jayboy

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)

Problem is, there was some big expectations in Thailand for the media to expose the 'truth' but the two protagonists/sides have come to believe two entirely different versions of the truth, so disappointment was bound to happen. I'm of the opinion that from the start the protesters tactic was to force the Gobt to spill the Red's blood and quit in shame, hence the self drawing and spilling stunt at Govt House in March. The local media saw through it all, while the prime time international news thrives on bloody scenes. The media are just doing their jobs according to their audience's expectations, telling the news/truth in one way or another. What is important is for the public at large to pay attention to the various opposing analysis of this complex situation to realise that neither side is entirely blameless. Unfortunately, with censorship and a largely uneducated electorate it's not going to happen.

The problem is that the Thai Government censors the Media .Most of what we have left is mostly garbage, if you want an example of this try reading the nations report on the reconciliation plan in yesterdays papers and Bangkok posts they are two different stories both meant to be on the same topic. World famous organisations such as the BBC are very suspicious of a country that sends in the army to shoot its own people and then censors the press. Sorry Thailand but the world doesnt trust you.

Sounds like you've never read or watched the real Thai media, just the English-language Thai media. There is plenty of good reporting- not great, and yes to some degree self-censored, yet still more accurate and complete than what we get from BBC and CNN - in Thai language print (Matichon, to some degree even Thai Rath) and TV (TVThai) news reporting.

But the issue is whether BBC or CNN is doing a good job. Just like on the FCCT night that Somtow, Kraisak and Sumet tried to get their points across about Western media bias, the discussion quickly disintegrated into a them vs us, Thai vs farang issue, the same is happening here.

It's not that the Thai press is intrinsically better than the Western press(with less training and far less funding, not likely), just that in reporting live news in Thailand they are usually a more reliable source, for the obvious reason that they understand what is being said on all sides, and they have more interview access.

Some very dubious propositions here.Of course there are some advantages in being local but the Thai press - which I monitor - has not acquitted itself well at all in the crisis.You pass quickly over press self censorship but that is the nub of the issue.Actually I attended the FCCT discussion.Somtow I thought made some very fair points but didn't really convince me.Sumet is just an amiable jokester who lives in a Siamese fantasia, not to be taken seriously (nor are his awful architectural monstrosities).Picking up Rixalex's point it's not linguistic ability or length of stay that's so important as the ability to absorb information, process it and draw sensible conclusions.Same applies to journalists as it does to forum members.I say that as someone who has been here for a long time and speaks Thai relatively well.

My simple point, which seems to have escaped your genetically advanced brain, was that the cultural and language barriers play an important role in the foreign media reporting, and that Thaksin's role in the violent attempt to overthrow the government was close to common knowledge among the Thais. Even Neanderthals who speak reasonable Thai and are in contact with the Thai people could see that.

I fully understand the social background behind the whole story as I am the head of a really big Northeastern family, none of who would agree with your viewpoint. You are not wrong to say that there is more to the story than just Thaksin, but beyond that your views are very Westernized and overly simplistic.

I'm not sure which reports you were studying.To be fair I have never a great CNN fan and didn't monitor its coverage closely.However the BBC reports I saw went out of their way to stress the role of Thaksin in the red attempt to bring down the government.Your comment to the extent I understand it makes the common error of stressing Thai particularism with the implication that its mysteries can only be penetrated after years of linguistic and cultural study.In a rather more sophisticated form it is the same excuse that many Bangkok amart provide when foreigners ask awkward questions.Needless to say it's nonsense.

Good luck with your responsibilities as head of that really big Northeastern family, and it's impressive you are so familiar with all their thoughts, concerns and aspirations.

If the charge is that the BBC and CNN didn't consult the experts, I'd be intrigued to hear who these experts are. In my experience there are very few academic Thailand specialists who share the TV analysis of the situation. Yes, you could probably rope in a few Thai commentators from Chula or Thammasat, but if you go to international experts like McCargo, the Australian scholars or the people in ASEASUK, most are sceptical in equal measure of the Thaksin regime and the present bunch. Even that arch conservative and outspoken Thaksin critic, Stephen Young, said in a BBC World Service interview just before the crackdown, that Thaksin was a spent force and only one element in the overall situation (I think he took a step back in his Nation interview). So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

I think the charge is that BBC and CNN did not try very hard. As for who are the "experts", the whole of Thailand, the country and its people. On any day during the protest, I could easily talk to a handful of people and pickup most of the story from both, or many, sides. At least enough to tip off a reporter that his one sided notions are clearly off. In fact, many Thais could probably see much of what happened in advance, given Thaksin's history, what happened in April 2009, and Sed Daeng's involvement.

Granted, most foreign media and organizations have a hard time because of curtural and language problems but in the case of the BBC and CCN, I don't think they even tried.

This is fairly typical of the slightly mindless "I don't think they even tried" criticism that is quite common, not really worth bothering with.As for the other more specific reasoned criticisms of other posters don't they really serve to confirm only that they don't like anyone pointing out to the world that there is a self serving and greedy elite in Bangkok, Abhisit while legally PM is unelected by the people, that the Reds do have powerful arguments on their side and that it's not all about Thaksin? I seriously doubt whether this group has read or understood the background that citizen333 mentions.The Neanderthals will rant and rave but time and gravity are not on their side.

Yawn.Another person who just doesn't like what is being reported.Look at any newspaper and the reader comment colums are always full of nutjob contributions about editorial bias.Nobody with a brain expects to get information from one source anyway.Sure many foreign news organisations get things wrong sometimes but one gets the impression that many middle class Thais - frankly I don't much care what weirdo foreigners think - are whining simply because one or two home truths have been exposed.As though there aren't more important things to worry about than what the foreign press think anyway.A good start might be for the Thai English language press to do their job less lazily and incompetently, and less slavishly as well.

Yawn. I really don't understand why you bother posting here. You could be down the Bangkok Club, sipping on a long drink with a tall girl, or vice versa, rather than telling us you are tired of the whole thing, you don't care about what others post here, and you think every other member is a weirdo. Maybe it doesn't matter in the long run just what the foreign press write or say, but, as I wrote in my previous post, we rely on them to give us the facts of any international incident. When we see that they are being so biased in reporting an event we are familiar with then it raises serious doubts as to the accuracy of other events they report on globally. Either they care about that, and will take steps to rectify the situation, or they don't, and will lose viewers. The choice is theirs.

If one used a reasonable selection of media sources it was perfectly possible to get a fair picture.If you look at a single press report in any country on a subject one knows well one will always find errors: that's in the nature of journalism.Many middle class Thais however just didn't like the home truths that some foreign reporters were relating.There was a similar campaign a little while ago against the BBC's excellent Jonathan Head.These people don't seem to understand how crazy they seem when stating opinions such as "Rachel Harvey is a liar".I daresay WW2 reporters commenting on D Day landings made a few mistakes.So what?

Your comment, though misguided and without much substance, is quite reasonably toned.However on every subject and in every country there are thousands of nutjobs ranting about the BBC, CNN or what ever organisation displeases them.That's life and somehow I suspect the BBC,CNN will survive.One needs to exercise a little common sense and look at matters in the round.

I agree with this. The level of research applied was woefully low and imbalanced.

Makes no difference how many interviews of both sides you do,

if you questioning is skewed to a direction that doesn't fit the majority of facts,

but also hits the most sensational and airtime worthy notes.

They are on the defensive, but now weeks too late to matter.

This is English/Yank journalistic face saving, not ackowlegment of inadvertant bias,

or direct lack of research or pandering to percieved editorial biases.

Argument lost before being started.

Yawn.Another person who just doesn't like what is being reported.Look at any newspaper and the reader comment colums are always full of nutjob contributions about editorial bias.Nobody with a brain expects to get information from one source anyway.Sure many foreign news organisations get things wrong sometimes but one gets the impression that many middle class Thais - frankly I don't much care what weirdo foreigners think - are whining simply because one or two home truths have been exposed.As though there aren't more important things to worry about than what the foreign press think anyway.A good start might be for the Thai English language press to do their job less lazily and incompetently, and less slavishly as well.

In Thailand, toppling a legal-ish "elected" government is a lot of things but it is not high treason.

Actually it is and at least one General in the 1970's was executed by firing squad for it.However in practical terms coups are judged as to whether the elite approves of them or not (or as in the last instance participated in them).If the coup is approved then there is no problem in back dated pardons etc.

Feel free to look up who the leaders of the PAD were. He wasn't one. Nor did he act as their spokesperson.

The question is not what precise role Kasit had with the PAD movement.The question is - was his appointment as FM a sensible decision which enhanced Thailand's reputation given that he participated in and spoke approvingly of an illegal occupation?It can be plausibly argued that this terrorist action by PAD and its quasi fascist leadership set the precedent for more recent events.As it happens this absurd and splenetic little fellow has proved to be an incompetent, so Abhisit can dismiss him on performance grounds alone

No- You are quite incorrect. Here is the original 'question' as it was posed by Clausewitz, leading to JD's rebuttal:

After all Kasit promiya - the pad yellowshirts spokesman

Do try and keep up old man

You seem not to have understood my reply.Try again and see whether you can understand this time.

Hint: I was suggesting what is the real question - or at least one of them - we should be asking about Kasit.

Red cheerleader trying to keep up.

I suppose you are referring to me.Has it occurred to you that endlessly calling anyone who takes a different view a "red cheerleader" is a boring and intellectually slovenly thing to do.

A little while ago I lamented the departure of Plus, who in broad terms came from the same direction as you.What a pity you seem unable to argue a case as he did.

There is a Thai saying.

Just ignore the sound of the birds and crows.

There's another Thai saying.

Don't borrow someone's nose to breathe with.

Red cheerleader trying to keep up.

I suppose you are referring to me.Has it occurred to you that endlessly calling anyone who takes a different view a "red cheerleader" is a boring and intellectually slovenly thing to do.

A little while ago I lamented the departure of Plus, who in broad terms came from the same direction as you.What a pity you seem unable to argue a case as he did.

Feel free to look up who the leaders of the PAD were. He wasn't one. Nor did he act as their spokesperson.

The question is not what precise role Kasit had with the PAD movement.The question is - was his appointment as FM a sensible decision which enhanced Thailand's reputation given that he participated in and spoke approvingly of an illegal occupation?It can be plausibly argued that this terrorist action by PAD and its quasi fascist leadership set the precedent for more recent events.As it happens this absurd and splenetic little fellow has proved to be an incompetent, so Abhisit can dismiss him on performance grounds alone

Same as Thaksin & UDD. Thanksin is official NOT the leader. But he play a strong influence indirectly.

Really? Kasit has the same relationship to PAD as Thaksin does to UDD?

Feel free to look up who the leaders of the PAD were. He wasn't one. Nor did he act as their spokesperson.

The question is not what precise role Kasit had with the PAD movement.The question is - was his appointment as FM a sensible decision which enhanced Thailand's reputation given that he participated in and spoke approvingly of an illegal occupation?It can be plausibly argued that this terrorist action by PAD and its quasi fascist leadership set the precedent for more recent events.As it happens this absurd and splenetic little fellow has proved to be an incompetent, so Abhisit can dismiss him on performance grounds alone

There is a distinct difference between criticising the government in a rational manner,

and fomenting inssurection and 'continue the fight incitment' right after there were

grenades lobbed at army random shootings from snipers and mass arsons.

There is every reason to continue stronger than usual vigilence.

Which includes some limits on incendiary speech. I am pro free speach by the way.

But sometimes there must be limits for the safety of the majority,

not the open ended freedom to harangue or incite violence for the smaller minorities.

The sites, blogs and media shut down are almost exclusively those that

actively and repeatedly as an entity encourage disorder, violence against the government

in any form, meaning ampurs in the country side, telcoms because they are liscensed etc,

and grossly disrespectful attacks on the monarchy.

In other words those sites and media outlets inciting people to commit illegal acts.

And so it begins.

People whom I accept are genuinely free speech start to make shoddy compromises for political reasons.The clamp down has gone far beyond curbing incendiary talk, and not to recognise this is a pity.Many Thais sympathetic to this government are genuinely worried and concerned.To have some foreigners dismiss their concerns is not an impressive spectacle.

Inital report theat some were shot from an elevated level was wrong. The army was on the railway track, and they were just walking, not shooting down. Here is a correct version from the Nation.

Thanks for clearing that up, and from such a credible and trustworthy source too.

The big problem with ever getting justice for the Tak Bai victims is that the dots that you refer to join up to Thaksin and many others in The Establishment, including (rather obviously) the army. Consequently, there is no will whatsoever in mainstream Thai politics to get to the bottom of this atrocity. hel_l! We used to have a rabidly anti-Thaksin, Pro PAD/Demo Thai poster going by the name of 'Plus' on TV who went to great lengths to try to pass off Tak Bai as an army logistics issue! Abhisit is one of the few politicians young enough and clean enough to go into this one, but he won't (at least, not properly). Anyway, look where it got him the last time he took on the army, over the 'bomb detector' corruption.

I don't remember Plus making this point.I hardly every agreed with him since we had quite different ideas about the narrative of Thai politics.Nevertheless he had a fiercely penetrating intelligence and was extremely well informed.

We know the place, and the majority of us reject the Reds. We don't reject the Reds per se, we reject the Reds because of Thaksin and his pulling the wool over the eyes of the Red populace. That's important for foreigners everywhere to are invested/vested in the country to know whether locally or from afar.

Further, are we the only people who read the various blogs and news organizations (AOL for example) that pertain to Thailand? No, we're not. Many foreigners abroad consult these sites also, just as they read that which you and I post here. Every word, not - every thread, not. But read here they do. To include especially the government and the Reds alike. (What do you think Thaksin does when he opens his laptop on his Lear? Among other things, he checks in to find out how his Red posters are doing at TVF  

Even the most gifted piss taker couldn't improve on the original.

Without doubt the silliest and most deluded post I have seen for months.What however distinguishes it is its wonderful pomposity.

[quote name='lannarebirth' date='2010-06-03 09:29:45' post='3663654'

This paid for, think tank, agenda driven piece has absolutely zero to do with what has just transpired in Thailand. It fails to mention that this was a paid for "show" to push the agenda of one man. It elevates Thaksin to a "legitimate" place, which is laughable. Where were the students this time I wonder? It's bullshit!

With all due respect from what you say here and the way that you say it, don't bother to become engaged in a discussion where the point is to introduce some historical context and perspective, and hopefully understanding.If you want a empty headed rant about Thaksin there are plenty of people in the "expatriate community" who will indulge you.

A matter of opinion --- imho it would be comtempt of court (apparently ALL courts in Thailand). Saying that the courts are "directed" isn't (again IMHO) appropriate OR legal in Thailand.

It may be a matter of opinion though I think otherwise.

In the greater scheme of things the much more important issue is - Is it true? And to that question any serious student of Thailand's history and politics would provide the same unequivocal answer.

in reference to jayboys other question ---

15) Not to use ThaiVisa.com to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. You also agree not to post negative comments criticizing the legal proceedings or judgments of any Thai court of law.

Well that clarifies that you were just following your usual provocative practice.Is this somehow satisfying for you or do just feel uncomfortable with awkward facts?

In case you hadn't noticed my remarks -because I was deliberately careful - didn't infringe any TV rule.

From the WSJ 31.5.2010

The Death of Tolerance in Thailand

The government is ignoring the most hopeful lessons of modern Thai history and destroying what's best about the country.

By MICHAEL MONTESANO

Six months ago, I listened to Suthachai Yimprasoet, a professor of history at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University, present a learned paper on the 1902 integration of the Malay sultanate of Patani into the kingdom of Siam, as Thailand was then known, in a magnificent lecture hall on that university's campus. Last week, Prof. Suthachai was detained on an army base in Saraburi Province, 100 kilometers northeast of the Thai capital.

The government led by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has yet to reveal what makes the historian such a threat to the country. Mr. Suthachai was not one of the leaders of the "red shirt" occupation of central Bangkok, which the government ended by force of arms on May 19. Since his detention five days later, no formal charges have been filed.

Three days after Mr. Suthachai's detention, he began a hunger strike to protest his jailers' refusing him access to newspapers and to materials to prepare his lectures. Those jailers soon allowed him access to his books. But not before the spokesman for the Abhisit government's Center for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation, Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd, defended the government's right to detain Mr. Suthachai under the Emergency Decree of 2005. Appearing to give the professor advice on dieting, Col. Sansern dismissively suggested that if he did not want to eat food, he could eat some jelly instead.

The Abhisit government says it wants reconciliation. But Mr. Suthachai's detention, along with aggressive measures to censor the Internet and other media, suggest that it has embarked on a post-crackdown course likely to deepen Thailand's ugly divisions. The government has used its emergency powers to freeze the bank accounts of more than 100 individuals believed either to have helped fund the Bangkok protests, or to be associated with former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, or to back the opposition Phuea Thai Party.

In northern and northeastern Thailand, the security forces have begun a program of surveillance of ordinary citizens. As a small businessman in the north remarked to me last week, the CRES's announcements—along with incessant radio and television broadcasts featuring the song "May Happiness Return"—have made provincial Thais' fear of their government palpable.

Messrs. Abhisit, Suthep and their backers are choosing to ignore the most hopeful lessons of modern Thai political history. Instead they have embarked on a path to destroy what is best about their country.

On Oct. 6, 1976, Thailand suffered a brutal coup against its Democrat Party-led government. Soldiers, police and right-wing vigilantes attacked Bangkok's Thammasat University. They killed tens of student protestors, detained many others and drove still others into the jungle to join the armed insurgency of the "terrorists" of the Communist Party of Thailand. Thailand entered a very bleak period. Bloodthirsty reactionaries charged that leading liberal members of the Democrat Party like Damrong Latthaphipahat and veteran journalist Surin Matsadit and future Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai of the party's formidable southern wing were communist enemies of the nation. The country found itself with a premier, Judge Thanin Kraiwichian, so right wing that the Thai army staged a coup to oust him in 1977.

That coup did little to address the real communist threat that challenged Bangkok's control over sections of northern, northeastern and southern Thailand. Instead, and along with divisions between pro-China and pro-Vietnam factions of the Communist Party, it was a program of reconciliation and amnesty spear-headed by General Prem Tinasulanon that largely defeated that insurgency by the early 1980s. At an institutional level the Thai army remains extremely proud of Gen. Prem's conciliatory approach to counter-insurgency. Now chairman of the king's Privy Council and a leading object of red-shirt enmity, Gen. Prem served as Thailand's prime minister from 1980-88, years that brought the slow consolidation of parliamentary democracy.

The Prem years brought another form of progress along Thailand's path from division and crisis. Following their release from jail or emergence from the jungle, many of the most talented student leaders of the 1970s refused to succumb to bitterness over the murders of their friends and the defeat of the Communist Party. Instead, they trooped overseas to earn graduate degrees in the finest universities of the United States, Australia, Japan and Europe. They returned to Thailand's universities to help give their country the most dynamic intellectual life of any country in Southeast Asia. As contributors of columns to Thailand's lively free press, they shared their insights and perspectives with a wide readership. Mr. Suthachai was a member of this group. Having fought for the Communist Party in the hills of southern Thailand's Suratthani Province, he earned a doctorate at Britain's University of Bristol.

Talent and academic freedom have made Thailand's best universities sites for rigorous examination of the country's past and present, its society, economy, and history. Their scholars' ideas and writings have given the country some much needed historical and cultural ballast in the midst of dizzying economic and social change, though recent years have seen those scholars no less divided between "yellow shirts" and "red shirts" than any other group.

In accusing Mr. Thaksin and the red-shirt leadership of supporting terrorism, the Abhisit government may seek to conjure up in foreign minds images of the bombers of London's public transport or Jakarta's hotels. Within Thailand, however, to label an adversary a "terrorist" is to adopt the divisive approach to political conflict that Gen. Prem repudiated 30 years ago. It is to indulge in the demagoguery that traumatized the southern wing of the Democrat Party out of which Deputy Prime Minister Suthep himself emerged. It is to cast aside a legacy of earlier success in facing down a threat to the Thai nation that in its day seemed no less grave than today's.

Thailand has entered an era of mass politics. For all their liberal pretensions, Messrs. Abhisit, Suthep and their fellow Democrat hardliner Chuan lack the comfort of their nemesis Mr. Thaksin with such politics. They also lack a compelling vision of Thailand's past, present or future. In this regard they are joined by an alarming number of their countrymen, on both sides of the great national divide, in an era of more common "international" education and easier access to the "global" media. This lack of perspective, of historical ballast, is what makes Thailand's current crisis so frightening.

Mr. Montesano is a visiting research fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore.

Your remarks about the courts are AGAIN out of line.

Out of line with what? Thai Visa rules, the laws of Thailand, good manners? Please advise.

What's not for debate is that the Thai courts over many decades have a poor record for corruption and political bias.It was the case under Thaksin and it's the case now.

It's easy to see how he and his ilk are such big Thaksin supporters. In their opinion, the more money you have the more respect should be paid to you and the more worthy your view point. And they have the gall to call those against Thaksin "elitist".

Oh I see, the wealthy are those supporting Thaksin and the poor are the ones who go for coups, juntas,dodgy constitutions and "directed" courts.Thanks for making that clear because in my naivety I had thought it the other way round.

Seems to me some of the successful entrepreneurs ARE forum sponsors

Care to name a couple?