jayboy

Michael Yon is a distinguished war correspondent but he knows nothing about Thailand.He made some observations which have been hawked around by the social media and the Government PR people.Of course it's harde to cover conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.Read his Thailand material and see whether you think he's on the ball.

You claim he knows nothing about Thailand, ignoring the fact that he is a regular visitor to the nation for many years when his 'tours' in Afghanistan allowed him R&R and at the same time ignoring that he has been here longer time then several of the BBC and CNN journalists you so try to defend.

What does that say about you?

It doesn't say anything about me.

Read his material on Thailand and make up your own minds

An excerpt of a dispatch from the website of the most experienced war correspondent on the ground in Thailand today:

Michael Yon

20 June 2010

Flocks of journalists – local and international – had descended into the conflict zone, and the flocks naturally brought the toxic guano of consensus journalism, and also great physical danger for the journalists, which danger could be deceiving in Bangkok.

Comparing the difficulty of covering conflict in Thailand to Afghanistan or Iraq is to compare pebbles to boulders. The entrance obstacles to Iraq and Afghanistan will eliminate probably 99% of the international press from any meaningful, long-haul coverage.

By contrast, many international correspondents live in Thailand. CNN correspondent, Dan Rivers, reported that he and his family had to evacuate their residence because the fighting was so close. Covering Bangkok is no more difficult than covering Washington D.C., and in fact Bangkok might be easier when considering visa issues.

Full report:

Even While the World Watched

Michael Yon is a distinguished war correspondent but he knows nothing about Thailand.He made some observations which have been hawked around by the social media and the Government PR people.Of course it's harde to cover conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.Read his Thailand material and see whether you think he's on the ball.

I think you'll be quite surprised how thin yellow shirt support is amongst those with a bit of an education; something you commonly cite as being the source of "independent minded people". Although it is admittedly much higher than those supporting the reds.

On the contrary I think the way you put it is very accurate.Those with a "bit of an education" tend to support the yellow shirts.In all seriousness, I'm perfectly well aware that the PAD/yellowshirt view has wide support among middle class Thais which one must presume to be the best educated part of Thai society.My own view is that what foreigners think is really neither here nor there.Some of us enjoy letting off steam but we are essentially irrelevant.The feral foreign reds turn my stomach and I equally recognise that most foreign businessmen here, while not yellow, are highly critical of the Reds and their leadership (and would generally support the views on Western media coverage of the crisis - again broadly echoing the Sino-Thai urban middle class.What I am saying however that the really impressive Westerners, the ones with long experience of the Kingdom achieved at a high level will tell one, albeit discretely, that there is much in the red cause with which they sympathise.

u mean the same "generosity of spirit" and "human understanding" the reds showed the owners and users of central world / center one and the innocent bystander killed at the sala daeng station when grenaded from lumphini ?

Yes the destruction of Central World was the great tragedy in all this.Thank you for reminding us what the priorities should be.

I am a long term resident of Thailand (15 years) who was watching the only "live" coverage I could get from my hospital bed outside Thailand on BBC World. I was STUNNED at the coverage. I saw it as one-sided and with none of the analysis I would expect from a news organisation I respect and admire. When I read the article in The Nation this morning I felt my opinion to have been vindicated.

I don't want to take sides in the political argument only on the coverage which had none of the depth we got a few weeks later when Athens had violent riots which were covered with cause and effect commentary.

I think the one-sided coverage of the situation in Bangkok and Thailand as a whole for this event meant that many people world-wide remain ignorant of the many problems besetting the country which need to be discussed if only to get both sides of the political argument to look beyond their personal bank balances and spread some of the wealth fairly and equitably to areas of need. But that said the Army, for whatever reason and on whoever's orders, deserves congratulations for its handling of an awful situation which would not have been tolerated in many of our more politically "sophisticated" societies as the article quite correctly points out.

I don't think more "sophisticated" societies would tolerate domination by a feudal elite, a treasonable military coup, manipulation of justice,a rigged constitution and murder of unarmed civilians.There are many foreigners (what on earth are they doing here - few seem to have proper jobs)who rant about the BBC and CNN coverage.But it's a complex situation.Look around at several media outlets and one can find reasonable coverage.Don't rely on one source.

I would ask the same question about Jeff Savage, and a few other Pattaya based "freelance" foreigners who seem to aligned themselves with the red shirt cause. There are a good number of ne'er-do-well foreign "barflies" who have few problems with the context of BBC and CNN reports. It doesn't take much investigation to discover that the main reason for this is their close links with the Isaan region, for one reason or another...

I think that's very possible and I think the Isaan connection you mention may well be the key.Equally there are many foreigners in relationships with (mainly) lower middle class urban women who blithely absorb the yellow line.Genuinely independent minded people are few.

like i said before

the joke that was the CNN/BBC reporting makes u think about all the other western reporting from hot spots that has come before (tiananmen , iraq , etc.)

if u live in bkk (walked among them like i did) and lived through the two month-long red squat in at ratchaprasong , u know they were a combination of uneducated , murderous black-sheathed thugs (i.e., motorcy and tuk tuk drivers and out-of-work soldiers) and paid-by-the-day (from montengro) large sized middle age isaan houswives between rice crops w/ absolutely nothing to do but come down and f up the nation's capital

before burning a lot of it down

i don't know how a reporter having flown in the night before and staying at a 5 star hotel with a great breakfast buffet could have missed this

Thank you for this useful and intelligent insight.It's always a good sign when a post begins "like I said before", an indicator of a first class intellect at work.

As you will note, your views are shared by many on this forum, although it is rare to have them expressed with such clarity and incisiveness.I hope you will not be shy about sharing your insights. clearly based on wide reading and study of Thai history and politics.What impresses me most however is your generosity of spirit, though while clearly sceptical about the Red agenda still prepared to reach out with a touching display of human understanding.

I am a long term resident of Thailand (15 years) who was watching the only "live" coverage I could get from my hospital bed outside Thailand on BBC World. I was STUNNED at the coverage. I saw it as one-sided and with none of the analysis I would expect from a news organisation I respect and admire. When I read the article in The Nation this morning I felt my opinion to have been vindicated.

I don't want to take sides in the political argument only on the coverage which had none of the depth we got a few weeks later when Athens had violent riots which were covered with cause and effect commentary.

I think the one-sided coverage of the situation in Bangkok and Thailand as a whole for this event meant that many people world-wide remain ignorant of the many problems besetting the country which need to be discussed if only to get both sides of the political argument to look beyond their personal bank balances and spread some of the wealth fairly and equitably to areas of need. But that said the Army, for whatever reason and on whoever's orders, deserves congratulations for its handling of an awful situation which would not have been tolerated in many of our more politically "sophisticated" societies as the article quite correctly points out.

I don't think more "sophisticated" societies would tolerate domination by a feudal elite, a treasonable military coup, manipulation of justice,a rigged constitution and murder of unarmed civilians.There are many foreigners (what on earth are they doing here - few seem to have proper jobs)who rant about the BBC and CNN coverage.But it's a complex situation.Look around at several media outlets and one can find reasonable coverage.Don't rely on one source.

 If the military was not extremely selective about who was fired upon, there would have been thousands of dead in one day instead of less than 100 over several months. Any other government would have straightened them out weeks before  and used as much force as needed.  

The military was selective, and I think professional too.(I'm ignoring your creepy second sentence).However a large number of civilians were shot dead and that needs to be carefully investigated.

Spare us the tutorial on parliamentary democracy.We know how it works.The point is Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to obtain one in the circumstances of hisunsavoury and guided path to power, particularly now he has blood on his hands

Have you not considered that the reason elections cannot be held at the moment is exactly that free and fair elections are impossible under the conditions the redshirt leaders themselves created. Until the northern and northeastern redshirt supporters, and their leaders, realize that democracy must include the freedom to campaign no early election should be held.

I agree the country is too unsettled at the present to hold elections, but the point is they need to be held as soon as reasonably possible.Early 2011 would seem sensible, and that is of course after the date suggested by Abhisit in the negotiations with the Reds.

Fair point about the freedom to campaign.Equally the state/army must be kept out of the process since there was undue influence in previous campaigns - strongly criticised by international observers.Bear in mind also there is huge cynicism, justified by experience, that efforts will made again to frustrate the will of the people at the next election - whether by bizarre court decisions or other sleight of hand by the ruling elite which seemingly cannot bear a result which doesn't suit it.

The coup leaders were orchestrated by others - we all except the blind, the deaf and the incurably naive know who.After awarding themselves a pardon for their criminal and treasonable act and thus avoiding the firing squad, a junta was installed.Its incompetence and lethargy surprised even its supporters.The new constitution is a tainted document promoted by the quisling government and its military promoters. It was put to the Thai people and scraped through in spite of the apparatus of government behind it. It was made clear that even if rejected it would still be promulgated.Now there is consensus that the 1997 constitution was a superior document. and the government is seeking to reform the tainted junta document.The overwhelming objective was to frustrate the will of the Thai people and ensure the rise to power of someone considered reliable to the greedy elite.This was achieved through manipulation again of the government machine including the judicial system.

The above bolded items are either pure speculation or completely inaccurate.

By backroom deals involving the army and one of the more repellent regional politicians, Abhisit was finally led to power.He has refused to submit himself to the Thai people and has no personal mandate.He is widely hated and cannot travel safely around the country.So far he has avoided a direct electoral appeal to the Thai people.

Abhisit has avoided nothing. He is serving the term as PM that he was elected to by the MPs. Each of those MPs was elected by the people. He is both the legal and legitimate PM. Any mandate for the position of PM comes from the MPs. The people elect the MPs not the PM.

Spare us the tutorial on parliamentary democracy.We know how it works.The point is Abhisit has no personal mandate and needs to obtain one in the circumstances of hisunsavoury and guided path to power, particularly now he has blood on his hands

AS to your point about speculation of course much of this is subjective or capable of different interpretations.Those who attended elite universities (or anywhere else which encourages hard rigorous analysis) will know that even facts can be subjective, dependent on the view point.The point is whether the view point is well informed.

The facts are all there...say what you like...Thai government same as the Iran government...using Armed Army to kill their own citizens.....

The government of Iran changed the results of an election. The current government of Thailand is legit even if there is a lot of controversy about how they ended up in power. Whatever you want to say about about them, they had good reason to stop a bunch of thugs who ruined much of the Thai economy for months and burned down much of the country.

So they did NOT changed the result of the election to use a coup to install this "Legitimed" goverment ???? :lol:

That is correct. The coup leaders did not install the present government. Check your history. There was a coup to remove a highly corrupt, extra-constitutional prime minister who tried to retake his caretaker role after having abdicated. Then there was a constitutional rewrite to ensure stronger punishments for electoral fraud, increase the rights to the citizens, and weaken the ability for a PM to become a demagogue. The constitution was ratified by the voting population through a referendum. After this an election was called. The party who won a plurality vote violated election law and was disbanded. A parliamentary vote was called to select a new PM by the elected MPs, and Abhisit assumed the role of PM.

The coup leaders were orchestrated by others - we all except the blind, the deaf and the incurably naive know who.After awarding themselves a pardon for their criminal and treasonable act and thus avoiding the firing squad, a junta was installed.Its incompetence and lethargy surprised even its supporters.The new constitution is a tainted document promoted by the quisling government and its military promoters.It was put to the Thai people and scraped through in spite of the apparatus of government behind it.It was made clear that even if rejected it would still be promulgated.Now there is consensus that the 1997 constitution was a superior document. and the government is seeking to reform the tainted junta document.The overwhelming objective was to frustrate the will of the Thai people and ensure the rise to power of someone considered reliable to the greedy elite.This was achieved through manipulation again of the government machine including the judicial system.By backroom deals involving the army and one of the more repellent regional politicians, Abhisit was finally led to power.He has refused to submit himself to the Thai people and has no personal mandate.He is widely hated and cannot travel safely around the country.So far he has avoided a direct electoral appeal to the Thai people.

Dont you think a statement like that is pre-empting any investigation?

If that is used as a starting point what hope is there of ever getting truth?

No, I was making a different point altogether.Few would question the government was entitled to clear Central Bangkok, indeed had a duty to do so.However there are limits on what the government can do: for example it couldn't machine gun the entire red assembly.(Take my word for it there are very powerful people who would have like to have done just that).The question is what represents a reasonable level of force.My feeling is that despite my admiration for the military's performance, the deaths were excessive with many aspects still unexplained.That's why a fair and independent enquiry is needed.

The Red Shirt protesters should consider that the numbers killed were low for such an outrageous act of civil disobedience. Most other countries of the world would not have tolerated such actions for as long as the current administration did. The sitting administration could easily have opened fire on the masses and piled the bodies in the streets. They did not. They withheld counter-measures until they deemed it getting out of control. They should applaud the administration of Khun Abhisit for holding themselves in check for so long. Next time, there may not be such a high level of tolerance. Why not wait until scheduled elections to change governments? Most democratic countries or republics do just that. They do not burn down buildings and assault residents to get their grievances in the media. They vote in a new administration. It was offered, but some of the Red Shirt upper-echelon feared such an action. Why?

You deceive yourself.In non-totalitarian countries no government could survive its army murdering unarmed civilians on this scale.

I disagree completely. The government did not murder unarmed civilians. The government used force to suppress an armed and violent rebellion. It is you who is engaging in self-deception.

Well we must agree to differ.But it's an odd rebellion that mostly consisted of unarmed men,women and children.

I am disappointed that the proof for this statement has not been forthcoming

If you can clarify the question you would like me to answer I will do my best to respond.

The Red Shirt protesters should consider that the numbers killed were low for such an outrageous act of civil disobedience. Most other countries of the world would not have tolerated such actions for as long as the current administration did. The sitting administration could easily have opened fire on the masses and piled the bodies in the streets. They did not. They withheld counter-measures until they deemed it getting out of control. They should applaud the administration of Khun Abhisit for holding themselves in check for so long. Next time, there may not be such a high level of tolerance. Why not wait until scheduled elections to change governments? Most democratic countries or republics do just that. They do not burn down buildings and assault residents to get their grievances in the media. They vote in a new administration. It was offered, but some of the Red Shirt upper-echelon feared such an action. Why?

You deceive yourself.In non-totalitarian countries no government could survive its army murdering unarmed civilians on this scale.

And to say the Govt murdered anyone is plain B... S... they were forced into an armed response by the actions of the reds.

would like to answer the above question? seems L H cant or wont.

Sorry missed out the fact that His majasty has also generously contributed to those killed and injured.

So you would give free license for the Government to mow down unarmed civilians? Few would deny the Government didn't have the right to clear the area.The issue is whether the force applied was reasonable.My personal view is that the army did its duty in as efficient way as possible in difficult circumstances, but this needs to be scrutinised carefully.There are some hard questions to be addressed in terms of the numbers and circumstances of those killed, and to deny that is sheer irresponsibility.Abhisit's credibility rests on a full and fair investigation.Again my personal view is that this won't happen.

I wish a "more serious and thoughtful" opponent of Thaksin. Guess I'm happy just being a regular opponent of Thaksin for now.

In the meantime the same question that has been around for the past two years stands - why doesn't the non-Thaksin-admiring element of the red shirts thoroughly distance themselves from him owing to the amount of baggage he carries?

Looking forward to your next insult-sprinkled response.

Actually you are looking for insults where none were intended. I was referring to serious critics of Thaksin like Baker/Pasuk: there was no intention to belittle anyone else.

In fact the issue you raise - which is a different one to your original - is a pertinent one.The reality is that Thaksin not only originated the red movement but poisoned it as well.Very few Reds disown Thaksin.

Given it's now very clear that Thaksin is a major contributor to these rallies, what do the apologists who say the red shirts are not about Thaksin stand on this issue? Without this major source of funding would the red shirt movement even exist?

There's no logic here.Certainly Thaksin played a part in funding the rallies.It doesn't follow that the red shirt movement wouldn't exist without such funding.I know that many of the urban middle class believe this but it's not intellectually sustainable.The more serious and thoughtful opponents of Thaksin don't believe it.

On a sidenote Jayboy ... I see you wish to call everyone who doesnt agree with you uneducated .. (most in the west have gone to school until at least 16, does this not count? must one have a degree in some social science which most universities specialise in these days )

Now just so i know how intelligent you really are can you tell me to what outstanding level you are educated too, and also what exceptionally profitable company you run or which unreachable by the masses level of employment you are currently working in?

Not true I'm afraid.I am often wrong and will readily admit it.

On a forum like this many people pretend to be what they're not.However over time it becomess almost impossible to disguise nationality, social class, level of education, intelligence and general perception.

Corruption is a natural outgrowth of a lack of accountability. Abhisit, as the proxy for the current government, is doing everything to eliminate his opposition. His "reconciliation plan" is nothing more than a chance for his cronies to capitalize on the financial benefits of being politicians in Thailand.

You should try reading up on Abhisit's history, from the BBC no less.

Ah so the BBC is invoked when it serves your point of view, and trashed when it doesn't.

the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves

Wow, that number grew to the twice in the revisionists arguments very fast...by this speed, it will be 'over 5000 wounded' in their rhetoric by the end of the summer.

Many of the injured were soldiers, and many soldiers were killed. Doesn't seem to click with some.

Yes some soldiers were injured and killed and that's a tragedy.They did their duty and prevented bloodshed on a greater scale.But the vast majority of the dead were unarmed civilians.

From speaking to people who have no Thai connections and relied on the BBC coverage to gain their impressions of what went on, the impression they conveyed was of pro-democracy campaigners rising up against a dictatorial oppressive government.

As I explained to them, the reality was more akin to a bunch of football hooligans. Most of them were egged-on by inflammatory speeches to support "their side" when they had little understanding of exactly what they were reporting.

Also the BBC completely failed to report the fact that the reds were completely split, between a small number of genuine campaigners, led by long-time democracy campaigner Veera Musikapong, and a group of total thugs, who in the end destroyed the whole red movement, including the moderates.

So, even hypothetically accepting the BBC coverage was misleading (in my view it wasn't particularly) why did you present such a moronic, half baked and unperceptive alternative interpretation.Frankly given the choice between the BBC and this kind of half educated bar talk, I know who I would give more credence to.

This should give some of the more rabid critics of the foreign media pause for thought - but it probably won't.

http://blogs.reuters.com/andrew-marshall/2010/06/12/thaksin_and_me/

What i dont get is how with these people have the nerve to criticise CNN when the lack of free speech in Thailand created by their beloved present govt.

Posts like this drive me up the wall, trying to defend the red shirt action, declare that

the lies and deceptions strewn by an array of PR and Media crews of the red clowns army

and their puppet master are the truth, and nothing but the truth today even it is so obvious!

twisted brains = twisted thruth's = deceptive lies and mind boggling constructions which only have one aim = bring back the master and let the game begin!

Censored are the lies, deceptions and constructions which aim to destroy this Nation, it's legal and rightful government and anyone who is not in favor of the Master...!

This is the "TRUTH TODAY"!

I can access

any media I wish to.... the last stand off in Bangkok, with the Grenade Attacks, random shootings, the looting and setting numerous places in the very center of Bangkok ablaze, carries it's very own signature.....

It is nothing but a load of BS and aimed to deceit the people, make them believe that there is "something wrong".... and in turn white wash the Master's grand coups and those committed by his his followers - it's simply evil!

This person is clearly in hysterical mode so perhaps one shouldn't take his barely literate ranting seriously.One telling phrase is at the end when he appears appalled that anyone should think there's "something wrong", presumably with the status quo and is clearly angry that any news outlet should give the impression there's "something wrong" with the Good Ship Siam.Perhaps we can just ignore his ignorant tripe and move on to a more considered assessment of the press coverage.But here's a parting word for this genius.Yes, there is something "very wrong" indeed with Thailand, chum.

Clearly however there has been bias in both CNN and BBC coverage, as well as the rest of the foreign and local press.Khun Somtow has some interesting thoughts particularly on the foreign press briefly that some may be seeing the events here through a Western prism, perceiving the Reds simplistically as the poor downtrodden struggling against the privileged elite.He has a point.This is a very complex set of events and it's important not to draw simple minded conclusions.But overall I think it has been possible to be informed, while accepting there has been some crass and stupid reporting from both foreign and local press.I'm not sure this is really that different from any other international crisis.I certainly don't buy the argument that the mysteries of Thai language and culture make rational analysis by a foreign reporter almost impossible.I think what gives the amart and some sections of the Bangkok middle class such annoyance is the fact that the unquestioning social deference of the past is crumbling, and is all open to international scrutiny.But all journalism is biased and one's reaction to a particular piece of journalism reflects one own biases.

Good article IMHO.

Good article but preaching to the converted. Far too sophisticated to reach the everyday punter who revile Abhisit and worship the demagogue Thaksin.

It's not sophisticated at all, simply common sense.Of course the reds have a leadership problem.Thaksin is tainted and too divisive, and the alternatives are second rate or frightening.It's a problem and that's an open recognition from someone whose sympathies are mainly red.My instincts say keep hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse, but Abhisit has been a terrible disapointment too (given his personal qualities and honesty)