https://prachatai.com/english/node/7747

 

BP has been heroic in it's reporting especially this last two years. Holding the unelected Junta to account, chasing down Prawit's watch scandal and highlighting the Cat Killer. 

 

Brave, honest and truthful man now thrown under the bus by Junta shame on you BP for being weak, slimy and grovelling.  

 

 

Gosh!I am truly shocked!

 

Press censorship-who would have thunk it?

 

And..by Jiminey..on the BP's birthday-with Mr Bigwig turning up..

 

Well,they might not be "gyring" and "gimbling" but they are certainly "wai-ing" and "graaping"

 

"Twas bryllig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe"

 

('Alice in Shangri-La')

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by Odysseus123

12 hours ago, shady86 said:

The real story below.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/editor-of-bangkok-post-forced-to-step-down-over-coverage-of-government

 

No, that's the version that suits the Guardian's political agenda, as in most if not all of their stories.

 

They omit all references from colleagues about the toxic workplace environment he created, the amount of people who left because of him and his apparent indifferent arrogance towards fellow employees.

 

The "real" story is probably somewhere in between. Junta weren't happy with him, some board members weren't happy because they're friends of the Junta and he had created a toxic work environment causing considerable unlike by a lot of employees and therefore created the way for his own downfall.

 

Had lot's of employees supported him, would be different. But so far none have, current or former.

 

The Guardian, btw, is a bastion of truth any more than The Mail is. One is left, one is right.

Umesh provided us with candid, fearless editorials, whereas his detractors dare not. 

12 hours ago, Artisi said:

"Pandey spoke of his pride at the “hard-hitting news” that he and his team had produced."

 

Wishy washy at best - as for "hard-hitting" he must be joking - unfortunately he's not.

 

 

Yep, 95% the usual pap and 5% decent editorials, for which he got canned.

 

Not exactly a great track record...

 

13 hours ago, yellowboat said:

In juntaland, is there a difference ?  Wouldn't failure to do as told be poor management and unethical behavior ?  At least, the new owners of a recently acquired newspaper in Cambodia were truthful enough saying why they fired their editor.  He spoke of connections the new owner had with the government.  SE Asia, for all its beauty, lacks freedom.

Seems like a fair point. He'd been at the BP for a couple of years. Now, if you are of a mind to criticise a military junta government, would you really apply for and accept a job at the Bangkok Post?  With it's reputation for polishing military boots? A bit hard to believe.

An off-topic argumentative post and reply have been removed from this thread.

Just a situation of a gutless media bowing to repressive junta atmosphere and decide on self censorship to keep their business alive. Honesty and integrity can go to hell. Bottomline matters. Same happened to Khun Pravit pressured to resign from the Nation due to his political opinion. 

14 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

Yep, 95% the usual pap and 5% decent editorials, for which he got canned.

 

Not exactly a great track record...

 

The Bangkok Post has several excellent Opinion Page columnists, such as Sanitsuda, Voranai, Ploenpote, Kong, Dawson and others, who continually  write scathing articles about the junta.

Pity you missed them.

4 minutes ago, elwood said:

The Bangkok Post has several excellent Opinion Page columnists, such as Sanitsuda, Voranai, Ploenpote, Kong, Dawson and others, who continually  write scathing articles about the junta.

Pity you missed them.

Didn't miss them at all. In general I find the 'excellent' columnists at BP (and more generally throughout the Thai press) the same way I regard most things Thai; medicore on a good day, but couldn't cut it outside of Thailand. The Thai problem, big goldfish, small bowl.

 

Anyway, the thread isn't about those others you evidently admire.

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

13 hours ago, shady86 said:

The real story below.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/15/editor-of-bangkok-post-forced-to-step-down-over-coverage-of-government

On the contrary...anyone could see that the Khaosod story was much more detailed and representative of the two sides to this matter. While the "truth" may be as mentioned in the Guardian but Khaosod have presented an alternative hypothesis that could also hold water. 

1 minute ago, elwood said:

The Bangkok Post has several excellent Opinion Page columnists, such as Sanitsuda, Voranai, Ploenpote, Kong, Dawson and others, who continually  write scathing articles about the junta.

Pity you missed them.

Yes,that is true.

 

But there is no doubt that they,in their turn,will probably cause their colleagues to be upset..deeply upset.

 

And that would be no good ,eh?

Just now, Odysseus123 said:

Yes,that is true.

 

But there is no doubt that they,in their turn,will probably cause their colleagues to be upset..deeply upset.

 

And that would be no good ,eh?

 

Not sure it's true at all, I stopped reading the BP largely because of the boot-licking that Vorani and Sanitsuda were in the habit of delivering. I haven't seen either one give s genuine shellacking to the junta government without copious caveats and 'yes buts'

3 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Yes,that is true.

 

But there is no doubt that they,in their turn,will probably cause their colleagues to be upset..deeply upset.

 

And that would be no good ,eh?

 

I wish they would but self-interested leopards do not change their self-interested spots.

Just now, KiwiKiwi said:

 

I wish they would but self-interested leopards do not change their self-interested spots.

Kiwi-You did not understand the spirit of my post.I was being sarcastic ie.."deeply upset" equals "de-railing the gravy train"

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

https://prachatai.com/english/node/7747

 

BP has been heroic in it's reporting especially this last two years. Holding the unelected Junta to account, chasing down Prawit's watch scandal and highlighting the Cat Killer. 

 

Brave, honest and truthful man now thrown under the bus by Junta shame on you BP for being weak, slimy and grovelling.  

 

 

 

Language is almost endlessly malleable. It is a useful technique possessed by the BP, to pen articles which appear to lambast the junta, while a closer examination of the words used often reveals an underlying sympathy, usually transparently catalysed by the same military they appear to be criticising.

 

It just isn't that hard to generate an opinion piece or editorials which contains embedded suggestions and other verbal devices which are readily accepted by the unconscious mind of the reader, but which are diametrically opposed to the apparent thrust of the piece. Sansern is a bit clumsy on this score, as one would expect, but I expect they have a skilled foreigner on the job (probably an Aussie or USA). Deeply tricky.

 

It should always be remembered that the BP is considered to be long-term yellow. They're not about to upset their fellow amartya by penning articles and editorials which are genuinely critical of the amartya-inspired junta. Just isn't going to happen and (imho) to think otherwise is just naive.

 

"Brave, honest and truthful man" He's a Thai isn't he? 'nuff said. See if he continues his alleged junta-criticism when he pitches up somewhere else. I'll wager he doesn't.

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

9 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Kiwi-You did not understand the spirit of my post.I was being sarcastic ie.."deeply upset" equals "de-railing the gravy train"

 

Apologies for the lack of acuity. Too much morning coffee perhaps...

Is the other English language paper critical of the Junta ?

52 minutes ago, MrMuddle said:

Is the other English language paper critical of the Junta ?

Formerly dominated by the Yoons, and now owned by a new organisation with more money; The Nation has a major readership sector of 'english-enabled' Thai middle classes. How critical of the junta would you expect them to be? How objective? How professional?

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by KiwiKiwi

16 hours ago, Cadbury said:

The junta crushes freedom of speech...yet again!  Paranoia by gutless military leaders on display for all to see. 

 

Surely it's the paper that is gutless for removing the editor, not the junta,

Well, I wouldn't put it past any junta government to start to demolish English printed news papers so only controlled native language ones exist. However, I'm sure that last part is true as I did read a Thai headline sometime last year that was anti-junta.

Just now, Bangkok Barry said:

 

Surely it's the paper that is gutless for removing the editor, not the junta,

Under normal circumstances maybe, but the story says..... "the removal followed his refusal to fold to censorship". 

The origin of the problem lies with the junta and it's censorship. I expect the paper has little choice if the junta "recommends" his removal. Difficult for them to resist when push comes to shove with the might of the military junta. The junta makes the rules and no one shall disobey, including the newspapers.

Another reason not to read BP or the Nation. The BP seems to have become little more than advertising for its proprietor's expensive watch outlets. As for The Nation, they have obviously struggled for decades with the level of support they need to lend each government in order to survive.

8 minutes ago, Mexlark said:

Another reason not to read BP or the Nation. The BP seems to have become little more than advertising for its proprietor's expensive watch outlets. As for The Nation, they have obviously struggled for decades with the level of support they need to lend each government in order to survive.

Yes, but the irony is that we are chiefly reading (and commenting upon) 'The Nation' articles here, on a website basically owned by or in collaboration with (as I understand it) 'The Nation'!

 

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by Eligius

17 minutes ago, Cadbury said:

Under normal circumstances maybe, but the story says..... "the removal followed his refusal to fold to censorship". 

The origin of the problem lies with the junta and it's censorship. I expect the paper has little choice if the junta "recommends" his removal. Difficult for them to resist when push comes to shove with the might of the military junta. The junta makes the rules and no one shall disobey, including the newspapers.

 

So what would the junta do? Close the paper, drawing worldwide condemnation and perhaps attracting trade sanctions? Make mass arrests of the management, drawing worldwide condemnation and perhaps attracting trade sanctions? There is nothing the junta can realistically do except stamp their feet.

Not that the world gives a rat's fart about Thailand, an international  financial, cultural and social backwater.

7 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Yes, but the irony is that we are chiefly reading (and commenting upon) 'The Nation' articles here, on a website basically owned by or in collaboration with (as I understand it) 

I had noticed. Whatever!

17 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Yes, but the irony is that we are chiefly reading (and commenting upon) 'The Nation' articles here, on a website basically owned by or in collaboration with (as I understand it) 'The Nation'!

 

For now.

2 hours ago, MrMuddle said:

Is the other English language paper critical of the Junta ?

I use to enjoy reading Bangkok Pundit till it was closed down after pressure from the military. There are some political news websites that are out of reach of those evil junta claws. Those are good sources of the real political news. 

43 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

So what would the junta do? Close the paper, drawing worldwide condemnation and perhaps attracting trade sanctions? Make mass arrests of the management, drawing worldwide condemnation and perhaps attracting trade sanctions? There is nothing the junta can realistically do except stamp their feet.

Not that the world gives a rat's fart about Thailand, an international  financial, cultural and social backwater.

What could the junta do you ask? They could unofficially and off-the-record "recommend" his removal from office (or else) as I originally indicated; then they could stamp their feet just for show.

Just to be clear, there are at least two different scenarios here that could have led to the editor's removal:

 

--One is that the Post's management, entirely on their own, simply didn't want their paper to be crosswise with the PM, especially on the eve of their coming birthday celebration, and entirely on their own decided to remove the guy. That's certainly a possible and plausible explanation, and the BP's executive's own public comments support that scenario.

 

--The other scenario -- which has happened in the past in other cases -- is that authorities either directly or indirectly pressured the media outlet to remove someone they didn't like. There have been times in the past where soldiers showed up in news rooms to pressure people over their actual or planned coverage.  But did any of that direct or indirect government pressure occur here with the BP former editor, if it did, I haven't seen any evidence directly supporting that. At least, not thus far.

 

A journalist can fall victim to working for a company that fails to abide by the true standards of journalism just as much as falling victim to a repressive government regime. Which of the two was the main reason here, I don't know.

 

This is a problem that occurs in many places including in the U.S.  The people who work to put out the newspaper every day are editors and journalists who are supposed to operate by standards of the profession. But the people who own and manage the newspapers, the business side, are often not people who have any journalistic credentials or creed.  And unless the organization is properly structured, non journalists can end up making decisions that impact the journalistic aspects of the paper for all the wrong reasons.

 

In a good newspaper organization, the editor would have told the business side that the PM's attendance at the upcoming newspaper birthday celebration is irrelevant to how we handle our news coverage, and that decision would have stood.  In a bad newspaper organization, entirely non-news/non-journalistic considerations get an editor fired,

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK