Htet Nadi (NSS) - Sep 28

It is often said that "the pen is mightier than the sword—and can wound just as deeply." While the power of the pen can sometimes steer an entire society toward positive change, writings born of malice or bias can inflict severe real-world damage. A recent article in TIME magazine, titled "Exclusive: Myanmar’s Dictator Wants to Rebuild Ties with the West," clearly exemplifies this dynamic. The very headline reveals that the article is essentially an exercise in character assassination, aimed primarily at undermining the reputation of a country’s leader.

Furthermore, the manipulated imagery featured in the article clearly reveals the extent to which TIME magazine sought to distort the leader's image. By deliberately casting the entire background in darkness and employing dim, atmospheric lighting, the magazine portrayed the Myanmar leader with the malicious intent of making him appear politically isolated. The calculated use of shadows and muted tones served to intentionally strip away the leader's sense of dignity and authority.

In reality, journalist Charlie Cam­pbell had made a formal and respectful request for the interview through the Myanmar Embassy in Singapore. The request stated: "Our aim would be to provide U Min Aung Hlaing with the opportunity to explain his plan to restore prosperity and stability to Myanmar." However, when the interview was expressed as an article, those stated commitments and intentions were entirely omitted; instead, only those quotes by U Min Aung Hlaing that could portray him as a dictator were selected, while the full context was dishonestly left out. This constitutes a blatant instance of taking quotes out of context—stripping away their original meaning to suit a specific narrative—and sensationalizing the content through personal bias.

Furthermore, although the interview request respectfully stated, “Following U Min Aung Hlaing's decisive election victory, we at TIME believe the moment is perfect to publish an extensive interview to our millions of readers in the U.S. and around the globe,” the actual article employed rude and insulting language to sensationalize the portrayal of the national leader—describing his transition from "gener­alissimo to civilian statesman" as "fitful" and noting "awkward attempts at bonhomie." The TIME magazine clearly orchestrated the piece with a malicious bias, aiming to demonize the leader.

A comparative study of the full interview transcript released by the Presidential Press and Information Bureau—which conducted the actual interview—and the TIME magazine article by Charlie Campbell reveals numerous discrepancies. The article is rife with unethical journalistic practices, including media vilification, biased narrative spinning, intentional character assassination, and selective quoting.

Misrepresentation of Myanma peace process

Following personal questions during the interview, the first question regarding national affairs concerned the peace process. However, TIME mag­azine failed to give due weight to Mya­nmar's significant peace efforts; instead, it emphasized conflict and negative circumstances, stating that "Myanmar remains racked by civil war between forces loyal to his government, ethnic rebel groups, and a National Unity Go­vernment (NUG)" and claiming that control was limited to "less than half of Myanmar's total land area."

In reality, during the full int­erview, President U Min Aung Hlaing provided a detailed explanation regarding the peace processes—covering the initial call for peace in 2011 and the signing of the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) with ethnic armed organizations in 2015, among other matters. Regarding the violent incidents that have occurred since 2021, a deta­iled explanation was provided stating that an invitation had been extended for a peaceful resolution, provided the path of democratic elections is accepted. Furthermore, details were shared rega­rding the more than 4,000 individuals who laid down their arms and returned to the legal fold following the peace invitation issued within the first 100 days of the administration; a firm vision for peace was also articulated, expr­essing confidence that efforts undertaken during his five-year term would succeed.

However, by deliberately omitting the national leader's sensitive and significant explanations regarding future peace-building efforts—and instead exaggerating images of conflict—TIME magazine engaged in a blatant display of selective editing and framing bias.

Omission of President’s economic vision

Regarding the economy and sanctions, TIME magazine extolled U.S. economic sanctions as an effective policy tool and even urged the imp­osition of stricter measures. Furth­ermore, it portrayed Myanmar’s econ­omic situation negatively, disparagingly stating that “Min Aung Hlaing often speaks vaguely about transitioning from the production of basic raw materials to finished goods.”

However, in the full interview, U Min Aung Hlaing responded that while sanctions do impact investment and imports to some extent, Myanmar—being an agriculture-based nation—enjoys food security. He also highlighted agro-based industries. Detailed explanations were provided regarding plans to transition from the raw material sales stage of cotton and rubber cult­ivation to value-added manuf­acturing industries, as well as robust economic policies aimed at promoting MSMEs, which constitute 90 percent of the national economy. However, TIME magazine deliberately omitted these solid economic plans, seeking only to portray the national leader's economic vision in a negative way.

Misrepresentation of Myanma foreign policy

Regarding relations with China and Russia, key rivals of the United States, the TIME magazine portrayed Myanmar as merely a source of natural resources and a strategic outlet within China’s sphere of influence. It also used loaded, hostile language to describe the Myanmar leader’s visits to Russia and China as "visits to autocracies."

In reality, however, President U Min Aung Hlaing openly clarified that while China is a neighboring nation, Myanmar is not entirely depen­dent on China. He explained that, given Myanmar’s geographical position—sandwiched between India and China—the country places importance on its relationship with India as well. He further clarified that military cooperation with Russia is merely routine, emphasizing Myanmar’s policy of independent, non-aligned, and peaceful coexistence. Therefore, by increasingly portraying Myanmar as a vassal state of China, TIME actively distorted the facts to serve a pred­etermined narrative.

This slant extended across the coverage of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the situation in Rakhine State, and the President’s personal background. TIME magazine disregarded fundamental journalistic principles, instead resorting to appalling bias to manipulate the story. 

Throughout the interview, President U Min Aung Hlaing offered open, honest, factual responses and even boldly called for a review of U.S. policies toward Myanmar. However, TIME magazine’s article—from its headline and tone to visual framing—abandoned journalistic ethics in favor of a malicious and calculated hit piece. As a citizen of Myanmar, such an article is absolutely unacceptable and should be strongly condemned for abusing journalism in a dishonorable attempt to attack and tarnish the reputations of the country’s leader and the State. –