Another Pro-red Article On Bbc News

[rixalex]

"Your position isn't that you don't want elections", and yet you cling to the idea of an unelected Prime Minister.

There is no such thing as an elected Prime Minister, just an elected party. Thought you would have known that.

Did your knickers get twisted when Somchai was foisted upon us as leader? They should have. Who elected him? Of course we all know the answer to that, and it wasn't the electorate, rather one man with a square face.

Boring old numbers on seats that were won in elections don't impress you?

No they don't, not when democracy isn't free, fair and open - obviously that means little to you.

I suspect that you can't vote anyway, so what does your position matter?

Think what you like, because it's the position of the general public that counts, not your position.

The fact is that most of us are insignificant nobodies in the general scheme of things - i'd hazard a guess you are too. You might think that denies us the right to an opinion, i don't. What a silly attitude you have.

[Thai at Heart]

As a stupid question, what was the highest percentage that the Democrats of Thailand ever polled? 40% or more?

[dbrenn]

As a stupid question, what was the highest percentage that the Democrats of Thailand ever polled? 40% or more?

Last time the Dems were in power legitimately was Chuan Leekpai. He was ineffectual, uncharismatic, and achieved practically nothing. In both his stints as PM, the Dems were part of coalitions that spent all their time bickering and were incapable of making decisions. Just like now, in fact. Chuan was routed by Thaksin's lot in 2001.

What the Dems need to be successful is a strong leader who appeals to all sides. You can't say that about Abhisit, who is slick and urbane but looks stiff and uncomfortable with the rural folks. The other thing that would help the Dems need face down all the bickering factions in parliament is getting elected with an overall majority - something that they have never had. Looking back at all the hung parliaments in Thailand that could never make decisions bacause if factional infighting within various coalitions, a party, any party, that could get an overall mejority and with it the power to make decisions would be a very good thing. To their credit, only Thaksin's lot ever managed to do that - twice.

Being installed by the army dosn't quite measure up in the credibility stakes anymore.

Edited April 26, 2009 by dbrenn

[dbrenn]

"Your position isn't that you don't want elections", and yet you cling to the idea of an unelected Prime Minister.

There is no such thing as an elected Prime Minister, just an elected party. Thought you would have known that.

Did your knickers get twisted when Somchai was foisted upon us as leader? They should have. Who elected him? Of course we all know the answer to that, and it wasn't the electorate, rather one man with a square face.

Boring old numbers on seats that were won in elections don't impress you?

No they don't, not when democracy isn't free, fair and open - obviously that means little to you.

I suspect that you can't vote anyway, so what does your position matter?

Think what you like, because it's the position of the general public that counts, not your position.

The fact is that most of us are insignificant nobodies in the general scheme of things - i'd hazard a guess you are too. You might think that denies us the right to an opinion, i don't. What a silly attitude you have.

Dunno what point you are trying to make, other than that you don't agree with me, which is fine. Somchai was from the same party as Samak, which to most people is very different from installing a PM from the opposition. Somchai only got to be PM because Samak had been expelled from his post by the yellow judiciary for appearing on a cookery program. You don't tell us know what your idea of a 'free and fair' democracy is, and how it would be implemented in the real world. By the army, perhaps? Even in the good old US of A, that bastion of free and fair democracy, pols spend cash to get elected, and lots of it too. They call it 'marketing' spend.

And yes, we are all insignificant nobodies, although I get to vote which is something that you probably aren't allowed to do. The democratic wish of the people is all that counts.

Edited April 26, 2009 by dbrenn

[hammered]

Why worry what the media says/prints? It is just one person's/group's report/edit/opinion and is as likely or unlikely to be accurate as anything a person in the street tells you. Unless of course anyone atcually buys into that myth of fourth estate protecting the people and exposing.......

Put in that journalism is now also a nice but maybe demanding career and that further fuels the need for media to churn out sanitized lobotomized stories/analysis/opinions that fit the wants of the target audience.

Yeah not very high opinion of the media has me.

[Ulysses G.]

The fact is that most of us are insignificant nobodies in the general scheme of things - i'd hazard a guess you are too. You might think that denies us the right to an opinion, i don't.

Look who's taking. You don't seem to think anyone has a right to their opinion who isn't rivalex.

[ballpoint]

I enjoy reading your comments dbrenn (if not agreeing with them), but there are times when it becomes hard to believe your claim that you support no particular side in all of this and your insistence that you have no particular affection for Mr Thaksin, when you continue to use language that paints things in favour of one side.

I ask again, why do you describe 36% as being "the masses"?

"The masses" i think to most people would suggest an overwhelming majority and use of such a term is misleading. Deliberately?

As I've pointed out in a number of threads, this professing to not like Thaksin, and / or having no interest / being neutral is a common tactic of the pro Reds. My first feeling was that by stating this they are hoping that others will think "hey, this guy is neutral, he dislikes Thaksin, but supports the Reds. Maybe I should pay more attention to what he is writing." In other words blatant dishonesty on a scale similar to Thaksin's "I love the poor." However, I'm now starting to come to the opinion that some of them are needing the comfort of saying that to try and justify their beliefs to themselves. They know Thaksin is a murdering, lying, cheating, thieving, riot inciting scoundral. They know the Reds are ultimately trying to restore Thaksin, and a group of them will do whatever it takes to achieve this aim, but, personally, they did very well out of his government. Deep in their hearts they feel a guilt, but, in order to reconcile the two, keep repeating the old mantra "I really don't like him. I really don't like him... But, I'd love to see him back."

To get back on thread, the very fact that pro Red posters here are saying there's nothing wrong with the BBC's reporting is proof in itself of its pro Red bias. As Guesthouse posted earlier, the proof of balanced news coverage is when both sides are roundly criticising the reports. For one side to be openly praising them reeks of bias.

[Groongthep]

The fact is that most of us are insignificant nobodies in the general scheme of things - i'd hazard a guess you are too. You might think that denies us the right to an opinion, i don't.

Look who's taking. You don't seem to think anyone has a right to their opinion who isn't rivalex.

And whats more, rivalex believes anyone who is in favor of a fair and democratic system must be a Thaksin supporter.

[dbrenn]

As I've pointed out in a number of threads, this professing to not like Thaksin, and / or having no interest / being neutral is a common tactic of the pro Reds. My first feeling was that by stating this they are hoping that others will think "hey, this guy is neutral, he dislikes Thaksin, but supports the Reds. Maybe I should pay more attention to what he is writing." In other words blatant dishonesty on a scale similar to Thaksin's "I love the poor." However, I'm now starting to come to the opinion that some of them are needing the comfort of saying that to try and justify their beliefs to themselves. They know Thaksin is a murdering, lying, cheating, thieving, riot inciting scoundral. They know the Reds are ultimately trying to restore Thaksin, and a group of them will do whatever it takes to achieve this aim, but, personally, they did very well out of his government. Deep in their hearts they feel a guilt, but, in order to reconcile the two, keep repeating the old mantra "I really don't like him. I really don't like him... But, I'd love to see him back."

To get back on thread, the very fact that pro Red posters here are saying there's nothing wrong with the BBC's reporting is proof in itself of its pro Red bias. As Guesthouse posted earlier, the proof of balanced news coverage is when both sides are roundly criticising the reports. For one side to be openly praising them reeks of bias.

Spoken like a true Democrat party faithful.

Don't see much neutrality in your post, with its 'Thaksin is the devil' tag lines so characteristic of the PAD. All this psych babble about repressed support for Thaksin and inner conflicts could equally apply to you in the reverse sense - that you are repressing support for Abhisit by labelling anyone who doesn't support Abhisit and the yellows as a devil worshipper. That's fine if you're a Dem. In a free society you have a right to be one, but please don't tar everyone with the same bicolour brush. There are shades of grey, or orange as the case may be in Thailand. All this polarisation begs the question. Let the people decide what's best for them.

Any feelings of repressed guilt and inner conflict when the tanks rolled down the streets? Hating yourself for supporting an authoritarian cause, were you?

All news is biased - look at all sides of the argument from multiple sources.

Edited April 26, 2009 by dbrenn

[rixalex]

The fact is that most of us are insignificant nobodies in the general scheme of things - i'd hazard a guess you are too. You might think that denies us the right to an opinion, i don't.

Look who's taking. You don't seem to think anyone has a right to their opinion who isn't rivalex.

Rivalex? Nope, never met him.

[rixalex]

And whats more, rivalex believes anyone who is in favor of a fair and democratic system must be a Thaksin supporter.

Rivalex said that?

[SpoliaOpima]

2) In 2005, before the army deposed them, Thaksin's lot won 374 out of 500 seats - an even bigger overall majority and 60.7% of the popular vote

3) In 2006, there was another election that was boycotted by the oppostion. One wonders why.

Just a minor point of fact, the army did not depose the TRT-government elected in 2005, that was their leader PM-Thaksin who resigned the government at the start of 2006 and called another election, later annulled by the E.C. for vote-rigging.

The military coup wasn't until September-2006, against Thaksin in his caretaker-PM role, long after the election in April 2006 referred to as your 3rd point.

And if you really wonder why the opposition parties boycotted the April-2006 election, you might try reading some of the past threads, which covered the reasons extensively.

Not that it matters much now, but people tend to forget how much Thaksin was on the nose back in late 2005. He really was starting to lose support and power. The democrats, though probably violating the spirit of the constitution, but within the law (and desperate to save money), didn't contest the April 06 elections to deal TRT a financial blow more than anything, so they could possibly hope to fight the subsequent election on what they would hope was more equal financial footing.

Thaksin stayed on as 'caretaker' PM for the next 6 months. There aren't too many places in the world where governments insited on remaining in 'caretaker' mode for the next 6 months, though, with the threat of a further opposition boycott, and a further repeat of the April 06 non-election result, I guess one could argue they had little choice. So to a very large extent the coup was a circuit breaker (from my perspective, disagree if you want) and as probably as genuine a 'coup' as you could get, given that power was handed back to the very people they ousted a year later.

We then had two very ineffectual PM's following (Samak and Somchai) and this current government was formed from the parliament which was elected in 2007.

Shenanigans from both sides through the whole process. I'd argue if they put in someone competent from the very start after the coup (rather than Samak), we wouldn't have a Democrat government today.

Spot on.

[Pierrot]

2) In 2005, before the army deposed them, Thaksin's lot won 374 out of 500 seats - an even bigger overall majority and 60.7% of the popular vote

3) In 2006, there was another election that was boycotted by the oppostion. One wonders why.

Just a minor point of fact, the army did not depose the TRT-government elected in 2005, that was their leader PM-Thaksin who resigned the government at the start of 2006 and called another election, later annulled by the E.C. for vote-rigging.

The military coup wasn't until September-2006, against Thaksin in his caretaker-PM role, long after the election in April 2006 referred to as your 3rd point.

And if you really wonder why the opposition parties boycotted the April-2006 election, you might try reading some of the past threads, which covered the reasons extensively.

Not that it matters much now, but people tend to forget how much Thaksin was on the nose back in late 2005. He really was starting to lose support and power. The democrats, though probably violating the spirit of the constitution, but within the law (and desperate to save money), didn't contest the April 06 elections to deal TRT a financial blow more than anything, so they could possibly hope to fight the subsequent election on what they would hope was more equal financial footing.

Thaksin stayed on as 'caretaker' PM for the next 6 months. There aren't too many places in the world where governments insited on remaining in 'caretaker' mode for the next 6 months, though, with the threat of a further opposition boycott, and a further repeat of the April 06 non-election result, I guess one could argue they had little choice. So to a very large extent the coup was a circuit breaker (from my perspective, disagree if you want) and as probably as genuine a 'coup' as you could get, given that power was handed back to the very people they ousted a year later.

We then had two very ineffectual PM's following (Samak and Somchai) and this current government was formed from the parliament which was elected in 2007.

Shenanigans from both sides through the whole process. I'd argue if they put in someone competent from the very start after the coup (rather than Samak), we wouldn't have a Democrat government today.

Spot on.

111 rings any bell ?

Everybody agrees Thailand's problem is a lack of "good" politicians. When you kick out the best, you deal with the rest !

[SpoliaOpima]

Abhisit promised reconciliation, and he is not delivering it. Come to think of it, he is not delivering anything, and neither has any of the governments, red or yellow, that have followed the last coup. And you seem to think that's progress.

I think he is delivering it, but the opposition isn't interested in reconciliation.

As former senator Kraisak Choonhavan recently said in an interview:

Maybe there’s a way out, isn’t Prime Minister Abhisit reaching out?

He has overly reached out, but the reaction from the opposition party is very disappointing. They even identify themselves in parliament with the red shirts. Considering what the red shirts represent, the protection of Mr. Thaksin, they do not return the handshake.

[ballpoint]

Spoken like a true Democrat party faithful.

Don't see much neutrality in your post, with its 'Thaksin is the devil' tag lines so characteristic of the PAD. All this psych babble about repressed support for Thaksin and inner conflicts could equally apply to you in the reverse sense - that you are repressing support for Abhisit by labelling anyone who doesn't support Abhisit and the yellows as a devil worshipper. That's fine if you're a Dem. In a free society you have a right to be one, but please don't tar everyone with the same bicolour brush. There are shades of grey, or orange as the case may be in Thailand. All this polarisation begs the question. Let the people decide what's best for them.

Any feelings of repressed guilt and inner conflict when the tanks rolled down the streets? Hating yourself for supporting an authoritarian cause, were you?

All news is biased - look at all sides of the argument from multiple sources.

My comments were based on the fact that yours is only the latest in a series of posts from a number of people that could be summarised as "I don't like Thaksin, but... " And, like all the others, you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on here in support of someone you don't like, on a topic you have no interest in. First of all, you must be confusing me with one of your dishonest red supporting colleagues, I have never said I am neutral, or don't care. Secondly, where did I say I only support Abhisit? I would have supported the Samak led government if it had have got on with the job of running the country and not spent all its time trying to bring Thaksin back. And as for your "bicolour", either Thaksin or Abhisit statement, at the moment we have three choices: the PTP and Thaksin, the Democrats and Abhisit or the Phumijai and Newin. Of the three, only one is "led" by a legally elected MP. Yes, I'm sure I'm going to get plenty of "Thaksin and Newin are not the leaders of the PTP and Phumijai parties", but we all know they are. For the moment, the Phumijai have thrown their lot in with the Democrats, and together are forming an effective government, in that progress is being made. The PTP, meanwhile, spend their time trailing around the world after Thaksin, inciting riots, lying to the media, and then attacking the media when those lies aren't believed. We all know many of the politicians in all parties are corrupt thugs, the choice therefore is between the corrupt, thuggish PTP party, led by a known to be corrupt, thuggish leader; the corrupt, thuggish Phumijai party, led by a known to be corrupt, thuggish leader; or the corrupt, thuggish Democrat party, led by a currently clean leader. I therefore, at the moment, support Abhisit, as I would support any clean politician who wants to move the country forward, not drag it back to the TRT days. Indeed, from what I've seen of him, I do like him, maybe not as much as I dislike Thaksin, that would be impossible without a change in my sexual orientation, but like him I do.

To hide any ambiguity, I'm going to restate my position, without twisting, hiding or "truth economy":

I dislike Thaksin for what he has done to the country. His actions while in self exile has served to deepen that dislike.

Any one supprting him, knowing his crimes, because they were better off under him, is as corrupt as he is. You may as well be supporting a guy who murders your neighbours and then gives you their house.

I would support anyone untainted by any of Thaksin's governments, who proves they want to move the country forward and not concentrate on Thaksin's rehabilitation.

Of the choices we have at the moment, only Abhisit fits that description.

From what I've seen of Abhisit, I do like him as a PM.

Given the threats made by the red shirt protestors, after they saw their originally peaceful protests ignored, and the inaction of the police, the government was well within its rights to use the army to restore order.

By the way, the original question wasn't "is all the news biased?", it was "is the BBC biased?".

Edited April 26, 2009 by ballpoint

[samran]

Spot on.

111 rings any bell ?

Everybody agrees Thailand's problem is a lack of "good" politicians. When you kick out the best, you deal with the rest !

Pierrot,

To steal a phrase from the Australian political lexicon: The drovers dog could have done a better job than Samak. So could my resident motorcycle man. So could my local Somtam lady. My three year old daughter would have been more intelligible than Samak....in Thai. I watched his weekend fireside chats not having a clue what he said. Thinking my Thai wasn't up to scratch, I asked co-workers. Nope, they didn't understand him either.

That 111 people got kicked out it one thing. That they couldn't try harder to find someone else who could have been slightly more credible than Samak, is another.But I guess given Chalerm had is name in the hat at the time, I guess Samak looked like the better option.

[Ulysses G.]

By the way, the original question wasn't "is all the news biased?", it was "is the BBC biased?".

"All news is biased", answers that question perfectly.

[ballpoint]

By the way, the original question wasn't "is all the news biased?", it was "is the BBC biased?".

"All news is biased", answers that question perfectly.

No it doesn't. That's as bad as the standard excuse for Thaksin's behaviour: "Everyone else was corrupt and got away with it."

[Groongthep]

And whats more, rivalex believes anyone who is in favor of a fair and democratic system must be a Thaksin supporter.

Rivalex said that?

Sorry, I meant rixalex not rivalex, and I was refering to your answer in the following post. I'm not sure how anyone but you could describe the article in question as "pro-Thaksin propaganda". I don't like Nattakorn Devakula much either but this particular article was calling for reconcilliation with the red shirts not reinstatement of Thaksin. Here's the article for those who haven't read it. Devakula Op-ed column

Did you even bother to read it?

Yes i'm sad to say i did. Did you?

Not sure how i could quote the pro-Thaksin propaganda parts without quoting the entire article - it pervades throughout.

If you aren't able to see the one-sided spin in everything he writes and everything he says, the only explanation i can think of is that you share his views. That's a given, right?

[Briggsy]

The BBC appears to favour the reds as it is applying Western political philosophies when trying to explain the situation to listeners and readers who know very little about the ruthless world of third world politics.

I think they do a good job of reporting a very opaque situation where the main players often never reveal themselves publicly and the BBC journalists themselves are threatened with obscure censorship laws and their attendant harsh jail terms.

[SpoliaOpima]

The BBC appears to favour the reds as it is applying Western political philosophies when trying to explain the situation to listeners and readers who know very little about the ruthless world of third world politics.

I think they do a good job of reporting a very opaque situation where the main players often never reveal themselves publicly and the BBC journalists themselves are threatened with obscure censorship laws and their attendant harsh jail terms.

Your second notion doesn't explain the pro-red bias, since the reds are not in power. Your first idea is demonstrably correct for many media outlets that don't have longterm correspondents in Thailand. In Head's case some observers think there's more to it than meets the eye.

Edited May 9, 2009 by SpoliaOpima

[Texpat]

The beeb is just pissy because Thailand's Emperor's New Clothes gang had the temerity to bitch slap one of it's educated, civilized, proper and oh-so-much-better-than-you reporters.

[Briggsy]

The BBC appears to favour the reds as it is applying Western political philosophies when trying to explain the situation to listeners and readers who know very little about the ruthless world of third world politics.

I think they do a good job of reporting a very opaque situation where the main players often never reveal themselves publicly and the BBC journalists themselves are threatened with obscure censorship laws and their attendant harsh jail terms.

That doesn't explain the pro-red bias, since the reds are not in power. In Head's case some observers think there's more to it than meets the eye.

I did not say there is pro-red bias. However from the point of view of Thaksin's detractors, there appears to be because of the Western preoccupation with the ballot box and it being the solution above all other solutions. Since the will of the people was usurped twice by first tanks and then a pro-yellow judicial system, it appears to the Western media as if the people's choice has been overridden by the traditional elite.

The Western media has applied this "one size fits all" philosophy to Iraq, Russia, South Africa, Indonesia, etc. in its obsession with free and fair elections.

Thus I can see how the yellows (and now the blues) can feel the BBC is pro-red but I would argue they are not.

[SpoliaOpima]

The BBC appears to favour the reds as it is applying Western political philosophies when trying to explain the situation to listeners and readers who know very little about the ruthless world of third world politics.

I think they do a good job of reporting a very opaque situation where the main players often never reveal themselves publicly and the BBC journalists themselves are threatened with obscure censorship laws and their attendant harsh jail terms.

That doesn't explain the pro-red bias, since the reds are not in power. In Head's case some observers think there's more to it than meets the eye.

I did not say there is pro-red bias. However from the point of view of Thaksin's detractors, there appears to be because of the Western preoccupation with the ballot box and it being the solution above all other solutions. Since the will of the people was usurped twice by first tanks and then a pro-yellow judicial system, it appears to the Western media as if the people's choice has been overridden by the traditional elite.

The Western media has applied this "one size fits all" philosophy to Iraq, Russia, South Africa, Indonesia, etc. in its obsession with free and fair elections.

Thus I can see how the yellows (and now the blues) can feel the BBC is pro-red but I would argue they are not.

I see what you're saying, and agree there's a demo-fetishism behind much of the western journalistic bias. In the end we're saying the same thing. If the BBC or anyone else believes the 'people's choice has been overridden by the traditional elite' then in fact they are taking the red side.

Edited May 10, 2009 by SpoliaOpima

[Plus]

The BBC appears to favour the reds...

Appear?

Why do you think they wrote that fluffy piece on Kwanchai and Udon reds without ANY mention of a bloody lynch mob that started the cycle of political violence. It was less than a year ago.

Why do they talk about Kwanchai history as an independent radio DJ and no mention that he was paid a government salary at the time he was screaming from the truck to catch and kill yellows and promising money for their heads?

Why do you think it provides lots of quotes by reds - they call us sutpid, they call us buffaloes, they call us sub-human - without providing any actual evidence of their opponents saying anything like that?

As journalism it's absolutely abhorring.

[dee123]

The BBC appears to favour the reds as it is applying Western political philosophies when trying to explain the situation to listeners and readers who know very little about the ruthless world of third world politics.

I think they do a good job of reporting a very opaque situation where the main players often never reveal themselves publicly and the BBC journalists themselves are threatened with obscure censorship laws and their attendant harsh jail terms.

That doesn't explain the pro-red bias, since the reds are not in power. In Head's case some observers think there's more to it than meets the eye.

I did not say there is pro-red bias. However from the point of view of Thaksin's detractors, there appears to be because of the Western preoccupation with the ballot box and it being the solution above all other solutions. Since the will of the people was usurped twice by first tanks and then a pro-yellow judicial system, it appears to the Western media as if the people's choice has been overridden by the traditional elite.

The Western media has applied this "one size fits all" philosophy to Iraq, Russia, South Africa, Indonesia, etc. in its obsession with free and fair elections.

Thus I can see how the yellows (and now the blues) can feel the BBC is pro-red but I would argue they are not.

you will find that whoever is in power gets the biggest kicking by BBC Channel4 CNN and all....this is NOT the same with Thai English Lanquage newspapers who constantly publish negative articles about Thaksin and do not critisise the military top bras and self censor