Major Media Did Poorly In The Thai Protests

[oldgeezer]

A few constructive criticisms:

A large number of foreigners were left in the dark due to total lack of english translations during the street riots and shootings.

Film clips were shown over and over again with no reference to being live or file footage, giving viewers a continuity of violence that did not exist.

Very poor video coverage of important events, such as the army sniper shooting a red guard sniper, 10 shooters being reported as being on a building rooftop, with no followup. Did the army surround the building and capture the 10?

No explanation of why the government forces didn't take back the several blocks of territory evidently abandoned by the redshirts.

Reports of 300-400 police standing around smoking and joking and taking cell phone photos of Central World being torched. True or not?

Any investigations ongoing regarding police activity and non activity during the conflicts?

These are but a few. I trust these issues will be attended to when they get more and better information and witness start flipping their comrades.

[robint]

BBC is such a third rate news provider for world affairs, they got stuck in africa incessantly playing the misery and starvation line till the hapless viewer was famine shocked to boredome.

Same with India, event then their coverage of the reall issues is very muted, pretty worthless

Give me Al Jazeera any day for frank reporting, Chanel news asia

CNN? why dont they stick to Israel, thats what they are paid for.

Yes the original poster is quite right Western so called insternational journalism is a fraud - no serious understanding of local issues, they don't pay their stringers enough

[wolf5370]

I grew up with the BBC ("Auntie" as it is affectionately called in the UK)

I can't tell you how disapppointed I am to see them go down so fast.

Of course it's all about viewing figures, advertising and money.

I'm really shocked. In fact about as bad as finding out that your aunty is a hooker!

The BBC doesn't have advertising. It makes its moey through the license fee, selling TV programs and owning videos, animation studio work, music and other outlets. They get paid whatever. Though I think in reporting terms (as far as I saw) that CNN were the worst, I think in commercial terms one can understand the need to sensationalise (and perhaps even take sides in some cases) - but this can not really be said about the beeb. It has never been the same since they scaped goated and fired Greg Dyke and allowed politicians to take away its independance (just as BKK Post were after Thaksin forced the firing of editor Veera Prateepchaikul).

[jayboy]

The open letter concerning alleged bias was totally debunked in the following article:

http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-p...e-really-biased

Some of the posters here seem to think that the international news media should just parrot the Thai government in the same way that the Thai media does.

Debunking an emotive letter to a news organization does not mean the news organization is doing a good job. I wonder if B Pundit will debunk the Not the Nation article.

Virtually every letter to the BKK Post or Nation or anywhere else for that matter could be simlarlly debunked if that idea suited your own poltical bias. In fact I dont see what the point is in debunking the letter which is a tad disingenous as it implies CNN reporting is balanced withgout testing that hypothesis but simply by attacking a letter. I would suggest B Pundit do a full content analysis of CNN's reporting or even his own if he is interested in seeing balanced media reporting rather than setting up some strawman defence of a news organisation.

The letter on CNN deserved to be trashed by Bangkok Pundit.It was intellectually slovenly, emotive and typical of the myopic and self regarding Bangkok middle class view.Nevertheless it has gained a great deal of traction and almost every Bangkok Facebook entry seems to treaure it as some kind of triumph over the Western media.Oddly enough the New York Times reports this silly girl approvingly refers are just as devastating about the splits in Thai society,and the greed of the elite.Having said that the CNN piece it refers to was rather glib but the main significance of all this is the rage and hysteria some are experiencing through international scrutiny of the Bangkok crisis.Actually the piece by Somtow was much more thoughtful, and because of that more effective.He at least accepts that Thailand's problems are massive and home grown, and the current rabid attacks on the likes of Dan Rivers are understandable but just a side show.

[dhrobertson]

I grew up with the BBC ("Auntie" as it is affectionately called in the UK)

I can't tell you how disapppointed I am to see them go down so fast.

Of course it's all about viewing figures, advertising and money.

I'm really shocked. In fact about as bad as finding out that your aunty is a hooker!

I feel the same way - thought BBC was an icon of journalistic integrity. Doubt they've been "paid off" to any degree, but they've certainly been duped. This article gives some very good points on how it happened (although it is a bit of a read).

How silly that banner above the stage looked after they had fled. Believe this photo was taken as CTW burnt, people attempting to put out the fire came under attack from snipers and several hundred protesters were stuck at the local temple caught in between a gun battle between armed protesters and the army (appears many of the protesters were under instructions from somebody to head there rather than the public transport provided - straight into the trap). Hopefully around this point the BBC and CNN were reviewing its strategy.

Yes, essential reading! Very erudite

[dhrobertson]

I grew up with the BBC ("Auntie" as it is affectionately called in the UK)

I can't tell you how disapppointed I am to see them go down so fast.

Of course it's all about viewing figures, advertising and money.

I'm really shocked. In fact about as bad as finding out that your aunty is a hooker!

The BBC doesn't have advertising. It makes its moey through the license fee, selling TV programs and owning videos, animation studio work, music and other outlets. They get paid whatever. Though I think in reporting terms (as far as I saw) that CNN were the worst, I think in commercial terms one can understand the need to sensationalise (and perhaps even take sides in some cases) - but this can not really be said about the beeb. It has never been the same since they scaped goated and fired Greg Dyke and allowed politicians to take away its independance (just as BKK Post were after Thaksin forced the firing of editor Veera Prateepchaikul).

BBC World in Thailand has advertising. Same everywhere EXCEPT UK.

[yothai]

agree but at a point AJ seemed to turn a corner and become more anti govt which was quite a reversal from what i had seen earlier. no doubt that the other majors were like pawns spouting bleeding heart stories of the poor oppressed fighting the powerful elite, pathetic covereage at best.

bbc reporting was very poor

[yothai]

BBC is such a third rate news provider for world affairs, they got stuck in africa incessantly playing the misery and starvation line till the hapless viewer was famine shocked to boredome.

Same with India, event then their coverage of the reall issues is very muted, pretty worthless

Give me Al Jazeera any day for frank reporting, Chanel news asia

CNN? why dont they stick to Israel, thats what they are paid for.

Yes the original poster is quite right Western so called insternational journalism is a fraud - no serious understanding of local issues, they don't pay their stringers enough

yes they will have look at the way they cover events,not treat like a 3rd world reporting.Al Jazeera fair coverage of issues

[lebeau69]

Al Jazeera was the only balanced reporting I saw on television, in english.;-)

Yes indeed, Al Jazeera did a great job: extensive and balanced coverage. specially on Thursday. Congratulations...

[chadintheusa]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! The section of the media that came out of this mess looking worst is the Thai media.

I think the international press did pretty badly. They didn't have a firm grasp of the situation and used dubious sources. The CBC in Canada reported on a Canadian journalist that was injured and interviewed a source who wasn't in Thailand who clearly blamed the government for shooting the journalist when in reality he was injured by a grenade blast along with several Thai soldiers. They clearly had very few facts to work with when they wrote their article. Western media in the early stages seemed to fall in love with the poor peasant farmers protesting for democracy angle. Problem is it wasn't a grassroots movement, but one orchestrated by politicians and businessmen and when they were offered democratic elections they refused to end the protest. The media wanted a story about people who aren't represented by their government, however the red backed parties have won the last four elections, even if they had to buy the results. If they have been poorly represented it's because they elected corrupt politicians who didn't care about serving their people.

[MikeOboe57]

DIE ZEIT (Hamburg, Germany)

Thailand

Falsche Sympathie mit den Schlächtern von Bangkok

False Sympathy with the Butchers of Bangkok

Ein unschöner Ton der Erleichterung ist in der westlichen Berichterstattung auszumachen, seitdem Thailands Regierung durchgreift. Aus Bangkok kommentiert Georg Blume

An inappropriate tone of relief can be found in the reports of western media since Thailand's government gets tough. Georg Blume commenting from Bangkok.

© Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

Panzer gegen Demonstranten: Die Regierung Abhisit schlug den Protest der Rothemden gewaltsam nieder

Tanks against demonstrators. The Abhisit government violently suppressed the redshirts' protest.

The complete article can be found at:

www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2010-05/thailand-bangkok-gewalt?page=1

The author, Georg Blume, accuses the Government of ruthless violence against a peaceful and legitimate demonstration by unarmed peasants from the neglected rural areas of Thailand. The article insists that the protesters were unarmed and caused only minor inconvenience for the Bangkok citizens.

He also claims, that apart from Thaksin's time as PM, Thailand was and is a "royal military dictatorship".

"Viele Menschen aus der urbanen Mittelschicht der Hauptstadt unterstützen die Forderungen der Bauern aus dem Norden Thailands nach Neuwahlen. Nur die Elite hielt wirklich dagegen: Königshaus, Regierung, Militär, große Unternehmer und die kontrollierten Medien."

[Many people from the urban middle class support the demands for new elections of the peasants from the North. It is only the elites that oppose them: The Royal Family, the Government, the military, wealthy entrepreneurs and the (state-)controlled media.]

Looks like not only CNN and BBC did a crappy job reporting from Bangkok.

Regards,

MO57

edit: formatting and typos

Edited May 23, 2010 by MikeOboe57

[bangkokburning]

I have not seen any of the coverage, international or local but given what I have read and the photos of the current situation - the divisions of the nation, the politics of the last five years > I think that one could use the term "civil war" sparingly. Failed nation is a bit of a stretch, but all the hallmarks are there of a nation that cannot produce a government and in time this very well can lead to a failed state. Look at the Philippines - It has had stable governments for decades, yet it is truly a failed state.

Habitually broken and unstable governments

Threatened underground armed insurrection

Terrorism directed at foreigners - how cowardly and how Thai

Endemic corruption that will only fester with a broken state

Decreasing revenues from Tourism and that downward spiral

I do not think the language is out of line. Also please recall the airport fiasco and Bangkok in flames last year. At what point can you call it a failed state?

[Thai at Heart]

To this day, I haven't seen any attempt to interview the actual protesters, much beyond "where do you come from?" and "What do you do?" This goes for the PAD and Red's protests.

I don't know if the Red's leaders prohibited the protesters at the main site from speaking to the Thai media, but to my mind the most logical question would have been "Why are you here?" It was almost as though they were "beneath" being interviewed.

We have heard hours and hours of the leaders, and virtually not a peep from the actual people sitting on the floor.

[KireB]

The international media was ignorant of many facts and the Reds used this to their advantage.

This whole operation was based on influencing the opinion of both the Thais as the international community.

The poor versus the elite as plot! Easy pick.

Thaksin, the Reds and their PR agencies would have gotten away with all this and would have succeeded 20 years ago. This time we saw that the ' independent' media such as the livestreaming platforms (youtube) and Thai and English fora such as Thaivisa, debunked their lies and forced media to 'unbias' their initial stories.

The book "How to Overthrow Governments for Dummies" need some extra chapters!

Edited May 23, 2010 by KireB

[wolf5370]

<quote name='dhrobertson' post='3635686' date='2010-05-23 17:05:36'>I grew up with the BBC ("Auntie" as it is affectionately called in the UK)

I can't tell you how disapppointed I am to see them go down so fast.

Of course it's all about viewing figures, advertising and money.

I'm really shocked. In fact about as bad as finding out that your aunty is a hooker!</quote>

The BBC doesn't have advertising. It makes its moey through the license fee, selling TV programs and owning videos, animation studio work, music and other outlets. They get paid whatever. Though I think in reporting terms (as far as I saw) that CNN were the worst, I think in commercial terms one can understand the need to sensationalise (and perhaps even take sides in some cases) - but this can not really be said about the beeb. It has never been the same since they scaped goated and fired Greg Dyke and allowed politicians to take away its independance (just as BKK Post were after Thaksin forced the firing of editor Veera Prateepchaikul).

BBC World in Thailand has advertising. Same everywhere EXCEPT UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/policies/advertising.shtml

The BBC is not permitted to carry advertising or sponsorship on its public services. This keeps them independent of commercial interests and ensures that they can be run instead to serve the general public interest.

If the BBC sold airtime either wholly or partially, advertisers and other commercial pressures would dictate its programme and schedule priorities. There would also be far less revenue for other broadcasters.

The BBC is financed instead by a TV licence fee paid by households. This guarantees that a wide range of high-quality programmes can be made available, unrestricted, to everyone.

The licence fee also helps support production skills, training, local or minority programmes and other services which might not otherwise be financed by the economics of pay-TV or advertising.

The BBC runs additional commercial services around the world. These are not financed by the licence fee but are kept quite separate from the BBC's public services. Profits are used to help keep the licence fee low so that UK licence fee payers can benefit commercially from their investment in programmes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/faq/

You will have noticed that the BBC website features a limited amount of advertising when viewed from outside the UK.

That's the only alteration - the content of the site remains unchanged and continues to feature the same high quality journalism and entertainment that the BBC has always pioneered.

We've introduced advertising to visitors outside of the UK because the new revenue created will allow us to further improve our journalism, our programmes and our website in the years ahead.

Impartiality is of the utmost importance to us at the BBC and for this reason advertising will be clearly separated from editorial content. Advertising will not have any bearing on the news, information or programme content or create the impression of endorsement by the BBC.

We guarantee that you will continue to receive the same high-quality independent content that has made the BBC website one of the most popular news and entertainment sites in the world.

[dhrobertson]

DIE ZEIT (Hamburg, Germany)

Thailand

Falsche Sympathie mit den Schlächtern von Bangkok

False Sympathy with the Butchers of Bangkok

Ein unschöner Ton der Erleichterung ist in der westlichen Berichterstattung auszumachen, seitdem Thailands Regierung durchgreift. Aus Bangkok kommentiert Georg Blume

An inappropriate tone of relief can be found in the reports of western media since Thailand's government gets tough. Georg Blume commenting from Bangkok.

© Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

Panzer gegen Demonstranten: Die Regierung Abhisit schlug den Protest der Rothemden gewaltsam nieder

Tanks against demonstrators. The Abhisit government violently suppresses the redshirts' protest.

The complete article can be found at:

www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2010-05/thailand-bangkok-gewalt?page=1

The author, Georg Blume, accuses the Government of ruthless violence against a peaceful and legitimate demonstration by unarmed peasants from the neglected rural areas of Thailand. The article insists that the protesters were unarmed and caused only minor inconvenience for the bangkok citizens.

It also claims, that apart from Thaksin's time as PM, Thailand was and is a "royal miltary dictatorship".

"Viele Menschen aus der urbanen Mittelschicht der Hauptstadt unterstützen die Forderungen der Bauern aus dem Norden Thailands nach Neuwahlen. Nur die Elite hielt wirklich dagegen: Königshaus, Regierung, Militär, große Unternehmer und die kontrollierten Medien."

[Many people from the urban middle class support the demands for new elections of the peasants from the North. It is only the elites that oppose them: The Royal Family, the Government, the military, wealthy entrepreneurs and the (state-)controlled media.]

Looks like not only CNN and BBC did a crappy job reporting from Bangkok.

Regards,

MO57

edit: formatting and typos

Ganz Scheisse

[wolf5370]

The international media was ignorant of many facts and the Reds used this to their advantage.

This whole operation was based on influencing the opinion of both the Thais as the international community.

The poor versus the elite as plot! Easy pick.

Thaksin, the Reds and their PR agencies would have gotten away with all this and would have succeeded 20 years ago. This time we saw that the ' independent' media such as the livestreaming platforms (youtube) and Thai and English fora such as Thaivisa, debunked their lies and forced media to 'unbias' their initial stories.

The book "How to Overthrow Governments for Dummies" need some extra chapters!

How true. and how important it is that we, the ' nosey visitor', continue to talk, argue and discuss such matters worldwide. To post our own eyewitness acounts, photographic and video evidence and to postulate ideas and solutions. It really doesn't matter what side, if any, anyone is on, just that we can talk, convince and debunk the myth; separating the wheat from the chaff. Citizen Cane, 'power to the people!'

Edited May 23, 2010 by wolf5370

[LaoPo]

".........a Malaysian Sun Daily columnist was disappointed, if not disgusted, by the reports of respected international media covering the protests in Thailand."

.....in the meantime 2 passenger airplanes crashed, one in Lybia with more than 100 dead and one in India with even more casualties.

Also reported here on TV and nobody gave &lt;deleted&gt;...NOBODY.

Did the Thai people care ?

Thailand is NOT the center of the world.

People all over the world are fed with so much sadness, killings, ash clouds, oil spilling and uproar in Thailand that nobody cares anymore.

All the news, where ever it comes from is just the blink of an eye, elsewhere in the world.

If we would care and have compassion with all those dramas we would not be able to survive with so much grief and sadness.

Life goes on.

LaoPo

[xminator]

So, the media didnt print the government spin, so now they have to feel the wrath of the forum kings. Its pathetic.

[RickBradford]

This article suggests that the mainstream media were left standing by the on-the-spot Twitter and YouTube activity, at least as far as the local audience was concerned.

[Slip]

So, the media didnt print the government spin, so now they have to feel the wrath of the forum kings. Its pathetic.

No- the lazy western media and the local red spin doctors, are just being told that no-one was fooled, and they owe their readers better than that.

[profijet]

Almost all media covered(added) their STORIES by showing the pictures and videos of the tragedy. I guess this might have increased their TRP ratings.

I found this Thaivisa forum acted and covered sensibly via tweeter. It helped me to send messages to my colleagues and friends working in downtown.

Who to be blamed for these developed stories?. Due to the media hype businesses or the investors might got frightened by reading or watching the news channels.

Sensitive issues like this must be regulated. Else the reporter's speculate the whole story to his limited understanding.

[janderton]

... a lot of Thais believe "The Truth" can be found on their little Thai television programmes and "Lies" is found on the "foreigner television".

once i was dining at a restaurant while tv showed a documentary about farangs working hard on a assembly line, 8 hours in a row, no break for lunch....

the restaurant's staff was not much busy ( i was the one customer) and watched the whole broadcast... then... when was ended

their comments:

IS A FICTION, everybody knows farangs do not work (but defecate dollars), and is not possible to stay 8 hours in a row standing and without eating.

so, foreigner televison broadcast lies (about politics) and fictions (about job).

fantastic!

[Dodobird]

Articles like this are written by those who don't really understand the basics of good journalism. A lot of Thais live in a fantasy world where what you see on television represents an absolute truth. All CNN, BBC and other news organisations did is report from the ground and present both sides of the argument. Because this balanced approach conflicts with simplistic absolute truth of good guys vs terrorists presented by the Thai media, a lot of Thais believe "The Truth" can be found on their little Thai television programmes and "Lies" is found on the "foreigner television".

How contradictory. BBC and CNN did nothing of the sort. In fact, their entire coverage of the events in Bangkok were exclusively presented in a good guys (poor, unarmed freedom fighting farmers) vs. bad guys (corrupt, abusive, human rights violating, malicious and murdering everyone in sight military). It is pretty clear that you are fond of this biased view as well. BBC was more one sided than the N. Korean Dear Leader channel and couldn't have been further from the truth that was happening around us.

They seem to have shockingly dropped this story off the map once:

1. They set the city on fire, endangering the lives of thousands of people who live here, completely ignoring the heroic effort of the fire brigade and medics working through the night to prevent a completely horrific disaster from spreading.

2. Numerous footage of red shirts with weapons of war firing into crowds and military surfaced.

3. A plethora of IED's, grenades, guns and ammunition were found hidden around the site.

4. Red shirt leaders were charged with terrorism.

5. Car bombs, stolen ID's and credit cards were discovered around the protest site.

I could go on, but the OP's article is spot on. I knew that BBC specifically pandered to bleeding heart liberals but I never would have thought that they would go this far. I can say with complete confidence that they are no where near a legitimate source of information.

Never read about stolen ID's and credit cards were discovered around the protest site...source please!

1,000 of ID Card in sewage lines. FOUND

Edited May 23, 2010 by Dodobird

[clown]

The foreign media did poorly, I agree with that. But they're not in Thailand. However, the English-speaking Thai media did absolutely awful ..and there is no excuse for that, as they're in Thailand and know the facts. I'll leave it at that.

[Hockeybik]

<h3 class="post-title entry-title">This guy has a great perspective on it all. Read his later posts as well

</h3><h3 class="post-title entry-title">http://www.somtow.org/2010/05/dont-blame-dan-rivers.html

</h3>

[intothefuture]

The open letter concerning alleged bias was totally debunked in the following article:

http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-p...e-really-biased

Some of the posters here seem to think that the international news media should just parrot the Thai government in the same way that the Thai media does.

Debunked? Not really. Different view maybe.

I will say that The Nation does appear somewhat biased.

I recall one piece of BBC video footage where some old red shirt biddy was quoted as saying " all we want is democracy". Next time it was translated as "we know what's happening"

Sorry, but I just do not trust the BEEB anymore

Truly amazing how twisted things and people get. The "debunking" by BP did nothing to change the import of the letter. BP seems to be a true a--hole....and misses the whole point of the letter. The letter was meant to provide CNN with ample information to show both sides. You could not possibly be watching CNN International and be not be pissed off, unless you were a Red Shirt supporter. Period. BP going point by point trying to discredit the letter was a ridiculous waste of time with no purpose. The letter is not trying to be an opinion letter. It is trying to say that there was ample information on the internet and from other news sources that show that trying to present the Red Shirt movement as a "poor helpless innocent people vs the armed and dictatorial government" is a one sided presentation. The letter did its job. And CNN and BBC both, as a result of the letter, and as a result of other criticisms received by CNN, dramatically changed their reporting to a much more even sided presentation. THe BP "debunking" reads more like a self serving obsessive trying to show how smart he is. Go to the Letter itself...go to the references and clips...and you cannot end up missing the point that the Red Shirts were an armed and dangerous mob, inciting violence. The rampage that took place after the Red Shirt leaders surrendered have perhaps now made the Letter mute...because everyone, all media, all governments, now see both sides of the story; everyone knows the Red Shirts were armed and out of control. The government did not act perfectly...but they were facing a dangerous threat in the form of an armed and dangerous red mob, who surrounded themselves with misinformed elderly, children and women led on and incited by the Red Shirt leaders.

[hammered]

The open letter concerning alleged bias was totally debunked in the following article:

http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-p...e-really-biased

Some of the posters here seem to think that the international news media should just parrot the Thai government in the same way that the Thai media does.

Debunked? Not really. Different view maybe.

I will say that The Nation does appear somewhat biased.

I recall one piece of BBC video footage where some old red shirt biddy was quoted as saying " all we want is democracy". Next time it was translated as "we know what's happening"

Sorry, but I just do not trust the BEEB anymore

Truly amazing how twisted things and people get. The "debunking" by BP did nothing to change the import of the letter. BP seems to be a true a--hole....and misses the whole point of the letter. The letter was meant to provide CNN with ample information to show both sides. You could not possibly be watching CNN International and be not be pissed off, unless you were a Red Shirt supporter. Period. BP going point by point trying to discredit the letter was a ridiculous waste of time with no purpose. The letter is not trying to be an opinion letter. It is trying to say that there was ample information on the internet and from other news sources that show that trying to present the Red Shirt movement as a "poor helpless innocent people vs the armed and dictatorial government" is a one sided presentation. The letter did its job. And CNN and BBC both, as a result of the letter, and as a result of other criticisms received by CNN, dramatically changed their reporting to a much more even sided presentation. THe BP "debunking" reads more like a self serving obsessive trying to show how smart he is. Go to the Letter itself...go to the references and clips...and you cannot end up missing the point that the Red Shirts were an armed and dangerous mob, inciting violence. The rampage that took place after the Red Shirt leaders surrendered have perhaps now made the Letter mute...because everyone, all media, all governments, now see both sides of the story; everyone knows the Red Shirts were armed and out of control. The government did not act perfectly...but they were facing a dangerous threat in the form of an armed and dangerous red mob, who surrounded themselves with misinformed elderly, children and women led on and incited by the Red Shirt leaders.

Very well put

[edwardandtubs]

The letter did nothing to change anything. It was just some nobody on the internet making wild accusations without any evidence to back them up. Do you really think the BBC and CNN change their coverage because some nobody on the internet posts a few links to Youtube?

[dhrobertson]

The open letter concerning alleged bias was totally debunked in the following article:

http://us.asiancorrespondent.com/bangkok-p...e-really-biased

Some of the posters here seem to think that the international news media should just parrot the Thai government in the same way that the Thai media does.

Debunked? Not really. Different view maybe.

I will say that The Nation does appear somewhat biased.

I recall one piece of BBC video footage where some old red shirt biddy was quoted as saying " all we want is democracy". Next time it was translated as "we know what's happening"

Sorry, but I just do not trust the BEEB anymore

Well said!!

Truly amazing how twisted things and people get. The "debunking" by BP did nothing to change the import of the letter. BP seems to be a true a--hole....and misses the whole point of the letter. The letter was meant to provide CNN with ample information to show both sides. You could not possibly be watching CNN International and be not be pissed off, unless you were a Red Shirt supporter. Period. BP going point by point trying to discredit the letter was a ridiculous waste of time with no purpose. The letter is not trying to be an opinion letter. It is trying to say that there was ample information on the internet and from other news sources that show that trying to present the Red Shirt movement as a "poor helpless innocent people vs the armed and dictatorial government" is a one sided presentation. The letter did its job. And CNN and BBC both, as a result of the letter, and as a result of other criticisms received by CNN, dramatically changed their reporting to a much more even sided presentation. THe BP "debunking" reads more like a self serving obsessive trying to show how smart he is. Go to the Letter itself...go to the references and clips...and you cannot end up missing the point that the Red Shirts were an armed and dangerous mob, inciting violence. The rampage that took place after the Red Shirt leaders surrendered have perhaps now made the Letter mute...because everyone, all media, all governments, now see both sides of the story; everyone knows the Red Shirts were armed and out of control. The government did not act perfectly...but they were facing a dangerous threat in the form of an armed and dangerous red mob, who surrounded themselves with misinformed elderly, children and women led on and incited by the Red Shirt leaders.