Another Pro-red Article On Bbc News

[Pdaz]

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.

yes I agree they aren't certainly aren't perfect..And I was aware many of their staff are ex BBB and CNN. Actually my views are a long way right of center.. That's why I can't abide the BBC's leftist bias...In fact all the leftist and liberal wimpering about the disadvantaged and how we should all help the poor gets right on my tits... Me ? I'm just a bloke from a workng class background who got off his arse and worked... Thru perseverance, distance learning and luck I'm now a granduate engineer with a 6 figure income.... Nowt to do with class... just the mindset and willingness to 'better' myself and no need for a handout or pity from the liberals and apologists.. If you want something.. work for it.. simple really...

Edited April 23, 2009 by Pdaz

[dbrenn]

DP25 said: "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. "

So if he has so much support, bring on the elections then. The very fact the Abhisit refuses to hold elections speaks volumes about his lack of confidence in his level of popular support. If he is so popular, you would expect him to jump at this golden opportunity to go to the people, get elected with a majority, then throw out the reds once and for all. All the people criticising him now, including me, would no longer have a leg to stand on. He would be the man of the moment in Thai politics!

Edited April 23, 2009 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

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.

yes I agree they aren't certainly aren't perfect..And I was aware many of their staff are ex BBB and CNN. Actually my views are a long way right of center.. That's why I can't abide the BBC's leftist bias...In fact all the leftist and liberal wimpering about the disadvantaged and how we should all help the poor gets right on my tits... Me ? I'm just a bloke from a workng class background who got off his arse and worked... Thru perseverance, distance learning and luck I'm now a granduate engineer with a 6 figure income.... Nowt to do with class... just the mindset and willingness to 'better' myself and no need for a handout or pity from the liberals and apologists.. If you want something.. work for it.. simple really...

I couldn't agree more. The fact that you were born into a society that provided you with a fair day's pay for a fair days work, which meant that you were able to save money, travel the world, end up in Thailand, and post your political opinion on this newsgroup. You also have the freedom to criticise the BBC and CNN publicly without any fear of reprisal.

You don't see that kind of freedom everywhere, and it didn't come automatically in your home country either.

Edited April 23, 2009 by dbrenn

[daveb1]

Just remember that if we didn’t have unbiased reporting from the BBC we would be left with the likes of FOX NEWS to tell us how it is or other big networks owned by large corporations,God help us if they are the only ones left reporting the news!

[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.

yes I agree they aren't certainly aren't perfect..And I was aware many of their staff are ex BBB and CNN. Actually my views are a long way right of center.. That's why I can't abide the BBC's leftist bias...In fact all the leftist and liberal wimpering about the disadvantaged and how we should all help the poor gets right on my tits... Me ? I'm just a bloke from a workng class background who got off his arse and worked... Thru perseverance, distance learning and luck I'm now a granduate engineer with a 6 figure income.... Nowt to do with class... just the mindset and willingness to 'better' myself and no need for a handout or pity from the liberals and apologists.. If you want something.. work for it.. simple really...

Take my hat off to that reply!

[sanmiguel]

Deviating from a 100% pro-USA or Israel reporting is bound to make you a few enemies, so I understand your anger.

Im from England if anything the news on the whole backs Palestine in this conflict and was vehimently opposed to the recent war, it has also been anti US and anti Bush for 8 years.

I believe in less govt and low taxation hence my desire for this propoganda station to be privatised and the money given to the taxpayer.

[sanmiguel]

Just remember that if we didn't have unbiased reporting from the BBC we would be left with the likes of FOX NEWS to tell us how it is or other big networks owned by large corporations,God help us if they are the only ones left reporting the news!

Dont you like the free market?

Whats wrong with Fox? Should news only be from one perspective at least they have debate on there.

Channel 4 news is run by ITN and is the most impartial, most indepth news coverage there is, we dont need to be taxed for BBC news.

[daveb1]

Just remember that if we didn't have unbiased reporting from the BBC we would be left with the likes of FOX NEWS to tell us how it is or other big networks owned by large corporations,God help us if they are the only ones left reporting the news!

Dont you like the free market?

Whats wrong with Fox? Should news only be from one perspective at least they have debate on there.

Channel 4 news is run by ITN and is the most impartial, most indepth news coverage there is, we dont need to be taxed for BBC news.

Oh please "debate" on fox news! I have no problem with the free market but when stations like Fox claim to be impartial when it’s clear they are not that’s what makes me angry. Sadly many Americans don’t know the difference I don’t think they even realize there is a world outside of the USA. Chanel four news is great but so is the BBC loose it at your peril.

[rixalex]

DP25 said: "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. "

So if he has so much support, bring on the elections then.

You don't seem to be disputing that only 36% of Thais voted for his opponent, so can you explain why you described 36% as being "the masses"?

[Scott]

Well, it seems that all those networks and reports are wrong too. I wonder why? They aren't rural, poor and they are educated.

I guess the messenger must be killed to.

Only problem is, I don't think it will kill what people want and expect from their gov't.

[F1fanatic]

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.

On one occasion, a producer got so cross with me for defending Mrs Thatcher that we came close to blows. - How dare he be so biased, unlike the writer. His view, shared by many colleagues, was that her Government's actions were indefensible. - Funny that, lots of other people felt the same way - but the producer was clearly biased, unlike Aitken.

But surely if BBC impartiality meant anything, we would have balanced our story by emphasising the growing banking, oil and electronics industries. - IIRC they did report on the increasing profits of the banking, oil and electronics industries. (Why should they emphasise it?) However, fat cats making even more money at the expense of everyone else was probably not considered to be as wonderful as the poster obviously thinks it was. The current economic crisis tends to suggest they may well have been right to not be as enthusiastic as the poster.

Instead, we constantly lamented the closure of shipyards and fretted about the ailing Ravenscraig steelworks. - I know, its shocking that they reported on ordinary people losing their low paid jobs.

By the time I moved to London to work on the Money Programme in 1989, Thatcherite economics could no longer be dismissed: they worked. Trying to remember when 'Black Monday' happened. Irrelevent really, Thatcherite economics certainly worked (for a time) for the bankers, oil industry etc. Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor got wider.

The Left's bitterness towards Thatcher, however, was undiminished. - Wonder why?

The real Britain was recovering, - for whom? Certainly not the poor. but inside the Money Programme offices it was a gloomy economic winter where every privatisation was doomed - you're right - it took a couple of years for people to realise that the privatised industries meant massive salary increases for the people in charge, redundancies for the lower paid and higher costs for consumers

Our scripts were as opinionated as any commentary in The Guardian. I argued the case for Thatcherism but was massively outgunned. - thank god Aitken at least was so unbiased! Perhaps (and I hardly dare say this- his arguments were frighteningly unsympathetic to the average brit - as oppossed to the wealthy?!)

I was viewed, I think, as a deluded oddity - more to be pitied than taken too seriously. - There might just be a reason for this.

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.

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 'lefties' in the BBC were vindicated in their view??

The BBC mounted a barrage of negative coverage on everything from the NHS to sleaze. - It was all factual but doubtless the BBC was completely biased to report it.

But in 1998 I finally decided to voice my concerns. I was in my 40s, experienced and confident enough to say what I believed. - And he hadn't before?? His previous comments state otherwise!

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

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. - Clearly unlike Aitken, she was so biased she could not see the truth.

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. - Its worrying that they did not understand the situation in the Falklands, Gulf and Serbia as clearly as Aitken obviously did. Their reporters 'on the ground' unfortunately did not share Aitken's unparalled knowledge of the situation in these entirely different parts of the world.

Why the difference? At the time Tony Blair enjoyed uncritical support within the BBC, as did President Bill Clinton. - Yeah, right. Not my recollection.

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?" - Cannot understand why he would think this

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. - Yup.

In 2001 I was hired by 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.

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. - unlike Aitken. How could they be so blind when Aitken was so obviously impartial?

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. - Funny isn't it how they could be so blind to Aitken's 'truth' when others in the (totally biased) BBC agreed with his views!

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

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.

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

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.- And you still don't think they had a point??

later Gilligan ...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. - Am I missing something here?? "Most staff felt war was unjustified". Ummm, did I miss the WMD being found? :jerk:

In late 2003 the Today programme became obsessed with the 'human rights' of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. A bit like Obama?

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?"

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. - Its v worrying when someone employed by the BBC airs an intelligent (according to most people) view, without thinking it may offend someone.

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, - Ummm, was the journalist condoning this behaviour - if so I missed it.

The Government will make appointments to the Trust - it will undoubtedly hire 'reliable' people whose political views mirror its own. - Will you feel this way if its a tory government?

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. - Says it all really.

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

Despite my comments on Aitken's ridiculous views above, I too think the BBC is biased (to a certain extent) towards the status quo and whatever is good for the 'establishment'. Having said that, as a previous poster said, as long as they are accused of bias by both sides of the argument they're not doing too bad a job!

[tso310]

Fox News, best comedy show on the airwaves but it is entitled to air its views. The BBC does an extremely hard job at trying to be impartial, extremely well. Long live the Beeb.

[JimsKnight]

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 !

Correctamondo! Marxism is in bed with the BBC. It sneaked in during the 1980s and cemented itself in the 1990s.

BBC TV is rotten to the core.

The BBC are now the toast of champagne socialists the world over.

Want to see BBC world news? Sure you can, but prepare for a ton of misery TV on the suffering of 3rd world countries and all the veiled guiltyness they fire upon UK and other more successful countries (UKs a bit hairy now but).

I don't see one article based in the western world. It's all depression and negativity on some hel_l-hole and they milk it dry for all it's worth.

If it came out and admitted it was pushing the left-wing agenda I'd have more respect for it. But it carry's on it's unbiased smokescreen feebly.

When Yasser Arafat died a Beeb correspondent went on the radio bleating about his death.

Saying she actually cryed her eyes out! Yeah, completely unbiased!

Guess which network gave live-tv links to Toxin? The BBC did, totally cosying up to him as he started up his rallying cry and giving it the hard-done by approach. No hard-talk or challenges, totally smoozing up like a paid prostitute.

Fox news at least doesn't make any excuses and tells it like it is. Right wing republican and they don't tolerate nampy pamby crap like the Beeb do.

Al Jazzy TV. I figured them for anti-western but they actually present both sides of the argument and cut through the bs. The music is decent and fresh, not like the subliminal rave bleeps the beeb champion.

[JimsKnight]

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.

Not always a bad idea if they're up to no good and preaching their marxist poison/left-wing idealogy.

One of the darkest things the spoken and projected media can take is to subvert the watcher into believing and following a contrasting idealogy, especially if you hit them at an early age.

Do you want your troops listening to dire straits - brothers in arms or pink floyd on the radio prior to fighting? I didn't think so either.

I love the music they make but not all of it's conducive to the militaries fighting spirit on the eve of war. Unless you want a lot more dead troops coming home.

The BBC and other stations have got this down to an art form for brainwashing the impressionable and young the like.

They mind-rotting soaps - we'll decide how to live your life.

Insane, dumbed down, reality tv - Big Brother, need I say more?

At least the Tories could see what was <deleted> on TV and what wasn't.

Some of the best British TV was made during maggies premiership.

[F1fanatic]

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 !

Correctamondo! Marxism is in bed with the BBC. It sneaked in during the 1980s and cemented itself in the 1990s.

BBC TV is rotten to the core. - its v worrying, but I'd completely missed the BBC's Marxist agenda.

Want to see BBC world news? Sure you can, but prepare for a ton of misery TV on the suffering of 3rd world countries and all the veiled guiltyness they fire upon UK and other more successful countries (UKs a bit hairy now but). - Quite right. It's sooo wrong to tell the wealthy world about the suffering of the 3rd world.

I don't see one article based in the western world. It's all depression and negativity on some hel_l-hole and they milk it dry for all it's worth. - Funny that, try watching the business programmes, they're on every day. Again, how dare they tell people about the depression and negativity in the 3rd world.

If it came out and admitted it was pushing the left-wing agenda I'd have more respect for it. But it carry's on it's unbiased smokescreen feebly. - You'll be shocked to hear that left wing supporters think the BBC is right-wing/establishment biased.

When Yasser Arafat died a Beeb correspondent went on the radio bleating about his death.

Saying she actually cryed her eyes out! Yeah, completely unbiased! - Yes, the situation has been a lot better since. I missed the report to which you refer, but perhaps she had a point?

Guess which network gave live-tv links to Toxin? The BBC did, totally cosying up to him as he started up his rallying cry and giving it the hard-done by approach. No hard-talk or challenges, totally smoozing up like a paid prostitute. - Again, I missed this report, but I was in the UK at the time and can state categorically that Thaksin was v controversial and doubt that the overall coverage was as complimentary as you suggest.

Fox news at least doesn't make any excuses and tells it like it is. Right wing republican and they don't tolerate nampy pamby crap like the Beeb do. - "Tells it like it is"!!! Only if you're a dam..d sight more biased than the BBC. At least the BBC makes some attempt to report intelligently. Fox News has a world-wide reputation as a joke. The BBC doesn't - I suspect there's a reason for this.

Al Jazzy TV. I figured them for anti-western but they actually present both sides of the argument and cut through the bs. The music is decent and fresh, not like the subliminal rave bleeps the beeb champion.

Edited April 23, 2009 by F1fanatic

[thaihome]

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.

Why do you continue to say Abhisit is unelected? Do you even know how a parliamentary system works? In the last election no party received a majority of the vote. The PPP received 36% of the vote, which means that 64% of the people voted against the PPP. The PPP put together a coalition that elected Samak PM. When the PPP was legally dissolved due to the conviction of the Speaker of the House for vote buying (they have a video of it), one of the PPP’s coalition partners then joined the Democrats in forming a coalition that elected Abbhist to Prime Minister. All this was done legally under a constitution that was approved by 55% of the voting population.

Rural economic system. I suspect that you have had no exposure to the rural socioeconomic system in place in Thailand. You question what is my point on powerful families controlling the rice milling, transportation, and construction industries in a rural provinces. Do you know anything about how the agricultural products get from the field to the market in Thailand? Do you know how prices are set? Do you know how un-landed people make a living? I think not, so you are not in a position to comment on how your “masses” are controlled by these families. But dispite your wishes otherwise, they rural poor are fully controlled by these families.

All this leads up to my comment on democratic evolution. What is going on now is not the downtrodden groups standing up for themselves and claiming their rights against all odds. This is a group of wealthy, powerful families who were raking in the cash under Thaksin that have stirred up the people under their control by telling them all their problems are due to the Bangkok elite (classic populism). Why don’t you do some research into Huey Long, the Georgia Talmadges, or even Boss Tweed. The similarities to rural Thai politics is amazing. What needs to be done is to find a way to reduce the power of these families who are actually the ones holding the rural poor down. When that happens, and people are actually free to make informed votes then Thailand will be on its way to “real democracy”.

TH

[geriatrickid]

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.

The lady or as you call her in your curmudgeonly manner "the old hag" basically saved England. Had it not been for her, England would have become the basketcase of Europe and it's economy collapsed. If it wasn't for her bravery and strength, Reagan might have blinked and the the Iron Wall never come down. She's the one that had the backbone to stand up to the faciasts of Argentina when they seized the Falklands. In so doing, she brought the Argentine military junta to its knees and gave democracy a chance to take root in Argentina. Thailand could use a Maggie Thatcher right about now. Honest, intelligent and tough.

Edited April 24, 2009 by geriatrickid

[Insight]

Given GuestHouse's previous post regarding being accused of bias towards both sides, it's interesting to see the pro-Yellow result so far. Of course, this could be attributed to the limited headline-grabbing activity by the yellows (with their Mercedes and suitcases full of cash) over the recent months.

[dbrenn]

Why do you continue to say Abhisit is unelected? Do you even know how a parliamentary system works? In the last election no party received a majority of the vote...

This thread is about bias in the media, but I think even the most yellow publications agreed that many of Thaksin's clique were banned from politics. This left people no option but to cast their votes elsewhere. Even so, the PPP still won the election. Imagine that, if you can - a military coup, a new consitution, banning politicians from only one side, disbanding the party the won the previous election - all that and the other side still got more votes that any other single party, including the Democrats, which meant that the Thaksin's clique was returned to power. It then took a judicial coup to oust Samak, then the entire PPP - only after all this was it possible to install Abhisit's lot. Not much else was left! If you call that a democratic process, then that's your opinion, which doesn't matter anyway. Let's see what the people do next.

Rural economic system. I suspect that you have had no exposure to the rural socioeconomic system in place in Thailand... blah blah blah

Got years of exposure to both sides of the political spectrum, thanks, which is why I don't agree with you. I have people very close to me in both the red camp and in the yellow camp, so your excuses as to why Abhisit should be called a legal PM are nothing that I haven't heard hundreds of times already. I also read news that presents both sides of the argument, and still I come back to the same question on double standards, and how they appear to be splitting the country in half.

As I have said elsewhere, Thaksin is a Thai verison of Silvio Burlusconi - sleazy and unpleasant, while Abhisit is an ineffectual puppet who has been installed by the yelow clique. I don't like either of them - all I wish for is that the people who are in power are put there by democratic process, the current absence of this being the root cause of the riots and deepening division.

Exploitation and corruption are always rife in Thailand. Tell me something that is not totally obvious. I hold Thaksin and Abhisit in equal disdain. All you can say for Thaksin is that he was a democratically elected civilian PM who gave the people at least a faint glimmer of hope, like health care for 30 Baht, microcredit, ad the like. Not perfect, sure. Was he better than what had been seen previously from powerless coalitions who talked all the time and did nothing? A lot of people seem to think so.

All this leads up to my comment on democratic evolution. What is going on now is not the downtrodden groups standing up for themselves and claiming their rights against all odds. This is a group of wealthy, powerful families who were raking in the cash under Thaksin that have stirred up the people ...

And only the reds comprise wealthy people who rake it in and stir up a rabble. None of those in the yellow lot, right? Don't you read the newspapers? Try a passenger who was trying to get a plane out of Bangkok when the PAD had closed the airport down that only the reds can stir up a rabble. Fact is, one side was elected while the other side wasn't.

I think that you might be one of those people working for the government's new PR team. Are you on the Dem party payroll? I think that all we are doing is having a completely pointless circular discussion that will never go anywhere. Shutting down local radio stations is your idea of democracy, I guess, as is curtailing the voting rights of the 'ineducated'

Let's go back to the topic of this thread - bias in the media. Yes, I do agree that the BBC is a liberal outfit and is biased. Trouble is, it has a few more readers than the Nation. They are ALL biased, which is why we should draw on multiple sources of information before forming an opinion. Let's not hijack this thread and turn it into another boring Abhisit vs Thaksin debate.

[thaihome]

I was one that posted on the press bias and what issues the foreign press could investigate in order to show what is really going here, You are the one that answered with a Red Shirt/Anti-PAD propaganda rant. Again, you refuse to directly answer or refute anything I say and just side step it and say we should stop discussing it. A very common method when the facts are not on your side.

TH

[samran]

Just a thought.

Not defending the BBC here (and Jonathan Head esp), I'm just wondering, what if the BBC started filing reports that you and I would consider 'balanced'? My view is that the reds would shut up like clams, and cut off all access to the Beeb. No more creepy interviews with that Slimebag Jakaprop. No more incoherent crosses to Dr T in some 'unknown' location.

I mean, Thai politicians at the best of times are adverse to criticism. Dear Leader Thaksin as his cohorts took it to a new Singaporean level suing anyone in sight who got under their notoriously thin skins and gutting ITV. That the BBC is perhaps giving a bit more airtime to the reds cause than it otherwise would is perhaps understandable in this context?

Edited April 24, 2009 by samran

[wayfarer108]

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?

We can't be sure that would influence him in the red direction, and it's not a necessarily logical conclusion, since Thaksin and cronies made liberal use of LM laws themselves to hinder political enemies.

More damning are rumours among other correspondents based in Bkk that Head maintains close ties to the T camp, possibly even enjoying perks of some kind. Just rumour, but if there's anything to it and it comes to public view, heads will roll at the BBC.

[onethailand]

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.

If we're talking the leaders, I fully agree.

My friend, who is a Reuters correspondent currently based in Shanghai, told me she wishes she had chosen Thailand instead. I told her that she's not missing anything important here - neither side is really fighting for democracy, or the monarchy, or for justice. They are simply fighting for control in a typical power struggle seen in many other parts of the world.

Both sides have caused damage to the country, and neither side has done anything for the sake of the country. I cannot support either side no matter what the cause. However, I do believe that the current government is more transparent and certainly more acceptable, despite some of its many faults.

I actually made a post on BBC with regards to the reporting by Jonathan Head early on in the protests - needless to say they didn't have the guts to publish anything critical of their correspondent. That shows how "impartial" they are.

[steadfast]

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.

You believe in the tooth fairy too?

[Pierrot]

Just a thought.

Not defending the BBC here (and Jonathan Head esp), I'm just wondering, what if the BBC started filing reports that you and I would consider 'balanced'? My view is that the reds would shut up like clams, and cut off all access to the Beeb. No more creepy interviews with that Slimebag Jakaprop. No more incoherent crosses to Dr T in some 'unknown' location.

I mean, Thai politicians at the best of times are adverse to criticism. Dear Leader Thaksin as his cohorts took it to a new Singaporean level suing anyone in sight who got under their notoriously thin skins and gutting ITV. That the BBC is perhaps giving a bit more airtime to the reds cause than it otherwise would is perhaps understandable in this context?

Honestly the "you and I", ... it's only you and you .

Edited April 24, 2009 by Pierrot

[Gary A]

The PAD has been and is controlled by the wealthy elite. The goal is to keep the farmers in their place. That place means to keep them poor and ignorant so the rich can get even richer. Eventually whoever ends up ruling will have to give the farmers something if they want to eliminate the confrontations. Thaksin was smart enough to give them something. That tells me that he was MUCH smarter than the puppets who are now in power. It appears too late to try to stifle all the media. Those farmers may be poor and ignorant but they are NOT stupid.

[wefearourdespot]

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.

So why aren't these next elections called for immediately ?

[wefearourdespot]

I do believe that the current government is more transparent

please explain how the indecent denial of the 500 Rohinga drowning made this gov "transparent"

[monkfish]

Which part of the report is bias?? exactly?

[onethailand]

I do believe that the current government is more transparent

please explain how the indecent denial of the 500 Rohinga drowning made this gov "transparent"

Sort of off topic, but in any case it was the military denying any interaction with the Rohingya, not the government.