Are Journalists Biased?

[gemini81]

er...no...i havent considered that scenario. you HAVE seen the videos of the thai soldiers firing into crowds of people havent you? its not rocket science (the countless video clips of this happening, by the way could be considered evidence....i cant believe this is even being debated!) of course....these videos were all biased news reports etc etc

they fired exclusively upon the perpetrators who were firing at them. they we restrained, and used rubber bullets, until they took so many casualties, that then they must use live bullets (they gave warnings!! go home!) However protestors, I know you saw theri arsenal on display, show all the weapons seized and acquired or stolen. They used the real deal on the troops.

No one has mentioned another country in this wide world where less casualites would've been inflicted in one of the most ludicrous overtakings of a downtown area ever. I think many were spared.

As it is, those lovely boys in red were threating the lives of their own followers should they go home early.

Look back on the stats, see just how many soldiers were injured, and in April, killed.

[jitenshaman]

'Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?'

May 22, 2010

The sniper and his comrade are like two surgeons operating with great precision. Ahead of the bunker, Rama IV Road, normally a major arterial road, is empty. The soldiers are becoming agitated by the return gunfire and exploding M79s, and send back a rain of bullets at the Red Shirts.

There is a lull in the fire, and in a twist of reality, one of the soldiers yells across the road to an officer in an adjacent bunker: ''Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?''

I am mortified. There is a pause before the answer is screamed back from the adjacent bunker: ''No''.

I crane my head around a cement wall that adjoins the bunker and I can see foreign photojournalists in the distance. I call a colleague on my mobile phone and ask where she is. It is close to where the sniper is aiming. I say quietly: ''I am with army snipers and I think you are in their sights, get the f--- out of there, move to the side. I would go down the side street now, they are going to shoot!''

His finger squeezes again - it is excruciatingly slow - and his deadly payload is delivered again but she has moved out of the line of fire.

Well, Jack can certainly write a riveting story. You think he speaks enough Thai to have actually understood what the soldiers were saying or could that have been a bit of literary license?

I do wonder why the storey was titled to be about shooting journalists rather then the Army fighting armed protestors:

The Red Shirts are about 200 metres up the road. They pop out of the side street and hurl one of their primitive improvised devices or launch one of their homemade rockets (fire crackers) that explode far short of the bunker I am in. I can't help thinking that the army is replying with heavy-handed and disproportionate force. But then I hear the sickening whirl of incoming high-velocity bullets, coming close to the bunker, followed by the thump of M79 grenades.

Is making the question about shooting journalist and foreigners the main thrust of storey rather then the confirmation that the Army was under attack by more then "primitive improvised devices or launch one of their homemade rockets " a bias or just simple sensationalism?

TH

TH, not only is your assessment of this spot on, but people need to start investigating their media reports a lot more thoroughly. The reporter writes "I am in a Thai army bunker," meaning he has obviously been allowed in or brought along by the Thai army to give reports, presumably according to the army, that yes, there really is a threat out there and that they are not taking out journalists or innocent bystanders. I would have some fairly sincere doubts about a soldier yelling that across the road, with him understanding it in Thai, not to mention the fact of his yelling that with a farang sitting next to him....my guess is if it really happened, the soldier was wondering if it was okay to still shoot at the perpetrators with grenades and rockets when you could also see farang press reporters near them..but again, i dont believe it....going further with this, I proceeded to google the reporter's name...only one comes up, a freelance Australian photojournalist who lives in Bangkok. When you go to his website, there are no links to articles, stories, etc (maybe some similar journalism from the Sarajevo conflict he mentioned), just offers for a photography course and a portfolio of photos for sale that have no link whatsoever to the type of journalism displayed here. So in terms of a well written report on the ground fronting the Sydney Herald, I think a bit more credibility is needed here.

just to update that last post....the reporter does have some good credentials and conflict stuff on his website, my bad for it not coming up when i first checked it....but I still think the story is slanted.

[rabo]

'Is it OK to shoot foreigners and journalists?'

May 22, 2010

[clip story]

Is making the question about shooting journalist and foreigners the main thrust of storey rather then the confirmation that the Army was under attack by more then "primitive improvised devices or launch one of their homemade rockets " a bias or just simple sensationalism?

TH

TH, not only is your assessment of this spot on, but people need to start investigating their media reports a lot more thoroughly. The reporter writes "I am in a Thai army bunker," meaning he has obviously been allowed in or brought along by the Thai army to give reports, presumably according to the army, that yes, there really is a threat out there and that they are not taking out journalists or innocent bystanders. I would have some fairly sincere doubts about a soldier yelling that across the road, with him understanding it in Thai, not to mention the fact of his yelling that with a farang sitting next to him....my guess is if it really happened, the soldier was wondering if it was okay to still shoot at the perpetrators with grenades and rockets when you could also see farang press reporters near them..but again, i dont believe it....going further with this, I proceeded to google the reporter's name...only one comes up, a freelance Australian photojournalist who lives in Bangkok. When you go to his website, there are no links to articles, stories, etc (maybe some similar journalism from the Sarajevo conflict he mentioned), just offers for a photography course and a portfolio of photos for sale that have no link whatsoever to the type of journalism displayed here. So in terms of a well written report on the ground fronting the Sydney Herald, I think a bit more credibility is needed here.

just to update that last post....the reporter does have some good credentials and conflict stuff on his website, my bad for it not coming up when i first checked it....but I still think the story is slanted.

As presented, the story does have a lot of implausibility.

Perhaps the soldier was referring to the anxious foreign journalist sitting in the bunker disturbing him when he shouted to the other side to ask "Is it OK for me shoot foreigners and journalists?".

Edited May 24, 2010 by rabo

[shrekroma]

Noting that 45% of those who voted said there was not too much censorship or made no comment, I think it says a lot for the calibre of people represented here.

Ostriches.

Those pals only listen to the Gov media. It makes them feel happy.

And that's not sth bad. Because this is LOS.

Tourium is the top priority. Make them feel good at all costs.

[whiterussian]

Interesting re: The Nation

Shareholder data: http://www.nationgroup.com/invester_3.php

Dow Jones & Company, Inc., New York 12,000,000 7.28%

Board of directors: http://www.set.or.th/set/companyprofile.do...&country=US

Mrs. CHRISTINE LUCIE DEBIAIS BRENDLE DIRECTOR (Francais)

(Christine Brendle is the Managing Director of Dow Jones Consumer Media Group in Asia)

http://www.thomascrampton.com/media/christine-brendle/

-----

The Dow Jones Company publishes " The Wall Street Journal" ,Wall Street Journal,Barron's Magazine ,Dow Jones Newswires ,Dow Jones Indexes ,Dow Jones Financial Information Services ,Factiva ,Far Eastern Economic Review ,MarketWatch.com ,SmartMoney ,Vedomosti ,FiLife.com... etc

who owns Dow Jones? - News_Corporation aka Rupert Murdoch aka Fox News aka far right nutcase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

Edited May 24, 2010 by whiterussian

[JetsetBkk]

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.

Correct. And perhaps they shot her later.

Be that as it may, in the article in the Timesonline link, the reporter says his movie of the search of his belongings had been deleted from his camera. Didn't he know you can un-erase files from these memory cards?

[Luke06]

In a dreadful piece by CNN’s Arwa Damon “The Red Shirts Heartland BackStory”, CNN revealed her editorial knickers (IMHO). Apologies if this has been brought up before and apologies if I am not allowed to add the CNN link;

http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vide...latest.cnn.html

Save yourself the pain of this ‘real people’ story and go to 2.19 mins; Damon asks what do they want if they get their way and a new government comes in what is the one thing they want. Replying (in Thai) the old lady says that she wants many things but if Thaksin comes back that would be ok...good, then she requests that another speaker take over. He says if Thaksin comes back or someone who works for Thaksin, whatever, I want…sudden edit, and Damon tells us the answer to her questions is that they want helping with the cost of oil and healthcare, no mention of Thaksin. Then the guy off camera (personally I have some suspicions about his connection to this village) starts talking saying and more than that, Thaksin … another edit. In all the name of Thaksin never once features in the story from the reporter. (Also the person in the background seems to tell the villagers to talk about the Thaksin government whilst she is asking her questions).

If we are to believe that they only report what they see and hear, why was this potent and clear motivation cut out from the story when it was clearly mentioned not once but at least three times in the edited version… was it perhaps inconvenient, is this not manipulation and failure to provide the whole story?

[OzMick]

What major Red Shirt leader advocated violence? What did he say? Can you provide a link?

You've been given all the links above.

You're just trolling now.

Of the four video links provided above, I viewed three. (One link was dead.)

In one video, Nuttawuth threatens to burn Bangkok if the government seizes power. Why would a democratically elected government seize power? That wouldn't make any sense. Perhaps he's referring to a government illegally seizing power? That makes better sense. So, he's threatening arson in the event of a government illegally seizing power. What's wrong with that? If a goverment illegally seized power in my home country, I'd be out in the streets with my neighbors forming a militia to fight it.

In another video, Arisman Pongruangrong threatens to torch Bangkok if the military tries to disperse the Red Shirt protesters. He's threatening arson.

Although the other viewable video shows Red Shirt speeches, it doesn't show any major Red Shirt leaders threatening violence or arson.

So, there's a possibility of Arisman Pongruangrong being guilty of conspiring to commit arson. Are there other videos with more damning evidence of threatened violence by Red Shirt leaders?

I refer to your comments re the 1st clip. By definition, a govt is in power. How does a duly elected govt "illegally seize power"? The "illegal" addition is yours, and condones the treat to burn BKK "if the govt seizes power" which it already has done by being elected. He is talking crap to an audience to stupid or brainwashed to know it's crap, and is a clear arson threat.

[OzMick]

@mic6ard But when you start painting the government's use of force as being unnecessary and the REDs were unarmed, well that really below the belt.

you think it was necessary to kill 60 people to clear the protest site? have you not seen the countless pictures of clearly unarmed people lying with their brains in the gutter? including medics. the reds may of been armed, but the majority of the casualties were on the first few days, before the army even got near the camp. those guys they were shooting at were armed with catapults and mlotov cocktails. deadly force was unnecessary and inciteful.

So you think all deaths are attributable to army actions. Do you think it was necessary to kill 60 people to protect the protest site? That might be a more logical question.

What is this crap about "may have been armed". It has been proven that they were armed, and yet you assume that they weren't using M-79s and assault rifles "on the first few days" when all evidence points that they were.

Red statements are that there were no weapons in the camp - obviously because someone was using them outside the camp. Why keep pushing this unarmed/lightly armed peaceful protester propaganda when there is the evidence of 39 buildings torched in the aftermath.

[OzMick]

It seems that the brains of Thai visa readers have been deteriorated from the long time that they have been exposed to the intellectually lazy and slavish way the Thai media do their reporting. They are like dead row prisoners they have no understanding anymore of what is going on outside. Only very simple people would be able to call the reporting of the international press biased towards the reds and that of the local press fair. How can you call something fair when you close down each and every website, newspaper, TV and radio station that reports something that is not to your liking.

I bet that all those people who voted "Fair" for the Thai press and "biased" towards the redhsirts for the international press find their shoe-prints on the toilet seat and use toilet paper with texts that the airport occupation was fun... I personally use toilet paper with the picture of Thai ministers that wipes better.

A poll is used to determine how the majority of those polled view a question. When the majority disagree with you they are idiots, of course.

do you know what god's gift to the stupid was? They don't know that they are stupid.

[Publicus]

Interesting re: The Nation

Shareholder data: http://www.nationgroup.com/invester_3.php

Dow Jones & Company, Inc., New York 12,000,000 7.28%

Board of directors: http://www.set.or.th/set/companyprofile.do...&country=US

Mrs. CHRISTINE LUCIE DEBIAIS BRENDLE DIRECTOR (Francais)

(Christine Brendle is the Managing Director of Dow Jones Consumer Media Group in Asia)

http://www.thomascrampton.com/media/christine-brendle/

-----

The Dow Jones Company publishes " The Wall Street Journal" ,Wall Street Journal,Barron's Magazine ,Dow Jones Newswires ,Dow Jones Indexes ,Dow Jones Financial Information Services ,Factiva ,Far Eastern Economic Review ,MarketWatch.com ,SmartMoney ,Vedomosti ,FiLife.com... etc

who owns Dow Jones? - News_Corporation aka Rupert Murdoch aka Fox News aka far right nutcase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation

The Editorial Board of the WSJ always has been to the right of Genghis Khan or to the relative newcomer Faux News so there's virtually nothing Murdock can do there. Broadly, WSJ reporters always have been political moderates, a bit left or right of the US political center with only the occasional wingnut - it would take Murdoch a long time to change this historical pattern were we to presume Murdoch wanted to make such a change. Members of the Dow Jones Board of Directors are diverse and are members of other media organizations globally in which Dow Jones Co Inc have some ownership interests because return on investment is critical to any enterprise.   

Relax.

Besides, you're quoting from Wikipedia which is a bunch of pseudos who, if not for Reader's Digest, would seldom get published anywhere else.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Publicus

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Personally I think the issue is that when you get fed this steady stream of pro-government propaganda, celf-censored and with some topics entirely kept out off news reports, then any regular reporting by international news media will seem biased by comparison. In fact the bias was in the biased and self-censored Thai press. The Nation actually dared raise the issue of bias on the part of CNN today; completely ludicrous.. Throwing stones from a glass house.

There is a long list of magazines and viewpoints that you won't ever get to read in this country. Read ALL of the established publications, from Newsweek and the Economist to the Wall Street Journal. Right, those are all biased and The Nation is not??? wake up!

Edited May 25, 2010 by WinnieTheKhwai

[chaoyang]

From the Newsweek story:

FACT:

"Thaksin was the first prime minister to lead a government through a full four-year term since the country ended military rule in 1976—every other leader was either overthrown by coup, forced to resign, or abandoned by coalition partners, forcing a new election."

And he was heading an elected government when he was illegally removed from office by a military coup. When he and the Reds talk about democracy it ain't just PR. Like him or not, Thaksin played by the prevailing rules, was overwhelmingly elected, then forcibly deposed by an elite clique.

Let's get back to what triggered all this: What are the Red supporters supposed to do? Power politics in Thailand again shat on them, so they should again just accept it?

Edited May 25, 2010 by chaoyang

[OzMick]

From the Newsweek story:

FACT:

"Thaksin was the first prime minister to lead a government through a full four-year term since the country ended military rule in 1976—every other leader was either overthrown by coup, forced to resign, or abandoned by coalition partners, forcing a new election."

And he was heading an elected government when he was illegally removed from office by a military coup. When he and the Reds talk about democracy it ain't just PR. Like him or not, Thaksin played by the prevailing rules, was overwhelmingly elected, then forcibly deposed by an elite clique.

Let's get back to what triggered all this: What are the Red supporters supposed to do? Power politics in Thailand again shat on them, so they should again just accept it?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that thaksin's government's term had expired; that he was caretaker PM (until he resigned) with only one task, to hold an election; that he unilaterally re-appointed himself, but failed to call an election within the required time frame; and was installing family and cronies in the judiciary and military which was seen to be preparation for a dictatorship? How long should a caretaker PM be allowed to illegally extend his term before someone takes action? He was allowed several months; should it run to years?

Edited May 25, 2010 by OzMick

[chaoyang]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that thaksin's government's term had expired; that he was caretaker PM (until he resigned) with only one task, to hold an election; <snip>

Why are you just pointing out parliamentary rules without noting that Thaksin and his party would certainly have been reelected? You remind me of a lawyer splitting hairs as he tries to bury a discussion in minutiae. And beyond that why are you bringing up rules when the military removed the elected leader from office and through the constitution out the window?

Back on topic: The Western press has been "biased" in noting these things and actually considering the facts.

[whybother]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that thaksin's government's term had expired; that he was caretaker PM (until he resigned) with only one task, to hold an election; <snip>

Why are you just pointing out parliamentary rules without noting that Thaksin and his party would certainly have been reelected? You remind me of a lawyer splitting hairs as he tries to bury a discussion in minutiae. And beyond that why are you bringing up rules when the military removed the elected leader from office and through the constitution out the window?

Back on topic: The Western press has been "biased" in noting these things and actually considering the facts.

When it's Thaksin's job to organise an election with in a certain timeframe, and he doesn't, then why should he be there?

If he "would certainly have been reelected" then what was his problem with organising a new election?

[animatic]

What major Red Shirt leader advocated violence? What did he say? Can you provide a link?

You've been given all the links above.

You're just trolling now.

Of the four video links provided above, I viewed three. (One link was dead.)

In one video, Nuttawuth threatens to burn Bangkok if the government seizes power. Why would a democratically elected government seize power? That wouldn't make any sense. Perhaps he's referring to a government illegally seizing power? That makes better sense. So, he's threatening arson in the event of a government illegally seizing power. What's wrong with that? If a goverment illegally seized power in my home country, I'd be out in the streets with my neighbors forming a militia to fight it.

In another video, Arisman Pongruangrong threatens to torch Bangkok if the military tries to disperse the Red Shirt protesters. He's threatening arson.

Although the other viewable video shows Red Shirt speeches, it doesn't show any major Red Shirt leaders threatening violence or arson.

So, there's a possibility of Arisman Pongruangrong being guilty of conspiring to commit arson. Are there other videos with more damning evidence of threatened violence by Red Shirt leaders?

I refer to your comments re the 1st clip. By definition, a govt is in power. How does a duly elected govt "illegally seize power"? The "illegal" addition is yours, and condones the treat to burn BKK "if the govt seizes power" which it already has done by being elected. He is talking crap to an audience to stupid or brainwashed to know it's crap, and is a clear arson threat.

Ok part of their whole line of thought was that the REDS have a power of their own

The only 'true' power, and are fighting an illegal usurper government, so the power

the evil gov. would be seizing would be the RED's power as the 'legitimate government

creation force' they imagine they are. People Power, usurped by the evil government.

PPP was not named that for nothing.

[Samuian]

From the Newsweek story:

FACT:

"Thaksin was the first prime minister to lead a government through a full four-year term since the country ended military rule in 1976—every other leader was either overthrown by coup, forced to resign, or abandoned by coalition partners, forcing a new election."

And he was heading an elected government when he was illegally removed from office by a military coup. When he and the Reds talk about democracy it ain't just PR. Like him or not, Thaksin played by the prevailing rules, was overwhelmingly elected, then forcibly deposed by an elite clique.

Let's get back to what triggered all this: What are the Red supporters supposed to do? Power politics in Thailand again shat on them, so they should again just accept it?

You overlook conveniently one, but MAJOR fact in your seemingly "bright" conclusion:

How did Thaksin manage to get this full term - it was no magic!

All opposing voices were recklessly silenced or sued into oblivion

"the UN is not my father"!

"Democracy is not my goal"!

"They suffocated, whilst packed so tightly"!

The two journalists form FEER got a "persona non Grata" for writing a critical report on him,

it wasn't even really negative..

"Democratically" elected, yes with massive vote rigging and buying, massive PR campaigns,

this is being sold as being the most "beloved leader", "they love me"... it's not funny, it's sad!

And still he is using the same mechanics, same tools - massive PR campaigning, the wolves all eat chalk!

Thre was simply nothing really good, no achievement that overweight his meddling instate affairs and

manipulating things the way he wanted things to go.... his aim was a autocracy, to be president of it,

how may times he mentioned that he was going to lead this country as the CEO of a company -this doesn't ring a bell?

he always talked about democracy, still does today, but he is as far away from democracy as the Andromeda constellation is from planet earth!

This man is a power junkie!

And in this way, because of massive interference and massive lying, distorting facts many journalists wil report

waht they are being told... not necessarily the truth - how?

If they lack background knowledge?

and as extra topping on the pizza - YOU are the best example reflecting the results of biased,

unqualified, not adhering to the reality reporting, but telling stories... simple stories!

There are many, many truth's out there - but only ONE reality!

and that is a fact!

Edited May 25, 2010 by Samuian

[animatic]

From the Newsweek story:

FACT:

"Thaksin was the first prime minister to lead a government through a full four-year term since the country ended military rule in 1976—every other leader was either overthrown by coup, forced to resign, or abandoned by coalition partners, forcing a new election."

And he was heading an elected government when he was illegally removed from office by a military coup. When he and the Reds talk about democracy it ain't just PR. Like him or not, Thaksin played by the prevailing rules, was overwhelmingly elected, then forcibly deposed by an elite clique.

Let's get back to what triggered all this: What are the Red supporters supposed to do? Power politics in Thailand again shat on them, so they should again just accept it?

Yes Thaksin made his pseudo coalition a second term one.

But then within the year called a snap election.

Why do you forget that Thaksin dissolved his own Parliamentary win a year later?

Inconvenient for your argument? Temasek was rather inconvenient too.

You also ignore that when the Election Commission blew running the2006 election,

it took so long to get them out, and run the next election with fresh commissioners that

Thaksin's Care Taker Status as Temporary Prime Minister had EXPIRED.

You forget this too.... Why? Inconvenient for your argument?

PS those Election commissioners all went to jail.

Thaksin PUBLICLY resigned as prime minister.

Again, ignored... Inconvenient for your argument?

He was not renewed officially.

A designated PM candidate MUST go to the palace and get signed off on.

He never went, so he was never Caretaker PM legally. He did NOT play "by the prevailing rules"...

He DID unilaterally, which means on his own, decided he was Prime Minister again.

No election, no mandate, no return to the Palace so HRM could validate him,

which is HRM constitutional duty by the way.

Thaksin was NO LONGER PM at the time of the coup,

he just tried to take the job back on his own.

He simply announced that the country needs him so he will unretire.

Go check the facts, if they matter to you?

It was all done quite publicly, and ALL papers of record reported it,

as well as on TVF and most other forums and places like New Mandella, Chaing Noi and Bangkok Pundit.

And when Abhisit and the Dems "played by the prevailing rules"

you scream bloody murder and daylight robbery.

Such crocodile tears and hypocrisies.

What this shows is the international press's lack of research. And that

they rely on old press releases from back then often from Thaksin's

PR company Baker Bott and ignore original sources that show this

is how it all transpired.

Thaksin won the early PR battle hands down.

But that obscured the truth to the international press,

and they just lazily go with old file notes to add up the story.

Hey CNN, try getting a researcher on these facts,

that any open minded and well read person in Thailand in 2006 would know.

You have dropped the ball in a big way. Time to pick it back up.

Edited May 25, 2010 by animatic

[chaoyang]

All opposing voices were recklessly silenced or sued into oblivion

"the UN is not my father"!

"Democracy is not my goal"!

Military coups and subsequent PM dismissed for hosting a cooking show -- that's democracy?

"They suffocated, whilst packed so tightly"!

That was very bad news, and one reason I too developed a deep dislike for Thaksin

The two journalists form FEER got a "persona non Grata" for writing a critical report on him,

it wasn't even really negative..

"Democratically" elected, yes with massive vote rigging and buying, massive PR campaigns,

this is being sold as being the most "beloved leader", "they love me"... it's not funny, it's sad!

Sounds like doing Thai politics the tried and true Thai way.

I'm no fan of Thaksin, but the truth remains he was -- and probably is -- one of the most popular politicians in Thai history. He was legally elected and illegally removed from office. Those are the facts.

Then we have the whole sordid history of how the power elite lined their pockets throughout the 20th century while the poor continued to languish....when the social safety net for a family is a daughter in prostitution ... appalling.

[animatic]

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that thaksin's government's term had expired; that he was caretaker PM (until he resigned) with only one task, to hold an election; <snip>

Why are you just pointing out parliamentary rules without noting that Thaksin and his party would certainly have been reelected? You remind me of a lawyer splitting hairs as he tries to bury a discussion in minutiae. And beyond that why are you bringing up rules when the military removed the elected leader from office and through the constitution out the window?

Back on topic: The Western press has been "biased" in noting these things and actually considering the facts.

Right.

You think Thaksin ignoring the constitutioal laws is splitting hairs?

Democracy at work, eh? Pathetic.

He had not been re-elected a third time. He was not the Prime Minister.

He was several months of time, outside of the constitution laws at the time of the coup.

It is not parliamentary rules at dispute here but the 1997 Constitution's LAWS.

Maybe TRT would have been relected maybe not. They did get caught

bribing small parties to run against them to avoid the 20% LAW.

So their election would have AGAIN been moot.

TRT would have gone the same route as PPP earlier. With similar result.

And you remind me of a defence lawyer trying to

ignore points of law that don't help your clients argument.

[animatic]

.... subsequent PM dismissed for hosting a cooking show ....

A never ending litany of obscuration.

Plain lie; forum Rule 15...

Samak was removed as PM for CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

and secondly for PERJURY, which is lying in court.

'Talking While Cooking' was also a political talk show with him cooking while he talked his political views.

IE paid political advertising, subsidized by a company beholden to him as PM with power over the Thai airwaves.

Samak was paid and that was the technical mistake he made.

But he BROKE THE LAW UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

this law was the same as the 1997 constitution.

And YES that is applied Democracy,

even a sitting PM is liable for his illegal actions.

But that only removed him for one day as PM.

If he had been voted back in, then he could have been PM yet again.

Thaksin PERSONALLY vetoed his re-election.

Ooh that IS democracy at work isn't it? Not hardly.

Edited May 25, 2010 by animatic

[hammered]

Personally I think the issue is that when you get fed this steady stream of pro-government propaganda, celf-censored and with some topics entirely kept out off news reports, then any regular reporting by international news media will seem biased by comparison. In fact the bias was in the biased and self-censored Thai press. The Nation actually dared raise the issue of bias on the part of CNN today; completely ludicrous.. Throwing stones from a glass house.

There is a long list of magazines and viewpoints that you won't ever get to read in this country. Read ALL of the established publications, from Newsweek and the Economist to the Wall Street Journal. Right, those are all biased and The Nation is not??? wake up!

Every news sourse is bias and has an edirtorial and patriotic slant. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesnt understand how media works.

Ther eis no such thing as fair, free balanced medi aand the idea of media as a fourth estate is pure propaganda.

[chaoyang]

Samak was removed as PM for CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

and secondly for PERJURY, which is lying in court.

That's indeed a rich recipe to swallow. How shocking: A Thai politician with conflicts of interest or who lies. And what a whopper: talking while cooking on TV.

Take a look at the rogue's gallery that lists Thailand PMs down through history. Suddenly Thaksin et al are supposed to be pure? All of this could have certainly been overlooked, but he was just getting too powerful and stepping on some big toes.

Making enemies of the family that owns the Central Group and BKK Post is just one example ... why who did he think he was? Just a provincial upstart and now daring to elbow the patrician families out of the way? NO, that certainly won't do ...

[Samuian]

All opposing voices were recklessly silenced or sued into oblivion

"the UN is not my father"!

"Democracy is not my goal"!

Military coups and subsequent PM dismissed for hosting a cooking show -- that's democracy?

"They suffocated, whilst packed so tightly"!

That was very bad news, and one reason I too developed a deep dislike for Thaksin

The two journalists form FEER got a "persona non Grata" for writing a critical report on him,

it wasn't even really negative..

"Democratically" elected, yes with massive vote rigging and buying, massive PR campaigns,

this is being sold as being the most "beloved leader", "they love me"... it's not funny, it's sad!

Sounds like doing Thai politics the tried and true Thai way.

I'm no fan of Thaksin, but the truth remains he was -- and probably is -- one of the most popular politicians in Thai history. He was legally elected and illegally removed from office. Those are the facts.

Then we have the whole sordid history of how the power elite lined their pockets throughout the 20th century while the poor continued to languish....when the social safety net for a family is a daughter in prostitution ... appalling.

Military coups and subsequent PM dismissed for hosting a cooking show -- that's democracy?

you dig out the sa the same old "arguments" which lack base!

Samak was sacked because it's not allowed to have a Job/income as a PM... by LAW!

and it wasn't a military coup either!

: "i am no fan of thaksin ..."

why do have to mention it then if you're not/..?

:"he was elected.."

He wasn't!

How can vote buying and rigging be called a fair and "democratic" election- hew wasn't!

He made himself "popular"!

he wasn't!

maybe by now he is!

It is NOT okay, cause it is "commonly done in politics that people line their pockets"..

It WRONG - and "they too" make one bad not one good!

weird perception of the whole story sir - very strange I suggest you inform yourself better!

[animatic]

Samak was removed as PM for CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

and secondly for PERJURY, which is lying in court.

That's indeed a rich recipe to swallow. How shocking: A Thai politician with conflicts of interest or who lies. And what a whopper: talking while cooking on TV.

Take a look at the rogue's gallery that lists Thailand PMs down through history. Suddenly Thaksin et al are supposed to be pure? All of this could have certainly been overlooked, but he was just getting too powerful and stepping on some big toes.

Making enemies of the family that owns the Central Group and BKK Post is just one example ... why who did he think he was? Just a provincial upstart and now daring to elbow the patrician families out of the way? NO, that certainly won't do ...

So, you are calling me a liar now... ok

"What a whopper" implies that clearly.

You do recall the name of Samak's show, right?

Ever see it?

'Talking While Cooking'.

The main topics of discussion were rarely the food.

Oh and recycling the old 'Others did it, so He can do it too' argument,

is the same one the Red used to ruin Bangkok, because PAD didn't go to jail yet.

Sorry if someone here finally gets the will to enforce laws, I will never object.

Seems you only do when it fits your ends.

Edited May 25, 2010 by animatic

[chaoyang]

So, you are calling me a liar now... ok

"What a whopper" implies that clearly.

No I'm not calling you that. The whole tale of Samak's rise as PM to begin with and his downfall is just a whopper. It beggars belief. Thai politics all the way, sure.

Oh and recycling the old 'Others did it, so He can do it too' argument,

is the same one the Red used to ruin Bangkok, because PAD didn't go to jail yet.

Sorry if someone here finally gets the will to enforce laws, I will never object.

Seems you only do when it fits your ends.

I agree, but the reality remains that the only "decent" elected PM I can think of since the early '90s is Chuan Lekapi, and he was so ineffectual that basically nothing happened. Just a caretaker while the real puppet masters continued their amoral and illegal businesses. Family clans, triads -- these are the real powers.

Abhisit, another Democrat, also seems like a decent guy, but he was hoisted to power by the well-connected BKK powers of which his clan is of sufficient lineage to be a member. Ironically, he could be the best guy for the job, but he's caught up in one hel_l of a situation.

Anand, another PM brought to power in a military coup, could the best PM the nation has had, but his tenure was brief.

Back on topic: I think the international media generally holds the view that fundamental change in Thailand would be a good thing. Thaksin, for all his egregious faults, promised and began changes.

I hope the Reds keep pushing ...

[rabo]

What major Red Shirt leader advocated violence? What did he say? Can you provide a link?

You've been given all the links above.

You're just trolling now.

Of the four video links provided above, I viewed three. (One link was dead.)

In one video, Nuttawuth threatens to burn Bangkok if the government seizes power. Why would a democratically elected government seize power? That wouldn't make any sense. Perhaps he's referring to a government illegally seizing power? That makes better sense. So, he's threatening arson in the event of a government illegally seizing power. What's wrong with that? If a goverment illegally seized power in my home country, I'd be out in the streets with my neighbors forming a militia to fight it.

In another video, Arisman Pongruangrong threatens to torch Bangkok if the military tries to disperse the Red Shirt protesters. He's threatening arson.

Although the other viewable video shows Red Shirt speeches, it doesn't show any major Red Shirt leaders threatening violence or arson.

So, there's a possibility of Arisman Pongruangrong being guilty of conspiring to commit arson. Are there other videos with more damning evidence of threatened violence by Red Shirt leaders?

I refer to your comments re the 1st clip. By definition, a govt is in power. How does a duly elected govt "illegally seize power"? The "illegal" addition is yours, and condones the treat to burn BKK "if the govt seizes power" which it already has done by being elected. He is talking crap to an audience to stupid or brainwashed to know it's crap, and is a clear arson threat.

misterjag Sigh. And the truth is..........

If it's the referenced tape you are talking about, what he said was "Tha phuak khun yeut amnat phuak rao, we will burn the city ....."

Which means simply if your group takes away our group's rights (amnat).

Although amnat is usually translated as power or authority, the best translation here is probably "rights", rights are powers granted under a constitution, etc. Way off the original interpretation and further altered with the word illegal to suggest something totally different.

misterjag said: "Although the other viewable video shows Red Shirt speeches, it doesn't show any major Red Shirt leaders threatening violence or arson."mj, How do you arrive at this conclusion? After going through all the tapes, they all clearly call for arson and destruction down to the detail of what bottles to bring, where they will be filled, and how many ccs of gasoline to use! Further, the crowd is instructed to burn down the city and the leaders say "Don't worry, we will take responsibility for that".

You misterjag have been fooled by propaganda. You sir, need to read the Thai media!

Edited May 25, 2010 by rabo

[animatic]

So, you are calling me a liar now... ok

"What a whopper" implies that clearly.

No I'm not calling you that. The whole tale of Samak's rise as PM to begin with and his downfall is just a whopper. It beggars belief. Thai politics all the way, sure.

Oh and recycling the old 'Others did it, so He can do it too' argument,

is the same one the Red used to ruin Bangkok, because PAD didn't go to jail yet.

Sorry if someone here finally gets the will to enforce laws, I will never object.

Seems you only do when it fits your ends.

I agree, but the reality remains that the only "decent" elected PM I can think of since the early '90s is Chuan Lekapi, and he was so ineffectual that basically nothing happened. Just a caretaker while the real puppet masters continued their amoral and illegal businesses. Family clans, triads -- these are the real powers.

Abhisit, another Democrat, also seems like a decent guy, but he was hoisted to power by the well-connected BKK powers of which his clan is of sufficient lineage to be a member. Ironically, he could be the best guy for the job, but he's caught up in one hel_l of a situation.

Anand, another PM brought to power in a military coup, could the best PM the nation has had, but his tenure was brief.

Back on topic: I think the international media generally holds the view that fundamental change in Thailand would be a good thing. Thaksin, for all his egregious faults, promised and began changes.

I hope the Reds keep pushing ...

Ok fair play.

I think the reds should stop pushing and move to a different method of getting progress.

I have NEVER been against improved conditions for Issan folks,

but always against how the red leaders were using this desire for other gains.

It has always been saddening to see them used and abused as they have been.

EDUCATION FOR ALL NOW, please!

Thaksin began ' visible changes', but for all the wrong reasons, and used that as a cudgle on his enemies,

and his friends ultimately just used these 'changes' as a further way of controling the little folks.

Positive change for the poor is on the table and can't be removed.

But the Reds violent platform is the greatest impediment to getting what they need in a timely fashion.

And that is the greatest tragedy, and the journalists have missed this completely.

[clausewitz]

Thai media certainly feels that the foreign media were biased.

I think we can all applaud this feature in todays Nation :

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/2010/...e-30130095.html

The red shirts have become a real peril in this land. They are a serious threat to national security, with or without Thaksin being around to finance their future destructive campaigns. Such horrible scenarios could be prevented if the ringleaders and their network of extremist supporters are uprooted once and for all.

The violence and tragedy - with up to 100 dead and several hundreds injured - captured headlines around the world, and news networks had a field day, some with fair reporting. However, a few major news organisations showed how they could be biased to make the country's administration look much worse than in reality.

The US saw 9/11, and the bringing down of the World Trade Centre. We just suffered May 19, with the CentralWorld complex, earlier named the World Trade Centre, going up in smoke. A "ground zero" on a smaller scale.

The US has an enemy by the name of Bin Laden, who has eluded capture for years. We have an enemy named Thaksin Shinawatra who deserves the title of public enemy number one, and has already been branded a terrorist by the government. .

The Americans have seen the Black Panthers and other urban terrorists, freak groups led by the likes of Jim Jones, and violent incidents like Waco. We have the red shirts, who are mean and lethal, comprising thugs, thieves, looters, assassins, saboteurs, vandals and charlatans campaigning for "democracy" on Thaksin's payroll.

America had an excellent newscaster named Dan Rather, but now we have the new-rich Dan Rivers of CNN, who lives here and gives Thailand a bad name it does not deserve