Poor on Screen: A Case Study of Buddhist Human Rights Discourses in Supporting People Experiencing Poverty from the Perspective of Mass Media Practitioners
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aims to: (1) synthesize Buddhist human rights discourses appearing in television programs concerning the poor; (2) develop Buddhist discourses through ideological reconstruction and discursive strategies to support the disadvantaged from the perspective of mass communication; and (3) extract lessons for communicating Buddhist human rights discourse for public communication. The study employs a qualitative research methodology. Key informants consisted of 30 individuals, including news editors, producers, reporters, news anchors, scriptwriters, Buddhist scholars, human rights advocates, individuals who had appeared in the media with relevant experiences, and program directors. Research instruments included semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions. Data were collected through content analysis of 30 television program episodes broadcast between 2016 to 2025, in-depth interviews with 20 participants, and a focus group discussion involving 10 participants. Data analysis was conducted using a three-level framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA): the textual level, the level of discursive practice, and the level of social structure.
The findings reveal that: (1) television media reproduce at least five dominant discursive patterns, namely compassion and charity, karma and individual perseverance, human dignity, community solidarity, and structural justice. Among these, the frameworks of compassion and individualism appear most prominently, whereas the dignity- and rights-based frameworks play a stronger role in reducing stigmatization and revealing structural conditions affecting the poor. (2) The study developed three reconstructive discourse prototypes: Dignity-First, Agency-Centered Help, and Community-Solidarity, accompanied by practical communication tools that reduce stigmatizing language and imagery while strengthening the communication of rights, public services, and policy information in news production processes. (3) The research proposes the ON-AIR Model as a knowledge framework for communicating poverty issues in ways that respect human dignity. The model comprises five components: (1) framing issues appropriately for media presentation, (2) using non-stigmatizing language, (3) providing assistance that emphasizes personal agency and access to rights, (4) fostering participation through community networks, and (5) indicating channels for accessing rights, services, and public policies. This model can serve as a practical framework for producing news and documentary programs, contributing to the enhancement of professional media standards in alignment with Buddhist ethical principles and contemporary human rights values.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Views and opinions expressed in the articles published by The Journal of MCU Peace Studies, are of responsibility by such authors but not the editors and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.
References
Arada, K. (2017). Television for All: Accessibility for Persons with Disabilities. Bangkok: Thammasat University Press.
Boczkowski, P. J. (2004). Digitizing the News: Innovation in Online Newspapers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chouliaraki, L. (2006). The Spectatorship of Suffering. London, England: Sage Publications.
Costanza-Chock, S. (2020). Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harvey, P. (2000). An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values, and Issues. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Keown, D. (2005). Buddhist Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McIntyre, K. (2019). Solutions Journalism: The Effects of Including Solution Information in News Stories About Social Problems. Journalism, 20(4), 1–18.
Parinyasuthinan, U. (2013). Restorative Justice and Conflict Management in the Khuan So Community. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.
Pongsudhirak, T., & Kanchoochat, V. (2004). Thai Media Personnel: Problems and Development Pathways. (Research Report). Bangkok: Thailand Research Fund.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE Publications.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (2014). Mediating the Message in the 21st Century: A Media Sociology Perspective. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Wutiattasan, W. (2013). Communication and the Construction of Identity Among Thai Deaf People. Bangkok: Thammasat University.
