In Which Newspaper Was This Picture?

[Khun Jean]

I got this picture in my e-mail about a picture being manipulated before it was printed.

I am curious (sp) in which paper it was. The rumor is that this newspaper is very pro-thaksin.

I don't understand why they did it, do you have a theory?

[Old Man River]

I got this picture in my e-mail about a picture being manipulated before it was printed.

I am curious (sp) in which paper it was. The rumor is that this newspaper is very pro-thaksin.

I don't understand why they did it, do you have a theory?

We can't see the picture. However, from your description it has already been discussed on another website. It was Thai Rath and the explanation given is that if a newspaper is going to publish pictures which show His Majesty the King, then these pictures must be at the top of the page. Since this newspaper already had other pictures that were to go at the top of the page, they deleted out the pictures of His Majesty the King which is the appropriate thing to do. No need to read anything else into this, as there is nothing else.

[Siripon]

If I remember rightly Thai Rath wanted the headlines to be about a rape story, more sensational than Thai students winning the international robocop competition for the second year in a row, hence the picture of the winning Thai students holding the picture of the King further down the front page, hence removal of the photograph of The King in the frame.

Mods, perhaps this thread is going nowhere?

[Jdietz]

Going nowhere but very interesting for giving a new insight in the Thai way of thinking, would've never thought of that.

[Khun Jean]

Yes, it is great to know. Thanx.

[hotelier]

so where's the picture?

[Stephen Cleary]

Thai Rath's decision to doctorate a photograph thus deiberately deleting two pictures of the King has caused a huge uproar in the Thai tabloids. As of today, in The Manager newspaper, there have been more than 2,000 comments condemning the incident.

Thai Rath's excuse that only pics of the King should be held aloft ie. above the head, is an incredibly, quite unbelievably pish-poor excuse for deleting a potraits of HM, especially when they have allowed such pics on innumerable other occasions.

Thai sceptics are also comparing the incident to another pro-Thaksin venture ie ITV, when the channel for some unfathomable reason deleted the King from their national anthem video.

Interesting.

Anyway, here below is the original and Thai Rath's deletion. Click for bigger size.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Stephen Cleary

[TAWP]

So it's not a law or a strict enforced rule amongst publicists...sounds like an odd editorial descision that might have sounded wise at the time but, understandably, will gain a huge backlash against them.

Surely they could have choosen either to crop the image or made a montage of closeups of the thai students faces...

[Old Man River]

Thai Rath's decision to doctorate a photograph thus deiberately deleting two pictures of the King has caused a huge uproar in the Thai tabloids. As of today, in The Manager newspaper, there have been more than 2,000 comments condemning the incident.

Thai Rath's excuse that only pics of the King should be held aloft ie. above the head, is an incredibly, quite unbelievably pish-poor excuse for deleting a potraits of HM, especially when they have allowed such pics on innumerable other occasions.

Thai sceptics are also comparing the incident to another pro-Thaksin venture ie ITV, when the channel for some unfathomable reason deleted the King from their national anthem video.

Interesting.

Anyway, here below is the original and Thai Rath's deletion. Click for bigger size.

Actually, it looks as if Thai Rath has changed their story as at first they said it was an issue of the placement of the story and picture within their newspaper (i.e. other stories and pictures would be above this story) and now it is an issue of where the pictures of HM the King are being held by the students themselves.

[TAWP]

But there still isn't any rule or law against any placement or 'location of holding' not obviously offensive?

Edited July 18, 2007 by TAWP