9%              2.9%                      .0%
 er 2006             Sexual Exploitation                    2                  0                   0                0                         0
                                                      100.0%                .0%                 .0%               .0%                      .0%
                     Both                                   2                  0                   0                0                         0
                                                      100.0%                .0%                 .0%               .0%                      .0%
                     None of the Above                      3                  1                   0                0                         0
                                                       75.0%              25.0%                 .0%               .0%                      .0%
                     Not about exploitation                22                  8                   3                2                        22
                     of migrants                       38.6%              14.0%                5.3%              3.5%                    38.6%
             Total                                         58                 11                   5                3                        22
                                                       58.6%              11.1%                5.1%              3.0%                    22.2%
 6.                  Labour Exploitation                   36                  2                   0                1                         5
 January -                                             81.8%               4.5%                 .0%              2.3%                    11.4%
 June                Sexual Exploitation                    5                  1                   0                0                         0
 2007
                                                       83.3%              16.7%                 .0%               .0%                      .0%
                     Both                                   5                  0                   1                0                         0
                                                       83.3%                .0%               16.7%               .0%                      .0%
                     None of the Above                      8                  4                   2                1                         5
                                                       40.0%              20.0%               10.0%              5.0%                    25.0%
                     Not about exploitation                41                 14                  12                2                        33
                     of migrants                       40.2%              13.7%               11.8%              2.0%                    32.4%
             Total                                         95                 21                  15                4                        43
                                                       53.4%              11.8%                8.4%              2.2%                    24.2%




                                                                     100

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:8
posted:3/13/2012
language:
pages:100