Another Pro-red Article On Bbc News

[Insight]

The BBC have published another article sympathetic to the red-shirt cause this morning - you can read it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8012145.stm

Here's Jakrapob speaking directly to Jonathan Head threatening "new action" while in hiding - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8009529.stm

And earlier, here's the BBC's take on the red-shirt riots - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7998243.stm

I'll save my opinion for another post.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Insight

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Speaking of bias, how about this gem, from, you guessed it, The Nation :

Whatever happened to unbiased reporting?

Published on April 23, 2009

I want to translate a part of an article written by Nation journalist Sopon Onkgara:

"Let Chiang Mai Midnight University remain in intellectual darkness. The academics there are nonsensical and have forgotten their roots. They are ungrateful to their motherland. They may have academic degrees which, when piled up, are higher than their height, but these academics lack conscience and right intellect, hence they are of no use. By honouring the motherland thief, the fugitive, these academics are the servants of the thief."

Why such hatred? What has happened to Thai journalists? Why can't they accept opposing views? Why trash the other side as if your opinion is the only right opinion and everybody else's opinion is evil? What is wrong with journalism in Thailand? Do journalists have the right to make one person evil and another a saint with such conviction?

This article is pure evil on the part of Sopon Onkgara.

Rinthid

Bangkok

Link: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/04/23...on_30101068.php

It'll be quite some time before the BBC gets anywhere near that level!

[WinnieTheKhwai]

On the BBC: I COMPLETELY agree with their analysis, though this article is not analysis, it shows insight in the view of the "Red" part of the country. This is a MUCH NEEDED balance that's severely lacking in the mainly Bangkok based English language Thai press. Seeing what those papers write, it's not surprising that a lot of people on this forum don't get the full picture, and as a result keep blurting out ridiculous viewpoints like a broken record. (Mostly related to the rural people having been 'bought' (best case) or that they're just uneducated monkies (also quite common). So overall you'd think that educated foreigners would at least manage to find some balance even when they don't get it from the Thai press, or yellow-leaning Thais.

BBC is therefore doing a stellar job, providing some much needed balance and insight into what drives 'Red' leaning people.

I live in Chiang Mai.

Edited April 23, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[daveb1]

Funny how the BBC is often used as the scapegoat for reporting the news as it is!

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Yes, and sometimes even from both sides in a conflict at the same time.. You gotta be doing something right when that happens.

Anyway, people upset with the BBC can join the queue. Mr. Mugabe also doesn't like BBC reporting, neither does the Burmese Junta, Sudan, etc, etc, etc.

Edited April 23, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[Boksida]

I think it is perhaps understandable that a British based based news organization would feel an obligation to ensure a movement fighting for universal adult suffrage would be heard.

[jumnien]

The right-wing ultra-nationalists that back the yellows would find Rush Limbaugh as far too liberal, let along the BBC! If the yellow elites could censor the news from outside Thailand, they would! Luckily, they can't censor what is published outside Thailand.

[clausewitz]

here are some more international reports and, OMG, they also seem to prefer red over yellow. Why is the internataional media all wrong, why can't they see clearly like srirachajohn, h90 and plus?

CNN

http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com/tag/dan-rivers/

they[PAD] want nothing less than the overthrow of the entire political system. Their argument goes something like this: the vast majority of voters are poor, uneducated farmers who are susceptible to corruption by Thaksin and his allies, therefore we should abandon democracy to prevent this corruption

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/democracy...jectid=10531139

But the PAD has nothing to do with democracy. In fact, it claims that the ballot box gives too much weight to the ill-educated rural poor, whose votes can easily be "bought" (that is, won) with promises of government largesse.

The so-called People's Alliance for Democracy proposes an audaciously undemocratic "new politics" whereby most members of parliament would be appointed. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva

The insurgents still style themselves as the "People's Alliance for Democracy," but this time some of their leaders are explicit in calling for just the opposite: the restoration of a full monarchy or a military-backed autocracy. Washington Post

What his [samak's] opponents, who come under the misleading banner of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), want is a mandate on demand, by theft. Straits Times

Even though the PAD's very name includes the word democracy, many of its supporters are skeptical of electoral politics. Time

The rebel groups are trying to roll back the results of last December's general elections and reinstall rule by an urban elite traditionally backed by the Thai armed forces. Irish Times

An alliance of street protesters and a reactionary elite. Financial Times

The latest ideologue [sondhi] who promises to fix their country's democracy by -- once again -- breaking it. Wall Street Journal

What the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) did on August 26 … was a putsch. La Stampa

Authoritarian rabble … the woefully misnamed People's Alliance for Democracy … a gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats. Economist

The PAD leadership is no collection of spotless democrats. The Independent (London)

The group's[PAD} name appears to be a misnomer as it is neither populist nor does it want representative democracy. Al-Jazeera

Edited April 23, 2009 by clausewitz

[Pdaz]

Unbiased reporting on the BBC ?

Not anymore.. Sorry to say but the Beeb is a shadow of its former impartial self.. Gone are the days when it could be trusted.. Fair and unprejudiced reporting has gone the way of the smartly dressed presenter in a suit and tie speaking in crisp educated English..

Sadly replaced with scruffy liberals spouting propaganda trying to make the sucessful feel guilty about their hard work and good lifestyle..

Hate to admit it but I watch Bloomberg and Al Jahzeera these days.. Better reporting, less bias and most important ... Almost no mention of f@@king football !

[CWMcMurray]

I believe that the BBC is fairly reporting the situation...

It will be interesting to see the difference on how the "Yellow shirts" and "Red Shirts" are treated. They should either both be pardoned or both be thrown in Jail.

I vote for throwing them all in Jail; it would be a really good precedant for some powerful people do some jail time in Thailand.

Realistically, there is absolutely 0 chance of that happening, none of the leaders on either side really want that. Better to just ban the opposing side from feeding at the trough for a few years.

[GuestHouse]

Regarding bias, the observation often made by journalists is - A good indication of having got the right balance is when your reporting is attacked by both sides of the fence you are reporting on.

[sanmiguel]

Sorry for the long post, but this is an adaptation from a book, written by Robin Aitken, a man who worked at the BBC for 25 years, on programmes like the Today, a worthy read if youve a spare 10 minutes.

We all know the cliched critique of the BBC: a nest of Lefties promoting a progressive agenda and political correctness.

Depressingly, that cliche is uncomfortably close to the truth: the BBC is biased,and it is a bias that seriously distorts public debate.

In the past 30 years, 'Auntie' has transformed from the staid upholder of the status quo to a champion of progressive causes.

In the process, the ideal at the heart of the corporation - that it should be fair-minded and non-partisan - has all but disappeared.

I suppose none of this should have surprised me. I got a job with BBC Radio Brighton

in 1978 after working in newspapers. I was delighted; I believed I was joining the world's finest broadcasting organisation with a global reputation for integrity.

But by the time I was appointed BBC Scotland's business and economics correspondent in 1981, I had doubts. The BBC in Scotland was deeply antagonistic towards the Conservative Government; our narrative was one of devastating industrial decline and Government heartlessness.

I had endless arguments with colleagues.

On one occasion, a producer got so cross with me for defending Mrs Thatcher that we came close to blows. His view, shared by many colleagues, was that her Government's actions were indefensible.

But surely if BBC impartiality meant anything, we would have balanced our story by emphasising the growing banking, oil and electronics industries.

Instead, we constantly lamented the closure of shipyards and fretted about the ailing Ravenscraig steelworks.

By the time I moved to London to work on the Money Programme in 1989, Thatcherite economics could no longer be dismissed: they worked.

The Left's bitterness towards Thatcher, however, was undiminished.

The real Britain was recovering, but inside the Money Programme offices it was a gloomy economic winter where every privatisation was doomed and government spending was ruthlessly cut to satisfy wicked monetarists.

Our scripts were as opinionated as any commentary in The Guardian. I argued the case for Thatcherism but was massively outgunned.

I was viewed, I think, as a deluded oddity - more to be pitied than taken too seriously. My face didn't fit and I moved to Breakfast News.

The General Election of 1992 put things into sharp focus. The BBC had privately rejoiced at the downfall of Thatcher in 1990 and there was widespread expectation of a Labour victory.

But that optimism was misplaced. Neil Kinnock failed to convince the voters.

On Election night, the atmosphere in the newsroom was one of palpable deflation. A young female producer was in tears.

John Major had little opportunity to enjoy his success; within months, Sterling was ejected from the Exchange Rate Mechanism and his Government never recovered.

The BBC mounted a barrage of negative coverage on everything from the NHS to sleaze.

That was coupled with a devotion to the European ideal. I remember arguing with a senior editor about the Maastricht Treaty and saying it was an issue of democracy, not economics. He told me I was mad.

As the 1997 Election approached, the Government was constantly on the defensive and the BBC was often happy to do Labour's Opposition work for it.

Fortunately, I didn't always have to concentrate on domestic politics and did stints in Washington and Russia.

But in 1998 I finally decided to voice my concerns. I was in my 40s, experienced and confident enough to say what I believed.

Also, I had the perfect place to do it. My colleagues had elected me to the BBC Forum, designed to improve communication between management and staff.

At one meeting, director-general John Birt seemed nonplussed when I raised the issue of Left-wing bias.

He asked Jenny Abramsky, a senior news executive, to answer. Her reply was short and dismissive; my fears, she said, were unfounded. I was wrong to raise them.

In 1999 the news was dominated by Nato's war against Serbia. The BBC was supportive, in contrast to its sceptical attitude to the Falklands and the first Gulf wars.

Why the difference? At the time Tony Blair enjoyed uncritical support within the BBC, as did President Bill Clinton.

At a Forum meeting in December 2000, I suggested to Greg Dyke, the new director-general, that there should be an internal inquiry into bias.

Dyke, a Labour Party donor and member along with BBC chairman Gavyn Davies, mumbled a muddled reply. As he left the meeting, I overheard him demand angrily of his PA: "Who was that f****r?"

At the end of the meeting a reporter from the BBC staff magazine Ariel asked for more details but warned me that "controversial" topics were often spiked.

Sure enough, not a word appeared.

I feared I was becoming one of those obsessives -familiar to all journalists - who write long, fastidiously researched but quite mad letters in green ink.

But I felt my worries needed to be addressed - even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

In 2001 I was hired by Rod Liddle, then editor of Radio 4's Today, to report on politics and economics. With an audience of six million, the programme is arguably the most influential in Britain.

But I soon began noticing bias in the subjects chosen, the people interviewed and the tone of voice.

I wrote to Phil Harding, the BBC's director of editorial policy, using the Macpherson Inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence as an analogy.

If the Metropolitan Police was "institutionally racist", I wrote, the BBC was "institutionally Leftist".

He was reluctant to engage and eventually told me he could devote no more time to my views, while Mark Damazer, deputy head of news, accused me of feeling frustrated about my career progress and attacked me for impugning the integrity of my colleagues.

Both allegations were false; I enjoyed my career and never doubted the integrity of my colleagues - they truly believed they were acting impartially, they just didn't recognise their bias.

'Neutral' for BBC journalists is left of centre for everyone else; everything is seen through the distorting prism of the progressive agenda.

As one senior news presenter told me: "Anybody who attacks the Labour Government is always coming from the Left, and the Tories are written off as insane or - if there's the slightest chance of them getting anywhere - evil."

But Damazer wasn't interested in my views.

As I was so "disaffected", he suggested I consider leaving the BBC.

The situation was becoming Kafkaesque. I was trying to get the BBC to be true to its obligations and being treated like a mad dissident. Privately, though, many colleagues agreed I had a point.

As Christmas 2002 approached I decided there was one, final avenue left open to me: the BBC governors. However, I hesitated.

I was, after all, an ordinary employee and, frankly, I was nervous of repercussions: I could be risking my career.

Nonetheless, I voiced my concerns.

Alongside specific interviews and programmes I thought demonstrated bias, I recounted the story of Steve Richards and John Kampfner, BBC current affairs presenters who both subsequently became political editor of the New Statesman.

About two months later I received a response.

After discussing my letter with Dyke and Richard Sambrook, then director of news, they concluded I "did not provide conclusive evidence of systematic bias".

I was disappointed. It wasn't just the slightly patronising tone of the reply, but the way my concerns were dismissed on the say-so of a senior BBC executive.

What would the BBC have said if the Metropolitan Police, faced with accusations of racism, had held a brief internal inquiry that concluded that there was no problem?

Bias not only stifles public debate; it is destructive for the corporation, too. Adherence to a left-of-centre agenda brought the BBC to its biggest crisis in decades and one I witnessed at close quarters on Today.

Within the BBC, opinion ran strongly against the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Most staff felt war was unjustified; feelings intensified by their contempt for President George Bush.

On Today we occasionally allowed the case for war to be made, but the prevailing tone was doom-laden. Arguing for a better balance was a thankless task: at one meeting I said our coverage was too anti-war; the editor's response was brusque.

"That's a very dangerous view," Kevin Marsh, who took over as Today's editor in 2002, told me. Dangerous to whom? I wondered.

On 25 May 2003, four days before Andrew Gilligan's infamous report, Today presenter John Humphrys wrote about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the reasons for invading Iraq in a Sunday newspaper.

He said: "You need a very good reason to kill people. Which is why so many were opposed to the war in Iraq in the first place. But eventually most were persuaded, even some MPs who had expressed profound misgivings. The question many of them are asking now is whether they were misled."

Four days later Gilligan conveniently provided the answer on the air, in his report about claims that Iraq could launch WMDs within 45 minutes.

"Actually," he told Humphrys, "the Government probably knew that that 45-minute figure was wrong."

The crucial point about the Gilligan saga is that the BBC got into a mess because it wanted to believe the story.

Today and the corporation would have quickly disowned Gilligan's story had it not so perfectly fitted their chosen narrative.

In late 2003 the Today programme became obsessed with the 'human rights' of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

At a planning meeting I argued that 'human rights' are contingent and that fanatical Islamists cannot expect to be treated as innocent victims. Afterwards, a BBC trainee confided that she often found herself thinking along similar lines but felt unable to speak up.

It is worth bearing in mind what happens if someone at the BBC breaks ranks.

In 2004, TV presenter Robert Kilroy-Silk wrote about the Arab people and asked: "What do they think we feel about them? That we adore them for the way they murdered more than 3,000 civilians on September 11 and then danced in their hot, dusty streets to celebrate the murders? That we admire them for being suicide bombers, limb amputators, women repressors?"

Kilroy-Silk's TV career ended the next week.

In a statement, the BBC's director of television, Jana Bennett, said: "Presenters of this type of programme have a responsibility to uphold the BBC's impartiality.

"This does not mean that people who express highly controversial views are not welcome on the BBC, but they cannot be presenters of a news, current affairs or topical discussion programme."

But how consistently is the Gospel according to Bennett adhered to? Are sanctions equally applied to all presenters who express "controversial views"?

Consider this passage: "The Pope's approach to AIDS has been outrageous. He has called for a ban on the use of condoms in fighting the disease in Africa...The orders from Rome are verging on the wicked."

A controversial view? Certainly among Britain's four million Catholics. An impartial view? Certainly not. And the writer? John Humphrys in a newspaper column in October 2003.

Another example, from a writer seeking "rational debate" on gay sex without a condom: "The first guy I ever f***** without a condom gave me HIV.' Since I've been HIV-positive, I've had 'unsafe sex' more times than I can remember, often with men whose names I could not tell you now."

Controversial? Yes. Impartial? Hardly. So who is writing here? Nigel Wrench, one of the presenters of Radio 4's PM programme, in The Pink Paper in 2000.

So how was the Jana Bennett test applied in these two instances? It wasn't.

The point is that whether a statement is "controversial" or not depends on your starting point.

What Kilroy-Silk said was controversial, presumably, among Britain's Muslim minority but, decisively, it was controversial within the BBC.

What John Humphrys wrote was not. Nigel Wrench is still one of the senior reporters, and sometime presenter, on PM; his views were, presumably, also judged not to be controversial.

After the Hutton Inquiry in 2004 I decided to take voluntary redundancy from the BBC. It was an amicable parting but I felt I could take my complaints about bias no further. The money I got enabled me to write the book which I hope will start a proper debate about the BBC's impartiality.

In 2007, there is a solid consensus within the BBC on most issues of private morality and, in many cases, public policy.

One presenter described the sense of superiority that working at the BBC confers on its staff.

"It's the whole thing that 'we know best' and it's our responsibility to educate the poor unfortunates beneath us in how things should be."

The way the BBC is run is about to change, with the governors replaced by a BBC Trust. But this is unlikely to deal with bias.

The Government will make appointments to the Trust - it will undoubtedly hire 'reliable' people whose political views mirror its own.

The erstwhile young rebels who changed the BBC in the Sixties and Seventies are now the Establishment, and their views, once so radical, have become an ossified consensus - just like the ones they replaced.

However, there is a big difference: the old Establishment was undermined by media scrutiny; the new Establishment is the media. Who can debunk it?

One answer comes from America, where the Right long complained about liberal bias in the main networks. The Americans, true to form, turned to the free market; Rupert Murdoch's Fox News provides a calculated alternative with a brash, patriotic, unashamedly populist tone.

It is time to give people a choice in Britain.

Perhaps the BBC should divest itself of a small part of its £3 billion a year income for an alternative service. Two per cent of revenues would give a newcomer £60 million a year for a speech-based rival to Radio 4.

The centre-right in Britain needs to be clear-sighted about its situation.

The BBC is a profoundly influential opponent of nearly everything conservatives believe, with the Right forced to accede feebly to the Left-liberal consensus.

If the time comes when British conservatives feel like fighting back, broadcasting policy might not be a bad place to start.

Edited April 23, 2009 by sanmiguel

[sanmiguel]

Hate to admit it but I watch Bloomberg and Al Jahzeera these days.. Better reporting, less bias and most important.

I used to think Al Jazeera was ok, but they constantly criticise the west most notably America and never not once would criticise any Arab or Middle Eastern country or barbaric Muslim practice, at a guess and i dont mean this as an insult but your views are probably left of centre hence why you see it as impartial, as theyre representing your views.

You are aware that many journalists who helped set up this station are ex BBC workers, the BBC is institutionally left wing of that there is no doubt.

Edited April 23, 2009 by sanmiguel

[dbrenn]

Speaking of bias, how about this gem, from, you guessed it, The Nation :

Whatever happened to unbiased reporting?

Published on April 23, 2009

I want to translate a part of an article written by Nation journalist Sopon Onkgara:

Yep - the Nation, and to a slightly lesser extent the Bangkok Post, are very obviously biased and (in the case of the Nation) unabashedly support the yellow movement. This has nothing to do with high moral standards - it's more to do with business and political alliances.

It's important to read news from a variety of sources on both sides, as well as talking to people from both sides, then forming your own opinion based on the validity of all the different angles. So many foreigners fall into the trap of believing that the bellicose propaganda churned out by the Bangkok Post and the Nation, an example of which you have provided above. Neither is impartial, and nor is practically any other publication that is financed by commercial or politcal interests. Having shrunk to mere shadows of their splendid former selves, the Bangkok Post and the Nation are quite obviously feeling the pinch, and the quality has taken a hit over the years. Judging by the grammatical errors that adorn the Nation's website, it looks like they can't even afford a proof reader.

Who is going to bite the hand that feeds them? This applies as much to the media as anywhere else.

Edited April 23, 2009 by dbrenn

[WinnieTheKhwai]

As per another current topic on Thaivisa, it's not just BBC. Perhaps someone can edit the poll to ask if the NY Times, CNN, Al Jazeera and everyone-else-not-the-Bangkok-post-and-Nation are biased?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Couple-Opini...Tr-t259642.html

[sanmiguel]

As per another current topic on Thaivisa, it's not just BBC. Perhaps someone can edit the poll to ask if the NY Times, CNN, Al Jazeera and everyone-else-not-the-Bangkok-post-and-Nation are biased?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Couple-Opini...Tr-t259642.html

But the BBC is publicly funded and proclaim to be impartial, these are private businesses and can do as they please.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

That wasn't the point.

Also, BBC does provide background analysis, which is ALWAYS a case of presenting the opinions out there. I think they balance those opinions and viewpoints very well, in this case MUCH better than the Thai press which are (self) censored and/or just biased as shown by that rant by one of their journalists that I posed in post #2; those are the people that write the content for those papers!

( In fact I think the BBC is by FAR the best news organization in the world. Are they beyond criticism: obviously not , but they do a heck of a job. )

Edited April 23, 2009 by WinnieTheKhwai

[dbrenn]

here are some more international reports and, OMG, they also seem to prefer red over yellow. Why is the internataional media all wrong, why can't they see clearly like srirachajohn, h90 and plus?

CNN

http://inthefield.blogs.cnn.com/tag/dan-rivers/

they[PAD] want nothing less than the overthrow of the entire political system. Their argument goes something like this: the vast majority of voters are poor, uneducated farmers who are susceptible to corruption by Thaksin and his allies, therefore we should abandon democracy to prevent this corruption

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/democracy...jectid=10531139

But the PAD has nothing to do with democracy. In fact, it claims that the ballot box gives too much weight to the ill-educated rural poor, whose votes can easily be "bought" (that is, won) with promises of government largesse.

The so-called People's Alliance for Democracy proposes an audaciously undemocratic "new politics" whereby most members of parliament would be appointed. Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva

The insurgents still style themselves as the "People's Alliance for Democracy," but this time some of their leaders are explicit in calling for just the opposite: the restoration of a full monarchy or a military-backed autocracy. Washington Post

What his [samak's] opponents, who come under the misleading banner of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), want is a mandate on demand, by theft. Straits Times

Even though the PAD's very name includes the word democracy, many of its supporters are skeptical of electoral politics. Time

The rebel groups are trying to roll back the results of last December's general elections and reinstall rule by an urban elite traditionally backed by the Thai armed forces. Irish Times

An alliance of street protesters and a reactionary elite. Financial Times

The latest ideologue [sondhi] who promises to fix their country's democracy by -- once again -- breaking it. Wall Street Journal

What the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) did on August 26 … was a putsch. La Stampa

Authoritarian rabble … the woefully misnamed People's Alliance for Democracy … a gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats. Economist

The PAD leadership is no collection of spotless democrats. The Independent (London)

The group's[PAD} name appears to be a misnomer as it is neither populist nor does it want representative democracy. Al-Jazeera

Interesting research, and proves conclusively that the Bangkok Post and the Nation are the only sources of truth on what is happening in Thailand . The whole world is guilty of a shameful propaganda war. The majority of Thai citizens are wrong to vote for Thaksin's lot. Only Abhisit and the yellow democratic freedom fighters know what's really best for Thailand.

Edited April 23, 2009 by dbrenn

[Roadman]

"sympathetic" Where? All the BBC article is doing is reporting on what the Reds are doing. That is not bias or sympathetic.

If the reporter had been giving their own opinion then bias is shown. Nowhere in that article does the reporter do that.

Perhaps its your shirt colour that gives the bias?

Edited for 'they' to 'the reporter' and to add in agreement with the sensible Winnie the Khwai that thankfully the BBC is around to report on the topic rather than report opinion like the thai papers do.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Roadman

[Insight]

I'm waiting to see an article that accurately describes why Bangkok and the other regions of Thailand are so strongly opposed to Thaksin returning to power. Many people I know distanced themselves from the PAD when they took over the airport, yet are still venomously opposed to a Thaksin-led government being in power. What happened to the voices of these people? There's a lot of them, believe me

Instead the word "polarised" is thrown around, and a picture painted of reds versus yellows with their flawed 70/30 politics.

I also read this blog post this morning which also influenced me somewhat into posting this poll.

I understand Johnathan Head had an LM charge thrown against him by a misinformed copper. If that's influencing what the BBC chose to cover, then didn't that work out well for the reds?

[Ricardo]

I think it is perhaps understandable that a British based based news organization would feel an obligation to ensure a movement fighting for universal adult suffrage would be heard.

Even when they throw molotov-cocktails. threaten to blow up gas-tankers, or kill & beat up on the local residents ? And now threaten an underground guerilla-war ? How about the Red-Shirts' ban on the Aids-Awareness parade, up in Chiang Mai, why didn't that get any mention ?

Luckily the other Red-Shirt leaders condemn this threat of violence, and say it's not official UDD-policy at all, just Jakrapob's own private opinion. Hopefully the Beeb will report that too, for balance !

[Pdaz]

Unbiased reporting on the BBC ?

Not anymore.. Sorry to say but the Beeb is a shadow of its former impartial self.. Gone are the days when it could be trusted.. Fair and unprejudiced reporting has gone the way of the smartly dressed presenter in a suit and tie speaking in crisp educated English..

Sadly replaced with scruffy liberals spouting propaganda trying to make the sucessful feel guilty about their hard work and good lifestyle..

Hate to admit it but I watch Bloomberg and Al Jahzeera these days.. Better reporting, less bias and most important ... Almost no mention of f@@king football !

[qualtrough]

Hate to admit it but I watch Bloomberg and Al Jahzeera these days.. Better reporting, less bias and most important.

I used to think Al Jazeera was ok, but they constantly criticise the west most notably America and never not once would criticise any Arab or Middle Eastern country or barbaric Muslim practice, at a guess and i dont mean this as an insult but your views are probably left of centre hence why you see it as impartial, as theyre representing your views.

You are aware that many journalists who helped set up this station are ex BBC workers, the BBC is institutionally left wing of that there is no doubt.

There must be two Al Jazeera's here because the one I get on satellite has critically reported on events/situations/practices in Arab and Muslim countries. Deviating from a 100% pro-USA or Israel reporting is bound to make you a few enemies, so I understand your anger.

[qualtrough]

The BBC have published another article sympathetic to the red-shirt cause this morning - you can read it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8012145.stm

Here's Jakrapob speaking directly to Jonathan Head threatening "new action" while in hiding - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8009529.stm

And earlier, here's the BBC's take on the red-shirt riots - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7998243.stm

I'll save my opinion for another post.

Thanks for the link! Nice to see that there is some somewhat objective reporting coming out of here, cause there is very little in the domestic press.

[thaihome]

On the BBC: I COMPLETELY agree with their analysis, though this article is not analysis, it shows insight in the view of the "Red" part of the country. This is a MUCH NEEDED balance that's severely lacking in the mainly Bangkok based English language Thai press. Seeing what those papers write, it's not surprising that a lot of people on this forum don't get the full picture, and as a result keep blurting out ridiculous viewpoints like a broken record. (Mostly related to the rural people having been 'bought' (best case) or that they're just uneducated monkies (also quite common). So overall you'd think that educated foreigners would at least manage to find some balance even when they don't get it from the Thai press, or yellow-leaning Thais.

BBC is therefore doing a stellar job, providing some much needed balance and insight into what drives 'Red' leaning people.

I live in Chiang Mai.

The leaders of the UDD are all from wealthy families that have almost absolute political and economic control of their home provinces/districts. They control the milling, transportation, and construction businesses. Virtually all the protestors are beholden to these families and to not say or do what they are told can be extremely detrimental. But notice that in other areas, that are just as poor, where the wealthy families are not supporting the UDD there are no protestors. If this is indeed a grass root uprising against the “Bangkok elite” why is it only coming from limited areas and not across the entire rural area?

Virtually every successful democracy in its early days limited voting rights and representation to included some sort of check against an elected governing body, usually be means of an appointed body with veto power. This veto power was controlled by the middle class, which in Thailand is unfortunately referred to as the urban elite. Why has no foreign reporter ever mentioned that democracy in Thailand is only about 75 years old, has been interrupted several times with military coups and has never had the chance to fully establish itself and then compare it to any other countries at that stage of development.? In every country where unlimited democracy was thrust onto the people, chaos has ensued in a very short time, for the very reasons you see in Thailand. Populist demagogues stirring up the lower classes into a frenzy against the “elites” with the resulting turmoil. Instead, they just report that the PAD wants to limit voting rights, have an appointed body with veto power, all true, but never the why.

These are all areas that could be investigated but yet, the foreign press just keeps churning out the TRT/PPP/UDD propaganda, I can only think it is because that is the easiest thing to do and does not require any real journalism and would give them an answer they really don't want to report.

TH

[GuestHouse]

If the time comes when British conservatives feel like fighting back, broadcasting policy might not be a bad place to start.

Maybe they could go back to the Thatcher policy of banning TV Programs and police raids on producers and journalists who upset the old hag.

[Jimjim]

Ya that was a pretty poor article, more like a feature than a news article. As a feature focusing on the every day people behind the red shirts movement, it's great. If it was meant to be a news article, it sucks.

On second look, I think it was meant to be a feature, in which they have much more leeway. Bias? Not necessarily, because he simply studied his subjects. Not even-handed at all, but not sure it needs to be for that type of article.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Jimjim

[DP25]

These are all areas that could be investigated but yet, the foreign press just keeps churning out the TRT/PPP/UDD propaganda, I can only think it is because that is the easiest thing to do and does not require any real journalism and would give them an answer they really don't want to report.

TH

Very true, and this particular reporter has been doing this for a very long time. Also journalists in general naturally defer to the side that they perceive to be the 'underdog' in any conflict, and Thaksin's multiple American PR firms he employs are very skilled in saying exactly what a reporter wants to hear, regardless of reality, while the opposing side has virtually no presence in the English language media.

[dbrenn]

On the BBC: I COMPLETELY agree with their analysis, though this article is not analysis, it shows insight in the view of the "Red" part of the country. This is a MUCH NEEDED balance that's severely lacking in the mainly Bangkok based English language Thai press. Seeing what those papers write, it's not surprising that a lot of people on this forum don't get the full picture, and as a result keep blurting out ridiculous viewpoints like a broken record. (Mostly related to the rural people having been 'bought' (best case) or that they're just uneducated monkies (also quite common). So overall you'd think that educated foreigners would at least manage to find some balance even when they don't get it from the Thai press, or yellow-leaning Thais.

BBC is therefore doing a stellar job, providing some much needed balance and insight into what drives 'Red' leaning people.

I live in Chiang Mai.

The leaders of the UDD are all from wealthy families that have almost absolute political and economic control of their home provinces/districts. They control the milling, transportation, and construction businesses. Virtually all the protestors are beholden to these families and to not say or do what they are told can be extremely detrimental. But notice that in other areas, that are just as poor, where the wealthy families are not supporting the UDD there are no protestors. If this is indeed a grass root uprising against the "Bangkok elite" why is it only coming from limited areas and not across the entire rural area?

Virtually every successful democracy in its early days limited voting rights and representation to included some sort of check against an elected governing body, usually be means of an appointed body with veto power. This veto power was controlled by the middle class, which in Thailand is unfortunately referred to as the urban elite. Why has no foreign reporter ever mentioned that democracy in Thailand is only about 75 years old, has been interrupted several times with military coups and has never had the chance to fully establish itself and then compare it to any other countries at that stage of development.? In every country where unlimited democracy was thrust onto the people, chaos has ensued in a very short time, for the very reasons you see in Thailand. Populist demagogues stirring up the lower classes into a frenzy against the "elites" with the resulting turmoil. Instead, they just report that the PAD wants to limit voting rights, have an appointed body with veto power, all true, but never the why.

These are all areas that could be investigated but yet, the foreign press just keeps churning out the TRT/PPP/UDD propaganda, I can only think it is because that is the easiest thing to do and does not require any real journalism and would give them an answer they really don't want to report.

TH

You have the yellow flag flying there! Not sure what your point is about the UDD having powerful people in milling, transportation and the like. So what? Lots of pols the world over have cash. Look at how Obama's lot spent their way to victory in the US election - Americans are beholden to Obama because he splashed out on an expensive and effective marketing job to get to be president. Hilary nearly went bankrupt trying to upstage him. In the US, not all grass roots supported Obama - some hicks are fiercely Republican,so your assertion that grass roots in Thailand does not universally support Thaksin's lot is typical of what you find in any democracy everywhere.

On to your paraphrase of the PAD manifesto, which implies that the people have no right to vote, and that they don't deserve to choose their representation. Yes, we heard at all the minority yellow rallies that only the PAD knows what's good for Thailand, and only the PAD should get to choose who runs the country. I think we have seen how that kind of insulting hubris goes down with the millions who voted for Thaksin's lot, with the descending spiral of resentment and violence. This arrogant attitude is thwarting Abhisit's forlorn attempts at reconciliation in parliament and elsewhere. Abhisit is out of his depth. He has snatched the top job unelected, but he can't connect with the masses that he will ultimately depend upon to keep him there, let alone get the ear of parliament as we saw today. It's the majority verdict that matters - nothing else. In America, not all people are politically enlightened. Should we take away their vote?

Turning to your commentary on the evolution of democracy, it's just like you say: all democratic systems evolved from a system of patronage, then limited voting rights where the people were kept in the dark for their 'own good', then full democracy as you know it in the west. There was always a struggle involved to claim these rights, and that's what we are seeing in Thailand now. By way of example, look at the way the Americans and the British treated the blacks as serfs in recent times, using tem as slaves until they stood up for themselves. The same applies to women's right's, gays rights, and all the other downtrodden groups who stood up for themselves and claimed their rights against all odds. That's what is happening in Thailand now. The problem that the yellows have is in this information age is that there are too many leaks in their worn out propaganda facade. People just don't buy their reasons why they should rule unchallened anymore. It is impractical to say that Thailand can go into reverse now, back to the 'good old days' when the peasants did as they were told in blissful ignorance - the Thai majority now have too many powerful people who are all too willing to represent them. Even if you lock up Thaksin's entire clique, there will be others who will tap into the sentiment and represent the people against the tired old generals who cling to power, and step up to the plate to take power.

It's too late to go back, in spite of Abhisit's belated and hypocritical efforts to censor the media and expect the masses to believe that he represents them, when they voted for his opponent. His efforts are futile.

Thank heavens you can't vote.

Edited April 23, 2009 by dbrenn

[DP25]

It's too late to go back, in spite of Abhisit's belated and hypocritical efforts to censor the media and expect the masses to believe that he represents them, when they voted for his opponent.

Except only 36% of them voted for his opponent. The vast majority of Thais voted for anti Thaksin parties, and will do so again in the next elections.