kwai dung 

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

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.

 

 

Very good post, TallGuy. I think that, however one looks at it, either direct or indirect pressure from the junta was exerted on the newspaper. Clearly (from the comments of the staff about Prayut's forthcoming visit) there was a strong desire for self-censorship going on - so ultimately, this is all down to the tyranny exerted by the regime. Tyrannies all too often don't actually have to 'do' anything to get their way: they just have to create an atmosphere of fear and anxiety, and people will, for the most part, fall into line.

 

That is probably what happened here - and what has been happening with the bulk of the Thai people for the past four years.

15 minutes ago, Eligius said:

Very good post, TallGuy. I think that, however one looks at it, either direct or indirect pressure from the junta was exerted on the newspaper. Clearly (from the comments of the staff about Prayut's forthcoming visit) there was a strong desire for self-censorship going on - so ultimately, this is all down to the tyranny exerted by the regime. Tyrannies all too often don't actually have to 'do' anything to get their way: they just have to create an atmosphere of fear and anxiety, and people will, for the most part, fall into line.

 

That is probably what happened here - and what has been happening with the bulk of the Thai people for the past four years.

 

Self censorship, and/or a desire to avoid doing things people know are going to anger the XXXXs and perhaps bring consequences, is a big element here. And that's probably due both to the Thai custom and the current government's own repression. In a better world, perhaps the newspaper's management would have had a stiffer spine and more respect for the profession they're supposedly in.

 

I have no way of knowing whether this guy was a journalistic saint or a villain. But I do know, from a journalism point of view, he sure didn't deserve to get fired mainly because of a dispute over coverage that management feared would interfere with the PM attending the newspaper's birthday celebration. Yeeesh!!!!

 

So before people start laying all the blame in the hands of the government, they ought to at least consider placing a lot of the blame, as much or more, in the hands of the Post's spineless management.

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

The BP would be more readable without the Snide sniping style of reporting.

18 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Self censorship, and/or a desire to avoid doing things people know are going to anger the XXXXs and perhaps bring consequences, is a big element here. And that's probably due both to the Thai custom and the current government's own repression. In a better world, perhaps the newspaper's management would have had a stiffer spine and more respect for the profession they're supposedly in.

 

I have no way of knowing whether this guy was a journalistic saint or a villain. But I do know, from a journalism point of view, he sure didn't deserve to get fired mainly because of a dispute over coverage that management feared would interfere with the PM attending the newspaper's birthday celebration. Yeeesh!!!!

 

So before people start laying all the blame in the hands of the government, they ought to at least consider placing a lot of the blame, as much or more, in the hands of the Post's spineless management.

 

 

 

Yes.... but.

 

The paper is part owned by the Chirathivat family of Central, Tops fame so there has always been some interference in the journalistic side of things.

I personally had some correspondence with a Canadian journalist writing a business column named 'Insider' quite a few years ago and he told me that the Chirathivat family members (anything up to 150 of them) strolled around the newsroom & other parts of the paper as though they owned it.

 

The current removal of Pandey is similar to the Post's sacking of a journalist back in 2007 for reporting cracks in the runway's at Suvarnabhumi airport following pressure from Thaksin enforcers at the time. He later won a court case against the Post for unfair dismissal.

 

 

18 minutes ago, khunken said:

The current removal of Pandey is similar to the Post's sacking of a journalist back in 2007 for reporting cracks in the runway's at Suvarnabhumi airport following pressure from Thaksin enforcers at the time. He later won a court case against the Post for unfair dismissal.

 

I don't know that you can say "similar."

 

In the prior case, as I recall it, there clearly was government pressure exerted on the newspaper. In the current case, I'm not aware of any evidence of direct government pressure to remove this guy. There may have been. But I've not seen any indication of that. So I'm not to the point yet of being able to conclude the two cases are "similar" in terms of what led to the dismissals.

 

I will say this though: the one article that supposedly led to the confrontation between the editor and the paper's management was indeed "one-sided" as the newspaper executive claimed.

 

"KL poll 'a lesson' to NCPO"

 

I don't care whether the current government liked the article or not, though personally, I don't think it was particularly offensive to the current government.

 

But what was entirely missing from the entire article was ANY comment from anyone in the current government on the outcome in Malaysia and any significance that might have for Thailand's government. Since that was the whole topic of the article, journalistic standards would require at least trying to obtain some comment from the Thai government on the matter, and there's no sign in the article that occurred.  By definition, it WAS one sided.

 

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by TallGuyJohninBKK

26 minutes ago, khunken said:

 

The current removal of Pandey is similar to the Post's sacking of a journalist back in 2007 for reporting cracks in the runway's at Suvarnabhumi airport following pressure from Thaksin enforcers at the time. He later won a court case against the Post for unfair dismissal.

It was the AOT who threatened to sue the newspaper for false reporting of the runway crack and false reporting of American experts confirming the crack that lead to the dismissal.

31 minutes ago, khunken said:

Yes.... but.

 

The paper is part owned by the Chirathivat family of Central, Tops fame so there has always been some interference in the journalistic side of things.

I personally had some correspondence with a Canadian journalist writing a business column named 'Insider' quite a few years ago and he told me that the Chirathivat family members (anything up to 150 of them) strolled around the newsroom & other parts of the paper as though they owned it.

 

The current removal of Pandey is similar to the Post's sacking of a journalist back in 2007 for reporting cracks in the runway's at Suvarnabhumi airport following pressure from Thaksin enforcers at the time. He later won a court case against the Post for unfair dismissal.

 

 

You are absolutely on the money.The Chirathivat family is yellow through and through, and part of the pro Junta corporate oligarchy that has consistently been on the anti democratic side.

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

It was the AOT who threatened to sue the newspaper for false reporting of the runway crack and false reporting of American experts confirming the crack that lead to the dismissal.

No it wasn't. See the link below. AOT had tried to cover up the problems but it was Thaksin enforcers who pressured the Post to sack the journalist.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1839398.htm

1 minute ago, khunken said:

No it wasn't. See the link below. AOT had tried to cover up the problems but it was Thaksin enforcers who pressured the Post to sack the journalist.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1839398.htm

AOT sued and he was dismissed. BP retracted the news. There were

construction issues but his reporting was not accurate. He depended on a source and didn’t do any investigation. Didn’t see any mention of Thaksin enforcers. The issue was that BP editorial approved the publishing of the news so he should not be held responsible.

Just now, Eric Loh said:

AOT sued and he was dismissed. BP retracted the news. There were

construction issues but his reporting was not accurate. He depended on a source and didn’t do any investigation. Didn’t see any mention of Thaksin enforcers. The issue was that BP editorial approved the publishing of the news so he should not be held responsible.

You are quite determined to defend your hero.

 

What you are referring to is a different case of a news editor writing an article on the airport which the Post did retract after being sued by AOT. That particular editor either resigned or was sacked depending on which version you want to believe. This case occurred in 2005. The One I referred to occurred in 2007.

5 hours ago, KiwiKiwi said:

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.

 

Absolutely right, Kiwi. Any criticism that the Bangkok Post and the Nation for that matter make of the junta contains and  propagates the fundamental assumption that the junta government is a legitimate one, that they have the right to make policies and issue directives and appoint people and write constitutions and do all that government stuff. Their disagreements and criticisms are all about the details. A brave newspaper would have denied them that legitimacy from Day One and insisted on blank pages rather than soft criticism.

7 minutes ago, khunken said:

You are quite determined to defend your hero.

 

What you are referring to is a different case of a news editor writing an article on the airport which the Post did retract after being sued by AOT. That particular editor either resigned or was sacked depending on which version you want to believe. This case occurred in 2005. The One I referred to occurred in 2007.

There was only one case. Do proper research. He was bitter to the end and claimed political interference but has not blamed himself for relying solely on his one source and the indormation turned out to be false. That news affected the country image and the then government was naturally upset. Just reporting the fact. 

3 hours 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.

The paper should insist on being formally censored rather than softening things. They should publish with big blank spaces that say this article has been censored by the government. The junta has its job - censor and repress; the paper is supposed to publish and enlighten. Why should the paper do the junta's job for them. Part of telling the truth is to make it clear what limits on expression have been imposed on you. They should not pretend to be uncensored if they are.

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

There was only one case. Do proper research. He was bitter to the end and claimed political interference but has not blamed himself for relying solely on his one source and the indormation turned out to be false. That news affected the country image and the then government was naturally upset. Just reporting the fact. 

Apologies - your right that there was only one case.

 

However the information wasn't false - as many articles including the one I included in my previous post all make clear. The Post did retract the article and fired the Journalist under pressure from the AOT and the government. The fact that he was exonerated in the courts and the Post had to compensate him points rather strongly to him being sacked due to the Thaksin enforcers (including AOT - they did what they're told) which he certainly believes.

2 hours ago, Cadbury said:

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.

 

Yes. But, as I said, if the paper ignored the recommendation what then would/could the junta do without making international asses of themselves?

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

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. 

 Me too. I don't think I realised his disappearance was due to the military.

This another case of the Bangkok Post's very low standards.

 

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/fry_in_thailand.php

 

Basically, the Post abandoned its reporter, Erika Fry, who exposed a major piece of academic plagiarism and a culture of plagiarism. Her work has ultimately been proved right in every respect. The plagiarist eventually had his PHD withdrawn by Chula (not easily though) and might even have lost his job at - get this - Thailand's Innovation agency. The point is the Bangkok Post caved in to pressure of the "Do you know who I am?" sort and abandoned its reporter . I don't think they've ever published a mea culpa as far as I know. A shameful matter.

5 minutes ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 Me too. I don't think I realised his disappearance was due to the military.

I'm also curious to know what happened to Bangkok Pundit. 

11 minutes ago, tomta said:

This another case of the Bangkok Post's very low standards.

 

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/fry_in_thailand.php

 

Basically, the Post abandoned its reporter, Erika Fry, who exposed a major piece of academic plagiarism and a culture of plagiarism. Her work has ultimately been proved right in every respect. The plagiarist eventually had his PHD withdrawn by Chula (not easily though) and might even have lost his job at - get this - Thailand's Innovation agency. The point is the Bangkok Post caved in to pressure of the "Do you know who I am?" sort and abandoned its reporter . I don't think they've ever published a mea culpa as far as I know. A shameful matter.

 

I remember this, it seemed at the time (to me anyway), to be a metaphor for much that is wrong with Thailand. I have no love for academia, which I consider to be a self-justifying, self-serving manytimes amoral and often corrupt self-interest club, but there is no doubt whatever that the guy at the centre of this scandal epitomised the Thai disease rather well. The Bangkok Post, given the opportunity revealed it's real nature as a disgusting rag. The Nation isn't very much better. I met the bald Yoon once, and I have to say I couldn't get away from the man soon enough, he frankly made my flesh crawl. I also had advertising business with the Nation and the BP, and found each as unethical and unprofessional as the other, though ultimately, it was for the (American) advertising Manager at the time to say he didn't want or need my advertising if I was going to be crass and complain at the usual Thai fork-up that followed my payment.

 

A bit apocryphal really.

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

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. 

Thanks for your comment that you enjoyed the blog.  It is not true that the blog was closed down after pressure from the military.  As stated in the hiatus post:

"As of today, the blog is going on hiatus for a minimum of 3 months.

Q. Why?
A. There are a variety of reasons, but BP wants to state clearly the junta has not contacted BP. There have been no threats, warnings, or any communications by the junta or anyone else within the past 3 years. To be clear, if that was not broad enough, by communications BP means everything including in person, e-mail, telephone, fax, mail, social media etc. No contact or communication whatsoever.

Q. So unrelated to the coup and the junta?
A. Unrelated in the sense that there have been no threats or warnings. However, the constrained environment of commenting publicly about Thai politics in the immediate aftermath of the coup lead BP to rethink the future of the blog. This post-coup environment together with a non-blogging change of circumstances meant that it was time to put the blog into hiatus."

Read more at https://asiancorrespondent.com/2014/10/blog-on-hiatus/#amcgMRXpptRfFs96.99

 

That hiatus has clearly not ended and probably no sign of it ending even once we have a post-election government. Note the key wording above on "change of circumstances".

 

I also enjoyed your blog, BKK Pundit, and the extensive original research you put into it,

6 minutes ago, BkkPundit said:

That hiatus has clearly not ended and probably no sign of it ending even once we have a post-election governme.nt. Note the key wording above on "change of circumstances"

Nevertheless, I hope the hiatus does end one of these days

2 minutes ago, tomta said:

I also enjoyed your blog, BKK Pundit, and the extensive original research you put into it,

Nevertheless, I hope the hiatus does end one of these days

Thanks also for your comment. There comes a point where after looking at the cost/benefit relationship of maintaining the blog. Little chance of the hiatus ending anytime soon.

Never know with this lot in charge...maybe the Nation News outlet will get the same treatment, especially with a forum like this one attached to it that pulls no punches and is pretty damning on so much.

22 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Never know with this lot in charge...maybe the Nation News outlet will get the same treatment, especially with a forum like this one attached to it that pulls no punches and is pretty damning on so much.

I'm afraid you are too late Sir Dude

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/business/2018/01/22/nation-multimedia-taken-far-right-news-corp/

18 minutes ago, Siripon said:

I'm afraid you are too late Sir Dude

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/business/2018/01/22/nation-multimedia-taken-far-right-news-corp/

Haha...seems so. Cheers for the link man

3 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

Yes. But, as I said, if the paper ignored the recommendation what then would/could the junta do without making international asses of themselves?

I understand what you mean but if BP had the junta gun held to their head what other choice do they have other than to lie and say......"the junta didn't make us do it. We did it because we are principled people but what he did was naughty".

The BP's neck was in the junta noose. They had to lie their way out of it for self preservation and the sacrificial lamb's head (editor) was accordingly offered up on a plate.

The junta is the culprit for it's all embracing censorship laws. Shame on the junta and shame on BP.

The future for Thailand looks bleak.

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by Cadbury

I ask AGAIN - what would the junta do if the BP did not do as 'recommended'? There is nothing they could do without creating an international storm which could seriously damage Thailand and its economy. And, of course, the image they are so paranoid about.

So, I'm going with the reasons the paper gave for re-assigning - not firing - the editor. Even though that disappoints the junta bashers, who are merely speculating with absolutely nothing to support their argument.

Pretty sure there's more to this story than meets the eye.
I think BP's management wanted this editor to kowtow - be less critical about the junta.

 

When they saw he wasn't going to buckle under pressure, 

they pushed him out in a "corporate restructuring".

 

He was probably the perfect scapegoat anyways.

 

I ask AGAIN - what would the junta do if the BP did not do as 'recommended'? There is nothing they could do without creating an international storm which could seriously damage Thailand and its economy. And, of course, the image they are so paranoid about.

So, I'm going with the reasons the paper gave for re-assigning - not firing - the editor. Even though that disappoints the junta bashers, who are merely speculating with absolutely nothing to support their argument.

You don’t understand the background.Nobody suggests the Junta instructed the BP to fire the editor.You would need to comprehend the shareholders/ directors and their relationship to the government - and you clearly don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app