Are Journalists Biased?

[monkeycircus]

after the terrible burning, looting and destruction, its very easy to say that all the red shirts were therefore terrorists. its not that simple. almost all of them were not, they were not just all there because they were brainless Thaksin puppets...it is also worth remembering that many Bangkok residents also support(ed) the red shirts for their basic principles for democracy. and it is also worth remembering that for the first 2 0r 3 days of this conflict, the army WAS shooting unarmed people indiscriminately. It was well within the medias right to report these facts. and they are facts, as represented by the massive death toll.

perhaps the media made a poor attempt to understand the whole picture of what was happening in Thailand, but lets face it...even people who live here cant agree on whats happening.

[monkeycircus]

infact what i saw happening, and this was mainly from social networking reports, not cnn, was a massive amount of footage showing the army doing some pretty dreadful, or at the very least dreadfully irresponsible soldiering....slowly the government spin machine started telling us what we were seeing was wrong.

im not sympathetic in any direction, i think killing is wrong plain and simple, but now the government spin has kicked in so much that apparently everyone assumes that the red shirts were shooting(targetting) journalists! really? on what evidence or basis...the only targetting of journalists i can rememeber was that canadian guy, by the army. and the bodies in the temple, they were reds, shot by reds. and all the reds had massive amounts of heavy weapons....and yet only 1 army causlaty vs 60 reds...the spin is making me dizzy. of course, the thai government was as good as gold during this conflict, CNN and BBC are the bad guys...of yeah, and Amnesty.

[erniebanks]

infact what i saw happening, and this was mainly from social networking reports, not cnn, was a massive amount of footage showing the army doing some pretty dreadful, or at the very least dreadfully irresponsible soldiering....slowly the government spin machine started telling us what we were seeing was wrong.

im not sympathetic in any direction, i think killing is wrong plain and simple, but now the government spin has kicked in so much that apparently everyone assumes that the red shirts were shooting(targetting) journalists! really? on what evidence or basis...the only targetting of journalists i can rememeber was that canadian guy, by the army. and the bodies in the temple, they were reds, shot by reds. and all the reds had massive amounts of heavy weapons....and yet only 1 army causlaty vs 60 reds...the spin is making me dizzy. of course, the thai government was as good as gold during this conflict, CNN and BBC are the bad guys...of yeah, and Amnesty.

Joseph Goebbels, the head of Hitler's Nazi propaganda machine, would be proud to see that his methods are still being used by The Thai government on all media sites.

POLL?

You have outdone yourselves Thai Propaganda machine?

[cdnvic]

One post was deleted as it contained only a modified quote that made it impossible to determine who was saying what. Do not modify other peoples' quotes please.

[SomTumTiger]

One post was deleted as it contained only a modified quote that made it impossible to determine who was saying what. Do not modify other peoples' quotes please.

Sorry, that was me! He wasn't saying much anyway lol.

[Thules]

As a Brit, I was embaressed by the lack of in-depth analysis provided by the BBC. I now wonder how I have been duped in other world events.

[rabo]

Presumably you raise this issue because of the large number of (middle class) Thais protesting (via the social media of Facebook etc. )against the supposed media bias of the Western press (CNN is particulary targetted).

Certainly the Western TV press is vague in explanations and sensationalist in tone. But of course it is. There barely can be a sentient being left on the planet who expects TV news to answer the question 'why'. If you want this answered then you must read.

As for bias, everyone is biased. There is no such thing as neutral since it presupposes a Truth, that if only we looked hard enough we could all agree upon. If you even raise a topic you are displaying a bias by creating the framework for debate.

What is odd about the furore over the Western press bias is the lack of protest about the astonishingly unreasonable Thai press. The Thai press is intentionally biased. I know from insider sources on a certain channel that when a reporter wanted to show a soldier throwing a grenade she was told they must not show it. The Thai press is mostly owned by the Thai government or Thai military. A quick check on Wikipedia can verify this claim.

What this furore is really about is the fundamentally incompatible viewpoints of the Westerner and the Thai. The Westerner finds coups totally repulsive and unforgivable in all circumstances. The Thai is blase about them because they are so used to them. So when a Westerner says Abhisit is illegitimate he is absolutely right from his viewpoint. It does not matter a jot that Abhisit was elected to parliament and has formed a coalition governemnt. All that matters is the method that started the process to get him to power started in 2006 with a coup. That's it. So the foundational position of the Westerner looks biased to the middle-class yellow-leaning masses.

Yes, everyone has bias and there is nothing, at least intrinsically, wrong about it. If one reads multiple sources with some understanding of the bias, one can get a bit closer to the truth.

As for bias I have marked a few items that I think indicate a strong bias on your part. (we all have and. .....)

The Thai press is not owned and controlled by the government or military. (maybe wiki is biased ) It is almost all privately owned and at times has been well known in the region for its fairness and independence. It can be biased. The Thai broadcast media is largely state owned, however it is run for profit, except for maybe MCOT or army channels. Thai radio is government controlled through its licensing but not necessarily its content. This is true in most countries.

If I were to read New York Times' editorials while watching Fox, I would quickly come to the conclusion that the Thai media is not so bad, given some understanding of their bia(s). Your suggestion that it is astonishingly unreasonable is in fact not backed by this pole.

I question howthe Westerner can be absolutely right (some bias here?) when any legitimacy of Abhisit's position can only be defined in terms of Thai law. Maybe what the westerner means is "I absolutely don't like that"

The major reason western media failed to present an accurate view is just they don't make an effort to understand things in the framework of Thai culture and society, and thus resort to easily grasped western concepts. The Thai press does not have this problem, whichever way they may be biased.

Edited May 23, 2010 by rabo

[enz13]

i dont see why most of you miss the point the 'media' is there to make money ,so of course they slant to the sensational,the old saying still goes never let the truth get in the way of a good story,its nothing new look at iraq and afghanistan,out of all the mainstream i think aljezeera got the facts and seemed to be the most un-biased,and they seemed to be the only media outlet looking at thaksin as the cause,on the flip side thailand doesnt even register on the map in the western world ,so one shouldnt be too surprised when the coverage isnt extensive and amatuerish at best,as to bias here, come on ,the reds got on stage and said what they were goin to do,thaksin sent video links and tweets that even barflys can get,so why suprised when the local media tell it as it is.

[SomTumTiger]

Presumably you raise this issue because of the large number of (middle class) Thais protesting (via the social media of Facebook etc. )against the supposed media bias of the Western press (CNN is particulary targetted).

Certainly the Western TV press is vague in explanations and sensationalist in tone. But of course it is. There barely can be a sentient being left on the planet who expects TV news to answer the question 'why'. If you want this answered then you must read.

As for bias, everyone is biased. There is no such thing as neutral since it presupposes a Truth, that if only we looked hard enough we could all agree upon. If you even raise a topic you are displaying a bias by creating the framework for debate.

What is odd about the furore over the Western press bias is the lack of protest about the astonishingly unreasonable Thai press. The Thai press is intentionally biased. I know from insider sources on a certain channel that when a reporter wanted to show a soldier throwing a grenade she was told they must not show it. The Thai press is mostly owned by the Thai government or Thai military. A quick check on Wikipedia can verify this claim.

What this furore is really about is the fundamentally incompatible viewpoints of the Westerner and the Thai. The Westerner finds coups totally repulsive and unforgivable in all circumstances. The Thai is blase about them because they are so used to them. So when a Westerner says Abhisit is illegitimate he is absolutely right from his viewpoint. It does not matter a jot that Abhisit was elected to parliament and has formed a coalition governemnt. All that matters is the method that started the process to get him to power started in 2006 with a coup. That's it. So the foundational position of the Westerner looks biased to the middle-class yellow-leaning masses.

Yes, everyone has bias and there is nothing, at least intrinsically, wrong about it. If one reads multiple sources with some understanding of the bias, one can get a bit closer to the truth.

As for bias I have marked a few items that I think indicate a strong bias on your part. (we all have and. .....)

The Thai press is not owned and controlled by the government or military. (maybe wiki is biased ) It is almost all privately owned and at times has been well known in the region for its fairness and independence. The Thai broadcast media is largely state owned, however it is run for profit, except for maybe MCOT or army channels. Thai radio is government controlled through its licensing but not necessarily its content.

If I were read New York Times' editorials while watching Fox, I would quickly come to the conclusion that the Thai media is not so bad, given some understanding of their bia(s). Your suggestion it is astonishingly unreasonable is in fact not backed by this pole.

I question howthe Westerner can be absolutely right (some bias here?) when any legitimacy of Abhisit's position can only be defined in terms of Thai law. Maybe what the westerner means is "I absolutely don't like that"

The major reason western media failed to present an accurate view is just they don't make an effort to understand things in the framework of Thai culture and society, and thus resort to easily grasped western concepts. The Thai press does not have this problem, whichever way they may be biased.

Excellent Post Rabo!

[opebo]

Truth

You Thais want the TRUTH?

You Can't handal the TRUTH.

20 coups under this clown government.

14th century laws to protect the regime just like is done in North Korea.

Huge press and media censorship like Hitler would be proud of.

Well, I would suggest you do exaggerate, but I would also like to point out it is precisely this Ancien Régime which creates the conditions which attract we expatriates to this country. The great majority of us have fled democracies for this place. I prefer it; however I was certainly beginning not to under Thaksin, and I'm certain I would hate it under the Reds.

[userKING]

BBC sure lost credibility. I know ol' Dan was in the camp and scared, but as a reporter, can't he enter and exit? His expressions showed he tought of them as "victims" reduced to only slingshots and such. No research into the root of the problems were presented. Man, CNN did the same sort of things.

Actually, I though Reuters presented it more unbiased.

In times like this, you'll have propaganda.

Reuters has been fair, only because they don't analyze in the way CNN or the BBC does. Reuters reports the news. CNN has lost all my credit from their ultra favortism of the Reds.

Its especially hard to watch the new in my country since the news is always between either Fox News or CNN...and I hate Fox News.

Edited May 23, 2010 by userKING

[deepskyfreak]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

Comment to the photographer: It is easy to stand next to two soldiers and take biased pictures like that... Why didn't he and all of the other sensationalist journalists go off and try to get an interview with a sniper in black or perhaps a good shot showing one of those red shirt snipers pointing their weapons towards people.

It is so easy to discredit troops who are just following orders that are meant to bring back normalcy.

It is nothing but unhelpful sensationalism.

[thepodest]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

Soldiers acting professionally. These guys don't look like regular army guys. Maybe SWAT or special forces.

Edited May 23, 2010 by thepodest

[deepskyfreak]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

Soldiers acting professionally. These guys don't look like regular army guys. Maybe SWAT or special forces.

I would do exactly the same under given circumstances, whereever in the world. And I was a soldier for 11 years (in the EU and MidEast).

[farang62]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

Soldiers acting professionally. These guys don't look like regular army guys. Maybe SWAT or special forces.

I would do exactly the same under given circumstances, whereever in the world. And I was a soldier for 11 years (in the EU and MidEast).

My opinion is the Red Shirts gave the media all the access they wanted,so they took it and ran with it.

After all bad, suppressed people, sell news.

The government did not get to refute or counter the "bad Press" until it was over, now it's to late to repair the damage done.

Now that the violence has stopped there is "No News" I would think that the clean up and volunteers working their asses of to clean things up would be a great human interest story.

I guess Good news doesn't sell!

[Bakseedaa]

Presumably you raise this issue because of the large number of (middle class) Thais protesting (via the social media of Facebook etc. )against the supposed media bias of the Western press (CNN is particulary targetted).

Certainly the Western TV press is vague in explanations and sensationalist in tone. But of course it is. There barely can be a sentient being left on the planet who expects TV news to answer the question 'why'. If you want this answered then you must read.

As for bias, everyone is biased. There is no such thing as neutral since it presupposes a Truth, that if only we looked hard enough we could all agree upon. If you even raise a topic you are displaying a bias by creating the framework for debate.

What is odd about the furore over the Western press bias is the lack of protest about the astonishingly unreasonable Thai press. The Thai press is intentionally biased. I know from insider sources on a certain channel that when a reporter wanted to show a soldier throwing a grenade she was told they must not show it. The Thai press is mostly owned by the Thai government or Thai military. A quick check on Wikipedia can verify this claim.

What this furore is really about is the fundamentally incompatible viewpoints of the Westerner and the Thai. The Westerner finds coups totally repulsive and unforgivable in all circumstances. The Thai is blase about them because they are so used to them. So when a Westerner says Abhisit is illegitimate he is absolutely right from his viewpoint. It does not matter a jot that Abhisit was elected to parliament and has formed a coalition governemnt. All that matters is the method that started the process to get him to power started in 2006 with a coup. That's it. So the foundational position of the Westerner looks biased to the middle-class yellow-leaning masses.

Again, this is looking at it from a very Western view point... But this is not how the Thai people think or see things as a westener sees these things.. Also , it has nothing do with or no reason to accomodate a Western view point. Leave it to the Thais, if you want to live here or invest here, do it or not... If you like the cake Don`t try to change the recipe..!! And if you don`t like it....Go home..!!! Is that not easy..

[Bakseedaa]

Well done Monkfish, well done Mods. Good idea.

I did notice the US ambassador have a dig at the reds, yet Hilary wore red in her videocast to Thailand...

Guess it all boils down to the military written constitution as the casus belli at the end of the day.

My real interest is watching the USA play off against China here in Thailand. The PLA are scheduled to hold war games annually now, and these are expected to grow, eventually eclipsing the US war games. I dont expect the USA to give up here without a fight... but it does seem inevitable that Thailand should fall into the Sino orbit once again. I presume the chinese elite in BK are the 'white' chinese variety...

Are they not the same as the "white Russian" variety..?

[Bakseedaa]

Truth

You Thais want the TRUTH?

You Can't handal the TRUTH.

20 coups under this clown government.

14th century laws to protect the regime just like is done in North Korea.

Huge press and media censorship like Hitler would be proud of.

Ernie......you know where the door is... close it behind you..!!

[Bakseedaa]

after the terrible burning, looting and destruction, its very easy to say that all the red shirts were therefore terrorists. its not that simple. almost all of them were not, they were not just all there because they were brainless Thaksin puppets...it is also worth remembering that many Bangkok residents also support(ed) the red shirts for their basic principles for democracy. and it is also worth remembering that for the first 2 0r 3 days of this conflict, the army WAS shooting unarmed people indiscriminately. It was well within the medias right to report these facts. and they are facts, as represented by the massive death toll.

perhaps the media made a poor attempt to understand the whole picture of what was happening in Thailand, but lets face it...even people who live here cant agree on whats happening.

Just where were the Army shooting people indiscriminately.. where is your proof ? or is your mouth writing a check that your brain cannot cash..? Please show us your proof.. ! This is an absured lie....

[tigerbalm]

after the terrible burning, looting and destruction, its very easy to say that all the red shirts were therefore terrorists. its not that simple. almost all of them were not, they were not just all there because they were brainless Thaksin puppets...it is also worth remembering that many Bangkok residents also support(ed) the red shirts for their basic principles for democracy. and it is also worth remembering that for the first 2 0r 3 days of this conflict, the army WAS shooting unarmed people indiscriminately. It was well within the medias right to report these facts. and they are facts, as represented by the massive death toll.

perhaps the media made a poor attempt to understand the whole picture of what was happening in Thailand, but lets face it...even people who live here cant agree on whats happening.

Just where were the Army shooting people indiscriminately.. where is your proof ? or is your mouth writing a check that your brain cannot cash..? Please show us your proof.. ! This is an absured lie....

The government i noiticed on the TV yesterday was giving a press conference to international journalists and they did say that there were strict rules of engagement in line with international guide lines and soldiers were only to fire if their lives were to be threatened.

But it does seem rather odd that snipers were deployed, it does rather seem to go against the grain of the rules of engagement.

[OzMick]

Presumably you raise this issue because of the large number of (middle class) Thais protesting (via the social media of Facebook etc. )against the supposed media bias of the Western press (CNN is particulary targetted).

Certainly the Western TV press is vague in explanations and sensationalist in tone. But of course it is. There barely can be a sentient being left on the planet who expects TV news to answer the question 'why'. If you want this answered then you must read.

As for bias, everyone is biased. There is no such thing as neutral since it presupposes a Truth, that if only we looked hard enough we could all agree upon. If you even raise a topic you are displaying a bias by creating the framework for debate.

What is odd about the furore over the Western press bias is the lack of protest about the astonishingly unreasonable Thai press. The Thai press is intentionally biased. I know from insider sources on a certain channel that when a reporter wanted to show a soldier throwing a grenade she was told they must not show it. The Thai press is mostly owned by the Thai government or Thai military. A quick check on Wikipedia can verify this claim.

What this furore is really about is the fundamentally incompatible viewpoints of the Westerner and the Thai. The Westerner finds coups totally repulsive and unforgivable in all circumstances. The Thai is blase about them because they are so used to them. So when a Westerner says Abhisit is illegitimate he is absolutely right from his viewpoint. It does not matter a jot that Abhisit was elected to parliament and has formed a coalition governemnt. All that matters is the method that started the process to get him to power started in 2006 with a coup. That's it. So the foundational position of the Westerner looks biased to the middle-class yellow-leaning masses.

Very true but is it fair to say the foreign media is bias when Thai media is 10x more bias?

Your survey results reveals your own bias - more respondents consider foreign press to be biased.

@Gaccha - "So when a Westerner says Abhisit is illegitimate he is absolutely right from his viewpoint." A westerner should be more educated in the workings of democracy and understand the process which made this govt legitimate. It is exactly this naive view of the coup and it's aftermath that was peddled to the thai masses to produce thr redshirt movement (pun intended!) Your views on the coup are your own. Many others realise that it was a neccessary evil to evict a PM whose time had expired and who was clinging to power so that he could complete his installation of cronies and relatives into positions of power, and to prevent thailand from slipping into dictatorship.

[Smiles]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

We all know that McDonald's in Silom was attacked so it seems reasonable to treat Grimace as a suspect and should be searched for more explosives. Unfortunately pictures don't speak and they don't tell us the context in which it was taken. What instructions has the purple people eater been given, had she been told to stop? What had Barney been doing further down the alley with the other people who seem to have their hands in the air too? Had the soldiers been attacked in the moments before, did they have reason to fear for their safety? The picture clearly shows that the soldiers didn't shoot the woman, but without any context it isn't clear what exactly this picture is saying.

They be the the red shirts dressed up and pretending as soldiers! They got the weapons!

[OzMick]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

Yes, but not the ones that you imply.

The first thing that I notice is that the trooper on the left is inexperienced and ill-trained. Holding his rifle by the magazine is a definite no-no, the butt of his rifle is up around his ear, he seems to have wrapped the fore-grip in duct tape because they get hot and in doing so has blocked the ventilation holes (doh!) and giving a colour contrast which makes him more visible, and has taped 2 magazines together, a silly idea for many reasons.

The troopers are correctly assessing the closest arrested person first. Yes, she is a woman. Women kill just as effectively as men, and are preferred as suicide bombers in the radical muslim camps (lately) because many men refuse to accept that they are a threat. Her loose fitting clothing could easily conceal a weapon, and she certainly looks fit enough to grapple with a young man. The assumption is that they are redshirts doing a bolt, so they are looking at a years jail time at least, and cause to be wary of their possible actions to evade arrest.

[whybother]

after the terrible burning, looting and destruction, its very easy to say that all the red shirts were therefore terrorists. its not that simple. almost all of them were not, they were not just all there because they were brainless Thaksin puppets...it is also worth remembering that many Bangkok residents also support(ed) the red shirts for their basic principles for democracy. and it is also worth remembering that for the first 2 0r 3 days of this conflict, the army WAS shooting unarmed people indiscriminately. It was well within the medias right to report these facts. and they are facts, as represented by the massive death toll.

perhaps the media made a poor attempt to understand the whole picture of what was happening in Thailand, but lets face it...even people who live here cant agree on whats happening.

Just where were the Army shooting people indiscriminately.. where is your proof ? or is your mouth writing a check that your brain cannot cash..? Please show us your proof.. ! This is an absured lie....

The government i noiticed on the TV yesterday was giving a press conference to international journalists and they did say that there were strict rules of engagement in line with international guide lines and soldiers were only to fire if their lives were to be threatened.

But it does seem rather odd that snipers were deployed, it does rather seem to go against the grain of the rules of engagement.

Just because there are snipers doesn't mean that they are shooting indiscriminately. A sniper may be used to shoot a protestor that is shooting on an army position. If the army was shooting indisciminately, there would have been hundreds or thousands dead.

Throughout these protests, the army were attacked with grenades and high powered guns. Not EVERY person that has been killed was armed. But I have seen several videos where an armed gunman was amongst protestors and shooting at the army. In one video, there were protestors hiding around a corner, and going out to throw rocks at the army, then a masked gunman goes around the corner and fires some shots. In another video, one protestor lit fire crackers as cover for another protestor to shoot rapid fire at the army. These "unarmed" protestors are aiding the armed protestors, which makes them just as guilty.

The government have made it clear that not all the protestors are terrorists. The have always said "there are terrorists amongst the protestors".

Also, the idea that there was a huge death toll is questionable. Yes, too many people died. But more people die every day on the roads in Thailand, and more people died in one aeroplane crash this week.

[rabo]

Pictures speak more than words

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle7133440.ece

Uhm. You took a really bad example. And what does this picture say, exactly?

This picture is very useful for getting at the truth.

My wife is building a cement wall up country to separate the father's house from neighboring land to reduce some squabbling. By phone, she's had trouble judging whether it should be 5 or 6 blocks high. Seems 6 is OK, you can still have a view.

Edited May 24, 2010 by rabo

[tharae]

In Australia there is a weekly TV "Infotainment" program show called Foreign Corespondent on the Government owned channel, ABC. This is, as you would expect, a bastion of leftist Journalism. A month or so back they did a very short take on the situation in Thailand. It wasn't so much biaised as shallow and poorly researched. They had the opportunity to present the situation in Thailand at the time, but instead chose to attempt to sensationalise the situation. So while there is bias, there is also some very poor quality journalism.

A parting thought. How many programs do you see in the electronic media or in the print media, that are not some much about reporting a particular topic, but rather about the reporter who is reporting. Way too much navel gazing.

[chaoyang]

Thai English-Language Press:

* Nation: Clear BKK-centric bias and support for Yellows/Dems

* BKK Post: Has reason to loathe Thaksin (airport runway cracks story during Thaksin administration, for which it apologized and fired its editor). Owned by Central Group family member (strong ties to well-established elite class).

*Manager newspaper: Owned by Yellow shirt leader.

I am in China now and don't get CNN or BBC, but China's State-owned broadcaster CCTV has done a pretty good job (and it's gotten huge coverage). Interesting case for them because the Chinese government is paranoid about social unrest, but Communism is supposed to be about protecting the proletarian masses. On the whole I would call the coverage balanced.

[OzMick]

after the terrible burning, looting and destruction, its very easy to say that all the red shirts were therefore terrorists. its not that simple. almost all of them were not, they were not just all there because they were brainless Thaksin puppets...it is also worth remembering that many Bangkok residents also support(ed) the red shirts for their basic principles for democracy. and it is also worth remembering that for the first 2 0r 3 days of this conflict, the army WAS shooting unarmed people indiscriminately. It was well within the medias right to report these facts. and they are facts, as represented by the massive death toll.

perhaps the media made a poor attempt to understand the whole picture of what was happening in Thailand, but lets face it...even people who live here cant agree on whats happening.

Just where were the Army shooting people indiscriminately.. where is your proof ? or is your mouth writing a check that your brain cannot cash..? Please show us your proof.. ! This is an absured lie....

The government i noiticed on the TV yesterday was giving a press conference to international journalists and they did say that there were strict rules of engagement in line with international guide lines and soldiers were only to fire if their lives were to be threatened.

But it does seem rather odd that snipers were deployed, it does rather seem to go against the grain of the rules of engagement.

Using a sniper to pick off armed combatants is logical and in no way compromises the ROE. Anyone carrying a rifle or M-79 launcher has to be considered a deadly threat. Do you think that snipers go in for thrill killing of unarmed civilians?

[rabo]

Yes, but not the ones that you imply.

The first thing that I notice is that the trooper on the left is inexperienced and ill-trained. Holding his rifle by the magazine is a definite no-no, the butt of his rifle is up around his ear, he seems to have wrapped the fore-grip in duct tape because they get hot and in doing so has blocked the ventilation holes (doh!) and giving a colour contrast which makes him more visible, and has taped 2 magazines together, a silly idea for many reasons.

The troopers are correctly assessing the closest arrested person first. Yes, she is a woman. Women kill just as effectively as men, and are preferred as suicide bombers in the radical muslim camps (lately) because many men refuse to accept that they are a threat. Her loose fitting clothing could easily conceal a weapon, and she certainly looks fit enough to grapple with a young man. The assumption is that they are redshirts doing a bolt, so they are looking at a years jail time at least, and cause to be wary of their possible actions to evade arrest.

On closer look it appears that the tape on both the rifle and the magazine is a single strip used for some kind of marking. Black areas of the stock can be seen both top and bottom, ditto for the magazine and there appears to be only one magazine.

So, why the markings? is it possible that some of the rifles are used for a different purpose, i.e., their ammunition is not the same? The clear markings may be a warning not to use this rifle in life threatening situations.

Edited May 24, 2010 by rabo

[eggomaniac]

The Poll missed important questions?

Overall, did International observers get to hear all sides of the arguments and stories. Yes

Overall, did Thais get to see and hear all sides of the Issues. No

The poll results proves that. My Thai friend, who works for Thai Air says she only learns the whole story when she is in London and Germany.

REMEMBER the Government shut down 200 websites and BLOGS before you purvey the spew that your particular truth was not presented.

Both the reds and yellows are run by Nabobs who own private jets, but on this one Issue, freedom of the press a yellow embaresses themsleves by crying poor little boy. The yellow propoganda writers don't have anyone in jail, like the red propoganda writers do!