I wish local publications could find some balance.. In absense thereof, we still have respected international sources like BBC, CNN and here the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaySt...atures_box_main

Please move to the news forum, to add some much needed balance, as well as a good big-picture perspective.

Edited March 17, 201016 yr by WinnieTheKhwai

"Bangkok’s febrile media, and some officials, had played up the risk of bloodshed at the rally. A similar protest last April spiralled into chaos and saw combat troops deployed to restore order. The red shirts’ leaders say that they have learned their lesson and prefer to preach non-violent change."

I remember some of the red shirt's leaders preaching violence.

"Such scenes suggest that it would be facile to reduce Thailand’s politics to the rural-urban divide that Mr Thaksin exploited while in power, with his populist giveaways."

I think this is something that a lot of red shirts are missing.

> I think this is something that a lot of red shirts are missing.

I think so too; that's why I called it a balanced article.

> I think this is something that a lot of red shirts are missing.

I think so too; that's why I called it a balanced article.

Well if you could see, "balance" is being tilted to one side....

Far from being an invading army, the red shirts looked more like liberators.

"Liberating" this county from what, from the "Military-Dictatorship and non elected government"?

It's Mr.Thaksins and the Red's old fiddle .... none else!

It's the only sentence in the whole article which gets close to the truth:

...Such scenes suggest that it would be facile to reduce Thailand’s politics to the rural-urban divide that Mr Thaksin exploited while in power, with his populist giveaways.

And missing the payments caugt on VDO... altogether!

"The Economist"should stick to it's genre - Economical issues and reporting!

Edited March 17, 201016 yr by Samuian

The best analysis was not in the report itself, but found in the comments below:

"The red-shirts hold legitimate complaints regarding Thailand's urban/rural disparities and the undemocratic powerhold of Bangkok's military & bureaucratic elite. If only their protest movement could focus on those greater issues and dispense with pro-Thaksin chants (can anyone genuinely refute his corruption??), they would certainly strengthen their case and garner greater sympathy at home and abroad.

Despite the self-serving nature of some members within the current coalition government (and much of its powerbase), Prime Minister Abhisit himself is honest, intelligent and well-meaning. His most immediate priority ought to focus on building economic stability amid the current global slowdown.

Abhisit's next priority should then shift to addressing the valid long-standing concerns of the rural population in Thailand's marginalized North & Northeast. To help encourage this, it's time for the red-shirts to eschew Thaksin's financial support and work WITH a stronger Abhisit-led government by building on lessons-learned from their relatively positive experience under Thaksin."

Lets not forget the Economist lost alot of popularity here in Thailand for disrespecting the King awhile back. They are hardly balanced.

> "Liberating" this county from what, from the "Military-Dictatorship and non elected government"?

Yes.. Well: more or less; there are elections alright. The issue is that the resulting government isn't really in charge of a couple key areas in Thailand. Also refer to Huey's post; The Times Online phrased this rather spot on a while back, talking about newspapers getting in trouble for using anything but the most flowery prose on some topics, or even the order in which they print pictures accompanying an article. You can't expect the likes of the BBC, Economist, Newsweek et al to pander to every local sensibility when talking to a global adult audience. As long as they stay balanced and respectful in content of course, which all of them do; you don't see the BBC or the Times calling countries a 'gangster state' for example do you, like a Thai daily newspaper did.

Edited March 17, 201016 yr by WinnieTheKhwai

Lets not forget the Economist lost alot of popularity here in Thailand for disrespecting the King awhile back. They are hardly balanced.

That particular edition sold zero copies as it was banned - so in that sense it wasn't as popular as others. But just because The Economist prints things that most people in the country know to be true yet cant be reported here - doesn't make it ' un-balanced' or 'one sided'.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaySt...atures_box_main

Unbiased reporting?

Aren't opinion pieces biased by their very nature?

Not really. It just distinguishes background stories from hard-news events. Of course you can have (and should have) unbiased analysis of a complicated situation that's being reported on. International news media by and large succeed in this.

Edited March 17, 201016 yr by WinnieTheKhwai