At the BNC club, we did an activity in which we had to choose two viewpoints that we could write a news report about.
It was quite hard as it was difficult to select which opinions are most valuable. They were all valid but, in the we choose two that would allow us to have a balanced view. As well as this we had to try an understand which source
The options were a UN representative, a Rohingya refugee, a university student or the state counsellor for Nya mar. Though, before we decided we were given more information about them.
The UN representative was part of a committee that tried to solve world problems (the UN). Already we can start to trust this person’s point of view more than the others because the UN is a trusted international source. This means what they say is more likely to say the bare truth. Despite this a downside is that the Un has been given little access into Myanmar. They have satellite surveillance but it is debateable whether that, because it cannot be influenced by emotion, more reliable than witness reports.
The Rohingya refugee is fleeing from their country. They have witnessed first-hand the ruthless persecution and murder of fellow Rohingyas. They are jobless. Generally, a first-hand report is the most trustworthy though I would be concerned that this traumatic time influence or exaggerate what happened.
The university student is of the Buddhist majority. This majority is up to 90% of the population. This means the person, although we can assume they are intelligent, might not have much knowledge of the Rohingya minority. As well as this they learn the information they do have through a social media platform. Although gaining truthful information this way is possible, Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram are all notorious for fake news and propaganda. This means the opinion they give may be founded on false knowledge or bias.
The counsellor for Myanmar (Aung Sang Suu Ki’s) has been an activist against military rulers of Myanmar. She won a Nobel prize and had to endure on and off house arrest until 2015. Although she has stood up for justice in the past, in the Myanmar crisis, she has been refusing to condemn the military. This means she is not using her power to stand up for the Rohingyas. This is what she should be doing as state counsellor. Why she is not acting is not known.
Now we have all the people with all their descriptions it is time to select the ones you want.
Immediately, I eliminate the student from my selection as their opinion would have potentially been founded on false beliefs. This means that what they think is the truth could not be. They wouldn’t even be purposely lying. Also, they are a well-educated Buddhist citizen the complete opposite to a Rohingya because their persecution has caused lack of education.
I would definitely pick the UN representative as they are from a trusted organisation. Also, they have no reason to lie, they are not part of the conflict; they are just an observer who can see both sides.
This means I would have to choose between the eyewitness refugee and the counsellor for Myanmar. The refugee was actually there but his statement might not deepen the story and trauma could have influenced what he remembers. The counsellor was not present at the place the wrongdoing happened. Aung Sang So Ki was the ruler of the country though and her opinion would reflect the government’s.
For that reason, I would choose her as she would add more depth to the story by explaining why her government were not condemning their army.
So, my final pick would be the UN minister and the Myanmar counsellor.
Please comment on your opinions and because I have not included it your own news reports.
All information is from the Club lesson.