International Media Biased Against Abhisit Govt?

[junkofdavid2]

I think there is at least some merit to the sentiment by some that the international media seems to be biased or "harsh" regarding the Abhisit govt. and seems rather soft when dealing with the Red Shirt movement; complete with side-comments or veiled slurs regarding how the Abhisit came to power.

However, could this "international media bias" just be a reaction to the seemingly one-sided bias of local media against the Red Shirt movement during the time when the Red Shirts were "still peaceful"? (Yes, it's obvious the Red Shirts have now gone out of control, with thugs invading a hospital).

During the time the Reds were still "orderly" (obviously not anymore), the local mainstream media never seemed to give them a fair shake in the news.... This then may have pushed the international media to be sympathetic to the Reds' cause.

[rixalex]

If what you are saying were true - that the international media has deliberately swung in favour of one group simply to counter-balance local media support for the other group - it wouldn't really say much about the quality of international media.

[doggie888888]

One man's "bias" is another man's "fact"...and never the twain shall meet. Rather like "terrorists" are viewed as "freedom fighters" in some societies. Depends on your point of view.

Is there a bias? I don't think so. In any event, most media like the underdogs, especially one who seems to be rather effective in rattling The Establishment wherever this may occur. A government, with the state's coffers and the might of the military and police behind it cannot squash a motley crew of rebels with (and some wtihout) a cause...that's newsworthy to the media! Also, regardless of local propaganda, most casual observers can see the "imbalances" in Thai society, entrenched cronyism and institutionalised corruption, the outcome of which is the continued "protection" of one class over at the expejnse of another class...it all makes for good news cover.

[junkofdavid2]

In any event, most media like the underdogs,

That makes sense...

@Rixalex: Actually I'm not sure it is "deliberate", but more possibly a reaction.... and/or a reaction helped by the 'underdog' bias by the international media mentioned by Doggie88

[rixalex]

One man's "bias" is another man's "fact"...and never the twain shall meet. Rather like "terrorists" are viewed as "freedom fighters" in some societies. Depends on your point of view.

Is there a bias? I don't think so. In any event, most media like the underdogs, especially one who seems to be rather effective in rattling The Establishment wherever this may occur. A government, with the state's coffers and the might of the military and police behind it cannot squash a motley crew of rebels with (and some wtihout) a cause...that's newsworthy to the media! Also, regardless of local propaganda, most casual observers can see the "imbalances" in Thai society, entrenched cronyism and institutionalised corruption, the outcome of which is the continued "protection" of one class over at the expejnse of another class...it all makes for good news cover.

I have no problem with the international media rattling the cage of the government and challenging them at every turn - that's what the media should be doing in any country, it's what helps keep them on their toes - and we know that local media is crap at doing that. What i do have a problem with however is the way in which the international media doesn't scrutinize or question the red camp in the same way as they do the government. The media should be giving all sides a hard time and putting them all under pressure to answer difficult questions. They aren't doing that at the moment. Why, i don't know.

[Xangsamhua]

Western journalists seem to be driven by Narodnik-style romanticism combined with Annaliste and Neo-Marxist perspectives on world events and social change. On the one hand the peasants are the salt of the earth taking the fight to capitalism and globalization. On the other hand, they and their leaders are really mere superstructural respondents to the architectonic shift in the socio-economic base that is the fundamental generator of political action.

So for Western journalists to see the reds as mere lackeys of a rich and powerful man is too simple. Likewise, to see the government as having any authenticity is to miss the wood for the trees. The government, in this view, is simply the blinkered representative of more basic forces, which in turn, represent a deservedly dying power structure based on privilege and economic influence.

This perspective has much merit once the romanticism has been excised, but it tends to miss the elephant in the room, whether it be the influence of Thaksin, in the present case, or the anarchic and ideologically confused nature of the Red campaign.

[bendejo]

When there are street uprisings in the developing world, I think there is somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction in favor of the great unwashed that is standing up to an oppressive regime. It is easy to go along with as long as you don't read beyond the first or second paragraph of the newspaper article. I would doubt that many outside of Thailand understand how Taksin is involved in all this. I would think that Occidentals who aren't good at geography are seeing reports from Thailand on television and confusing it with the situation in Burma.

Another example is Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The US gov't doesn't like him, not even Obama. In reaction, Chavez gets support from left-leaning Yanks who know very little about him and his aspirations.

Though there are some good journalists out there, many in the media work towards headlines and reactions and aren't too concerned with the complete story.

[jazzbo]

February 12, 2009 — The 2009 recipient of the (Harvard JFK School of Government) Shorenstein Prize for Reporting on Asia is Seth Mydans, who covers Southeast Asia for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune from his base in Bangkok, Thailand.

Since taking up the post in 1996 he has covered the fall of Suharto and rise of democracy in Indonesia; the death of Pol Pot, the demise of the Khmer Rouge and the trauma and slow rebirth of Cambodia; repeated attempts at People Power in the Philippines; the idiosyncracies of Singapore and Malaysia; the long-running political crisis in Thailand and the seemingly endless troubles of Myanmar.

In the 1980s he covered the fall of Marcos and struggles of Corazon Aquino in the Philippines and was in Burma for the massacres that led to the emergence of Aung San Suu Kyi and the current junta. He worked for a construction company in Vietnam during the war after graduating from Harvard, and has followed the Vietnam story since then, through the exodus of refugees, to their resettlement in the United States, to the shaping of a new postwar Vietnam.

see also:

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference...dans/index.html

[rixalex]

Though there are some good journalists out there, many in the media work towards headlines and reactions and aren't too concerned with the complete story.

Of course you are right but isn't it a bit weird when you consider that the complete story (in this case anyway) would be more sensational and headline friendly than the simplistic and misleading one they chose to report.

[Garry9999]

The international media see the Abhisit government as a product of the 2006 coup. No government any where in the world can expect good press if they are not seen as legitimate.

If Abhisit calls an election and wins, then you will see support in the international media.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Garry9999

[rixalex]

The international media see the Abhisit government as a product of the 2006 coup. No government any where in the world can expect good press if they are not seen as legitimate.

If Abhisit calls an election and wins, then you will see support in the international media.

Yes i think you are right, although i don't agree with the international media's perception.

Did Abhisit come to power in an unconventional manner? For sure. Is it legal and legitimate? For sure. Is it Abhisit's fault that the PPP broke the law and got itself disbanded? Nope. And that is what Abhisit's government is a direct product of - the PPP's illegal activity - and not the coup. No illegal activity, no Abhisit government.

[way2muchcoffee]

February 12, 2009 — The 2009 recipient of the (Harvard JFK School of Government) Shorenstein Prize for Reporting on Asia is Seth Mydans, who covers Southeast Asia for the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune from his base in Bangkok, Thailand.

Since taking up the post in 1996 he has covered the fall of Suharto and rise of democracy in Indonesia; the death of Pol Pot, the demise of the Khmer Rouge and the trauma and slow rebirth of Cambodia; repeated attempts at People Power in the Philippines; the idiosyncracies of Singapore and Malaysia; the long-running political crisis in Thailand and the seemingly endless troubles of Myanmar.

In the 1980s he covered the fall of Marcos and struggles of Corazon Aquino in the Philippines and was in Burma for the massacres that led to the emergence of Aung San Suu Kyi and the current junta. He worked for a construction company in Vietnam during the war after graduating from Harvard, and has followed the Vietnam story since then, through the exodus of refugees, to their resettlement in the United States, to the shaping of a new postwar Vietnam.

see also:

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference...dans/index.html

His articles are decent. He is pretty even-handed in his reporting style and attempts to tell all sides to a conflict without letting his own bias show through.

The NYT has another Asia correspondent named Thomas Fuller. His articles show a bit more bias and his writing is not as good as Seth Mydan's.

[MiG16]

Im letting this one run for now

but if it turns into yet another red/yellow/government/multi-coloured/pink discussion, then Ill have to close it

[Lite Beer]

A post bringing the Monarchy into a political discussion has been deleted.

Please read the rules.

2) Not to express disrespect of the King of Thailand or anyone else in the Thai royal family, whether living or deceased, nor to criticize the monarchy as an institution. Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family. Discussion of the lese majeste law or lese majeste cases is permitted on the forum, providing no comment or speculation is made referencing the royal family. To breach this rule will result in immediate ban.

[Jingthing]

A bias I have noticed which I think is starting to change is an under-reporting of facts that would show the reds in a bad light and an over-reporting of pictures of cute kiddies in red outfits. I hope they can be objective but to do that you need more detailed reporting and more facts mentioned. The world at present isn't really that interested yet.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Jingthing

[LazyYogi]

However, could this "international media bias" just be a reaction to the seemingly one-sided bias of local media against the Red Shirt movement during the time when the Red Shirts were "still peaceful"?

I'm sorry? When were they ever peaceful? The reds have been violent since the very beginning.

Do you remember the murder of Settha Jiamkitwattana by a mob of angry red-shirts in Chiang Mai back in November 26, 2008. Or did that not happen?

In case you did forget: http://www.chiangmai-mail.com/302/news.shtml#hd1

Edited May 1, 2010 by LazyYogi

[rixalex]

However, could this "international media bias" just be a reaction to the seemingly one-sided bias of local media against the Red Shirt movement during the time when the Red Shirts were "still peaceful"?

I'm sorry? When were they ever peaceful?

I think he meant at the beginning of this current Bangkok protest, which did remain peaceful in its early stages. I remember it quite clearly because all the red shirts were coming on here proudly telling us how peaceful it was and how they were all law-abiding citizens. They were scoffing at those who predicted it would turn ugly. Well now it is.

[Rinrada]

The international media see the Abhisit government as a product of the 2006 coup. No government any where in the world can expect good press if they are not seen as legitimate.

If Abhisit calls an election and wins, then you will see support in the international media.

Absolutely....and thats ALL it takes ......

and he might even WIN...and be fully accepted if seen to be done with minimum corruption...(aint that naieve )

...otherwise hes DOOMED....DOOMED

[onethailand]

I don't think it's a bias towards either side - instead it's the typical media tendency to play up or hype the more interesting stuff.

Now if the gov't were to take some firm action, perhaps they would get the bulk of the media play.

[monkfish]

Human rights organizations are also bias against the Government.

Local news agencies seem to have missed this story.

Anyway wasn't quite sure where to put this may be a special thread should be set up for Human Rights abuses?

MODS if you don't think it fits this thread then go ahead and remove it but let me know a appropriate thread where I can put it.

There have been several articles from various Human Rights organizations regarding the protests so I think we could easily make a separate thread for the topic.

http://www.achrweb.org/press/2010/THAI01-2010.html

Thailand: Joint parliamentary probe into the killings on 10 April 2010 demanded

- Thai government warned of international legal action against killing of the civilians -

Bangkok: The Asian Centre for Human Rights, a NGO having Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) warned against impending human rights catastrophe against the Red Shirts demonstrators in Bangkok, Thailand and condemned the violations of the right to life of the Red Shirt protestors and absolute denial of the freedom of expression by the Government of Thailand through banning and/or blocking of all the television stations, radio stations and the internet sites allegedly closed to the opposition political parties.

The evidence including video records of the events on 10 April 2010 presented to the ACHR establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the Thai security forces used disproportionate force that resulted in the violation of the right to life of a large number of civilians and injury of about 800 protestors.

Principle 9 of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials clearly states that "Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life".

"It is clear from the evidence submitted to the ACHR by the opposition political parties that the firings by the security forces have not been 'in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury' but premeditated and willful acts of killings."- stated Mr Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights.

The allegations that some persons wearing black shirts shot at the security forces to provoke interventions of the security forces against the protestors are serious and need to be investigated. The ACHR demanded that a joint parliamentary investigation into the recent killings and violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms should be held, and the investigation report must be made public within one month and accountability of those who ordered the killings, if any, and individual officers who were responsible for the crimes, must be established.

"The Thai authorities including Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva should note that that on 31st March 2010, the International Criminal Court ordered investigation into the post election violence that resulted into killings of hundreds of civilians in Kenya in 2008. The investigation into the killings in Kenya by the ICC shows that if the national government fails to investigate and establish accountability, international mechanisms may be constrained to intervene. Even though the government of Thailand has not yet ratified the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court, a number of national and international human rights mechanisms against gross violations can be invoked." – further stated Mr Chakma.

The ACHR has recommended to the government of Thailand to issue clear instructions to the security forces not to resort to the use of fire-arms that results in violations of the right to life and lift all the ban/blocking all the television stations, radio stations and the internet sites allegedly closed to the opposition political parties.

The ACHR also recommended to the government of Thailand and the Red Shirts to find negotiated settlement to the disputes, if necessary, by using good offices of the United Nations Secretary General and/or any eminent person of international repute.

The ACHR further recommended to the Pheu Thai Party and the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) to declare a roadmap for protection and promotion of human rights in Thailand including commitment for the ratification of all international human rights instruments without any reservation and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the need for legislative, administrative and judicial mechanism to guarantee and implement these legal obligations at national level in Thailand.

[Ends]

Edited May 1, 2010 by monkfish

[Ijustwannateach]

As previously stated, political threads are not permitted at the moment in General. If the news mods want to move and pin any of the links here, they will. Thread closed, and since plenty of notice has been given, warning issued.