Thailand-Based CNN, BBC Correspondents Defend Red-Shirts Coverage

[rixalex]

However the BBC reports I saw went out of their way to stress the role of Thaksin in the red attempt to bring down the government.

There must be more than one BBC then because the one i watched barely scratched the surface in terms of Thaksin's role in the red movement, besides to occasionally mention as an aside that the reds were supporters of his.

[rixalex]

Your comment to the extent I understand it makes the common error of stressing Thai particularism with the implication that its mysteries can only be penetrated after years of linguistic and cultural study.

It's not an error and it's not a Thai particularism. If you want to really understand what's going on in any country, living there and speaking the language fluently is a massive help - denying that is daft.

In a rather more sophisticated form it is the same excuse that many Bangkok amart provide when foreigners ask awkward questions.Needless to say it's nonsense.

I'm more familiar with this excuse being trotted out by "Bangkok" red shirts, and it is nonsense when directed at a foreigner who does speak the language and who has lived here since before some of the red shirts were even born.

[wayfarer108]

Problem is, there was some big expectations in Thailand for the media to expose the 'truth' but the two protagonists/sides have come to believe two entirely different versions of the truth, so disappointment was bound to happen. I'm of the opinion that from the start the protesters tactic was to force the Gobt to spill the Red's blood and quit in shame, hence the self drawing and spilling stunt at Govt House in March. The local media saw through it all, while the prime time international news thrives on bloody scenes. The media are just doing their jobs according to their audience's expectations, telling the news/truth in one way or another. What is important is for the public at large to pay attention to the various opposing analysis of this complex situation to realise that neither side is entirely blameless. Unfortunately, with censorship and a largely uneducated electorate it's not going to happen.

The problem is that the Thai Government censors the Media .Most of what we have left is mostly garbage, if you want an example of this try reading the nations report on the reconciliation plan in yesterdays papers and Bangkok posts they are two different stories both meant to be on the same topic. World famous organisations such as the BBC are very suspicious of a country that sends in the army to shoot its own people and then censors the press. Sorry Thailand but the world doesnt trust you.

Sounds like you've never read or watched the real Thai media, just the English-language Thai media. There is plenty of good reporting- not great, and yes to some degree self-censored, yet still more accurate and complete than what we get from BBC and CNN - in Thai language print (Matichon, to some degree even Thai Rath) and TV (TVThai) news reporting.

But the issue is whether BBC or CNN is doing a good job. Just like on the FCCT night that Somtow, Kraisak and Sumet tried to get their points across about Western media bias, the discussion quickly disintegrated into a them vs us, Thai vs farang issue, the same is happening here.

It's not that the Thai press is intrinsically better than the Western press(with less training and far less funding, not likely), just that in reporting live news in Thailand they are usually a more reliable source, for the obvious reason that they understand what is being said on all sides, and they have more interview access.

[jayboy]

Problem is, there was some big expectations in Thailand for the media to expose the 'truth' but the two protagonists/sides have come to believe two entirely different versions of the truth, so disappointment was bound to happen. I'm of the opinion that from the start the protesters tactic was to force the Gobt to spill the Red's blood and quit in shame, hence the self drawing and spilling stunt at Govt House in March. The local media saw through it all, while the prime time international news thrives on bloody scenes. The media are just doing their jobs according to their audience's expectations, telling the news/truth in one way or another. What is important is for the public at large to pay attention to the various opposing analysis of this complex situation to realise that neither side is entirely blameless. Unfortunately, with censorship and a largely uneducated electorate it's not going to happen.

The problem is that the Thai Government censors the Media .Most of what we have left is mostly garbage, if you want an example of this try reading the nations report on the reconciliation plan in yesterdays papers and Bangkok posts they are two different stories both meant to be on the same topic. World famous organisations such as the BBC are very suspicious of a country that sends in the army to shoot its own people and then censors the press. Sorry Thailand but the world doesnt trust you.

Sounds like you've never read or watched the real Thai media, just the English-language Thai media. There is plenty of good reporting- not great, and yes to some degree self-censored, yet still more accurate and complete than what we get from BBC and CNN - in Thai language print (Matichon, to some degree even Thai Rath) and TV (TVThai) news reporting.

But the issue is whether BBC or CNN is doing a good job. Just like on the FCCT night that Somtow, Kraisak and Sumet tried to get their points across about Western media bias, the discussion quickly disintegrated into a them vs us, Thai vs farang issue, the same is happening here.

It's not that the Thai press is intrinsically better than the Western press(with less training and far less funding, not likely), just that in reporting live news in Thailand they are usually a more reliable source, for the obvious reason that they understand what is being said on all sides, and they have more interview access.

Some very dubious propositions here.Of course there are some advantages in being local but the Thai press - which I monitor - has not acquitted itself well at all in the crisis.You pass quickly over press self censorship but that is the nub of the issue.Actually I attended the FCCT discussion.Somtow I thought made some very fair points but didn't really convince me.Sumet is just an amiable jokester who lives in a Siamese fantasia, not to be taken seriously (nor are his awful architectural monstrosities).Picking up Rixalex's point it's not linguistic ability or length of stay that's so important as the ability to absorb information, process it and draw sensible conclusions.Same applies to journalists as it does to forum members.I say that as someone who has been here for a long time and speaks Thai relatively well.

[wayfarer108]

Problem is, there was some big expectations in Thailand for the media to expose the 'truth' but the two protagonists/sides have come to believe two entirely different versions of the truth, so disappointment was bound to happen. I'm of the opinion that from the start the protesters tactic was to force the Gobt to spill the Red's blood and quit in shame, hence the self drawing and spilling stunt at Govt House in March. The local media saw through it all, while the prime time international news thrives on bloody scenes. The media are just doing their jobs according to their audience's expectations, telling the news/truth in one way or another. What is important is for the public at large to pay attention to the various opposing analysis of this complex situation to realise that neither side is entirely blameless. Unfortunately, with censorship and a largely uneducated electorate it's not going to happen.

The problem is that the Thai Government censors the Media .Most of what we have left is mostly garbage, if you want an example of this try reading the nations report on the reconciliation plan in yesterdays papers and Bangkok posts they are two different stories both meant to be on the same topic. World famous organisations such as the BBC are very suspicious of a country that sends in the army to shoot its own people and then censors the press. Sorry Thailand but the world doesnt trust you.

Sounds like you've never read or watched the real Thai media, just the English-language Thai media. There is plenty of good reporting- not great, and yes to some degree self-censored, yet still more accurate and complete than what we get from BBC and CNN - in Thai language print (Matichon, to some degree even Thai Rath) and TV (TVThai) news reporting.

But the issue is whether BBC or CNN is doing a good job. Just like on the FCCT night that Somtow, Kraisak and Sumet tried to get their points across about Western media bias, the discussion quickly disintegrated into a them vs us, Thai vs farang issue, the same is happening here.

It's not that the Thai press is intrinsically better than the Western press(with less training and far less funding, not likely), just that in reporting live news in Thailand they are usually a more reliable source, for the obvious reason that they understand what is being said on all sides, and they have more interview access.

Some very dubious propositions here.Of course there are some advantages in being local but the Thai press - which I monitor - has not acquitted itself well at all in the crisis.You pass quickly over press self censorship but that is the nub of the issue.Actually I attended the FCCT discussion.Somtow I thought made some very fair points but didn't really convince me.Sumet is just an amiable jokester who lives in a Siamese fantasia, not to be taken seriously (nor are his awful architectural monstrosities).Picking up Rixalex's point it's not linguistic ability or length of stay that's so important as the ability to absorb information, process it and draw sensible conclusions.Same applies to journalists as it does to forum members.I say that as someone who has been here for a long time and speaks Thai relatively well.

I beg to differ, and believe you are harbouring some of the same dubious presumptions as BBC and CNN, in believing that Western reporters are doing a better job than Thai, particularly re television coverage. The reporting from TVThai was more detailed, more nuanced and more complete TV reporting than either BBC or CNN, and if you didn't see that then I suspect your speaking Thai 'relatively well' isn't good enough. You might try reading Matichon sometime as well, more detail, more complete coverage and better analysis. And they, like you, lean Red nowadays.

I agree about the FCCT panel. Sumet was a buffoon and only managed to degrade the level of discussion. Kraisak submitted some very good points of fact, but was hoarse and difficult to understand. The panel would have benefited from the inclusion of a non-Thai analyst of similar conviction to lower the risk of the them vs us confrontation that distracted from the issues. The proceedings weren't helped by hostile, soapbox-perched farangs putting words in the mouths of the speakers, offering accusations disguised as questions, and trying to turn the issue of incomplete news coverage into Thais vs international press, with the presumption that international press is far more sophisticated.

Somtow summed the interpretation issue up succinctly, with questioner Julian Spindler bringing it into sharper focus: In the internet/TV news age, there's no time for proper factchecking or a real analysis, so reporters take the most convenient archetypal narrative available. Seemed self-evident to me, elementary discourse analysis. The news is a marketable commodity like any other, so CNN/BBC make news that sells.

The Thai media have the same commercial concens, not to mention government pressure (having spoken with friends who are Thai editors and reporters on this issue, I think it's a much less than most Westerners presume), but in the case of reporting on this particular series of events, they indisputably have a language advantage, not to mention a more personal dedication to domestic reporting.

Edited June 13, 2010 by wayfarer108

[TAWP]

What the apologists here again try to avoid is the simple question: If the reports was unbiased, how come the inflammatory speeches from the stage wasn't shown or referenced?

Edited June 13, 2010 by TAWP

[wayfarer108]

What the apologists here again try to avoid is the simple question: If the reports was unbiased, how come the inflammatory speeches from the stage wasn't shown or referenced?

Well that's it precisely, isn't it? As Somtow has written (before 19 May):

When you watch a red shirt rally, notice how many English signs and placards there are, and note that they they are designed to show that these are events conforming to the archetype. The placards say "Democracy", "No Violence," "Stop killing innocent women and children" and so on. Speakers are passionately orating, crowds are moved. But there are no subtitles. What does it look like?

The answer is obvious. It looks like oppressed masses demanding freedom from an evil dictator.

Don't blame Dan Rivers, et al, who are only doing what they are paid to do: find the compelling story within the mass of incomprehensible data, match that story to what the audience already knows and believes, and make sure the advertising money keeps flowing in.

A vigorous counter-propaganda campaign in clear and simple English words has always been lacking and is the reason the government is losing the PR war while actually following the most logical steps toward a real and lasting resolution.

If the foreign press were in fact able to speak Thai well enough to follow all the reportage here coming from all sides, they would also be including some of the following information in their reports. I want to insist yet again that I am not siding with anyone. The following is just information that people really need before they write their news reports.

-- Thaksin was democratically elected, but became increasingly undemocratic, and the country gradually devolved from a nation where oligarchs skimmed off the top to a kleptocracy of one. During his watch, thousands of people were summarily executed in the South of Thailand and in a bizarre "war on drugs" in which body count was considered a marker of success.

-- the coup that ousted Thaksin was of course completely illegal, but none of the people who carried it out are in the present government.

-- the yellow shirts' greatest error in moulding its international image was to elevate Thaksin's corruption as its major bone of contention. Thai governments have always been corrupt. The extent of corruption and the fact that much of it went into only one pocket was shocking to Thais, but the west views all "second-rate countries" as being corrupt. Had they used the human rights violations and muzzling of the press as their key talking points, the "heroic revolution" archetype would have been moulded with opposite protagonists, and CNN and BBC would be telling an opposite story today.

-- the constitution which was approved by a referendum after the coup and which brought back democracy was flawed, but it provided more checks and balances, and made election fraud a truly accountable offense for the first time.

-- the parliamentary process by which the Democrat coalition came to power was the same process by which the Lib Dems and Tories have attained power in Britain. The parliament that voted in this government consists entirely of democratically elected members.

-- no one ever disputed the red shirts' right to peaceful assembly, and the government went out of its way to accede to their demands.

-- this country already has democracy. Not a perfect one, but the idea of "demanding democracry" is sheer fantasy

-- the yellow shirts did not succeed in getting any of their demands from the government. The last two governments changed because key figures were shown to have committed election fraud. They simply did not take their own constitution seriously enough to follow it.

-- the red TV station has a perfect right to exist, but if foreign journalists actually understood Thai, they would realize that much of its content went far beyond any constitutionally acceptable limits of "protected speech" in a western democracy. Every civilized society limits speech when it actually harms others, whether by inciting hate or by slander. The government may have been wrong to brusquely pull the plug, but was certainly right to cry foul. It should have sought an injunction first. Example: Arisman threatened to destroy mosques, government buildings, and "all institutions you hold sacred" ... a clip widely seen on youtube, without subtitles. Without subtitles, it looks like "liberty, equality, fraternity".

-- since the government called the red shirts' bluff and allowed the deputy P.M. to report to the authorities to hear their accusations, the red leaders have been making ever-more fanciful demands. The idea of UN intervention is patently absurd. When Thaksin killed all those Muslims and alleged drug lords, human rights groups asked the UN to intervene. When the army took over the entire country, some asked the UN to intervene. The UN doesn't intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign countries except when requested to by the country itself or when the government has completely broken down.

-- Thailand hasn't had an unbreachable gulf between rich and poor for at least 20 years. These conflicts are about the rise of the middle class, not the war between the aristocrats and the proletariat.

-- Abhisit, with his thoroughly western and somewhat liberal background, shares the values of the west and is in fact more likely to bring about the social revolution needed by Thailand's agrarian poor than any previous leader. He is, in fact, pretty red, while Thaksin, in his autocratic style of leadership, is in a way pretty yellow. Simplistic portrayals do not help anyone to understand anything.

-- the only people who do not seem to care about the reds' actual grievances are their own leaders, who are basically making everyone risk their lives to see if they can get bail.

-- the King has said all that he is constitutionally able to say when he spoke to the supreme court justices and urged them to do their duty. The western press never seem to realize that the Thai monarchy is constitutionally on the European model ... not, say, the Saudi model. The king REIGNS ... he doesn't "rule". This is a democracy. The king is supposed to symbolize all the people, not a special interest group.

Some of the foreign press [were] painting the endgame as the Alamo, but it [was] not. It [was] a lot closer to Jonestown or Waco.

Like those latter two cases, a highly charismatic leader figure (in our case operating from a distance, shopping in Paris while his minions sweat in the 94°weather) has taken an inspirational idea: in one case Christianity, in the other democracy, and reinvented it so that mainstream Christians, or real democrats, can no longer recognize it. The followers are trapped. There is a siege mentality and information coming from outside is screened so that those trapped believe they will be killed if they try to leave. Women and children are being told that they are in danger if they fall into the hands of the government, and to distrust the medics and NGOs waiting to help them. There are outraged pronouncements that they're not in fact using the children as human shields, but that the parents brought them willingly to "entertain and thrill" them. There is mounting paranoia coupled with delusions of grandeur, so that the little red kingdom feels it has the right to summon the United Nations, just like any other sovereign state. The reporters in Rajprasong who are attached to the red community are as susceptible to this variant of the Stockholm syndrome as anyone else.

The international press must separate out the very real problems that the rural areas of Thailand face, which will take decades to fix, from the fact that a mob [was] rampaging through Bangkok, burning, looting, and firing grenades, threatening in the name of democracy to destroy what democracy yet remains in this country.

But this bad reporting is not their fault. It is our fault for not providing the facts in bite-sized pieces, in the right language, at the right time.

[Moruya]

What the apologists here again try to avoid is the simple question: If the reports was unbiased, how come the inflammatory speeches from the stage wasn't shown or referenced?

Agreed.

You'd have thought that throwing bags of human excrement at politicians personal residences was something that was quite normal in the UK or the US. Ditto flicking human blood.

The government allowed the demo to take place in a designated area - that they then switched to a higher profile area to disrupt the businesses of Thaksin's oponents went unreported.

It seemed to take both organisations 2 months to report that there was an armed terrorist group among the redshirts - to then report on it as news was staggeringly inept.

They both reported that the demo was comprised poor farmers. For sure it was - but what about the communists, Thaksin followers, anarchists, renegade militants etc?

Neither new organisation reported on the vitriolic speeches that were given, the requests to burn Bangkok, burn down all Muslim mosques, Siriraj hospital etc.

All in all a huge failing. The CNN reporting from the studio was a bit better that from Dan Rivers on the ground but both news organisations were guilty of flabby, ill researched reporting.

[asiawatcher]

I think all who have read this forum would agree - the CNN and BBC need to do a lot of reorganising. To leave these two stringers in play in a core news area is corporate suicide. But what more can you expect from them these days. Ratings - ratings - ratings being their only motivation thus unbiased reporting is a low end priority.

If this forum were to count as a vote - there would be a "Positions Vacant" ad world wide right now.

[clausewitz]

Thai media certainly feels that the foreign media were biased.

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

We have suffered as the US has, but we look worse

QUOTE

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

(Rich because of taking money from Thaksin.

Also Thai listeners appreciated the Political commentaors on channel 11 (the govt. station)who said that they thought Jataporn and dan rivers were in a gay relationship.

So take your pick: CNN were biased becuase of Dan sleeping with Redshirt leaders or becuase of money he took from thaksin.

one thing for sure there was never any shooting by soldiers because abhisit (mrak)has said so. And he is a good man and peaceful and never lies.

So CNN were biased. Hate them, foreign devils.

[Rucharee]

Someone did say that Foreign media are bias.

However local medias are x10 more bias.

Is that true?

I will just stick to my favorite NBT. They even show world cup matches sometimes, on top of CRES.

[termad]

I was disappointed in the sensationalism displayed by some of the reporters while they were doing feeds from the street/hotels several blocks from the action. This and the continual reference to the red shirts and democracy in the same sentence, left me wondering if the reporters took time to do any research prior to their assignment to the referenced coverage. I understand the networks are after market share of viewers and sponsors, thus the number of so called experts called in to analyze the situation. But, evidently, the reporters appeared to be substitute experts in Bangkok, noted by their daily recap and personal opinions broadcast around the globe.

There are several possible reasons for this, no experts available, asking fee from same too high, reporters did not have the where with all to locate and interview, experts, etc, etc. I mentioned at the time, that someone missed a great aside story on the army encamped in Pat pong, but maybe that was 'the rest of the story'that was not aired.

I agree with this. The level of research applied was woefully low and imbalanced.

Makes no difference how many interviews of both sides you do,

if you questioning is skewed to a direction that doesn't fit the majority of facts,

but also hits the most sensational and airtime worthy notes.

They are on the defensive, but now weeks too late to matter.

This is English/Yank journalistic face saving, not ackowlegment of inadvertant bias,

or direct lack of research or pandering to percieved editorial biases.

Argument lost before being started.

Same old Mark Twain of the swamps. There is a BBC complaint procedure and if you think that their reporting was biased you can follow that procedure and you will get a reply.

But on the other hand when the PM stands up in Parliament and not only states that there were no troops on the railway overlooking the the Temple but produces diagrams of bullet entry wounds to prove his statement is that also bias and if it is who does one complain to without risking being tossed into gaol under the emergency decree. The Sunday Post printed pictures showing those Special Forces troops on the railway line with rifles pointing staight down into the Temple.

[termad]

Thais getting shot in the head by the Army

I must have missed that footage. I've seen an untold number of videos of people dying, but not one that showed someone specifically getting shot in the head by the Army. Do you have a link for any of them?

There was one on U Tube during the Songkran Army attack - how could you have missed that?

[Rucharee]

I was disappointed in the sensationalism displayed by some of the reporters while they were doing feeds from the street/hotels several blocks from the action. This and the continual reference to the red shirts and democracy in the same sentence, left me wondering if the reporters took time to do any research prior to their assignment to the referenced coverage. I understand the networks are after market share of viewers and sponsors, thus the number of so called experts called in to analyze the situation. But, evidently, the reporters appeared to be substitute experts in Bangkok, noted by their daily recap and personal opinions broadcast around the globe.

There are several possible reasons for this, no experts available, asking fee from same too high, reporters did not have the where with all to locate and interview, experts, etc, etc. I mentioned at the time, that someone missed a great aside story on the army encamped in Pat pong, but maybe that was 'the rest of the story'that was not aired.

I agree with this. The level of research applied was woefully low and imbalanced.

Makes no difference how many interviews of both sides you do,

if you questioning is skewed to a direction that doesn't fit the majority of facts,

but also hits the most sensational and airtime worthy notes.

They are on the defensive, but now weeks too late to matter.

This is English/Yank journalistic face saving, not ackowlegment of inadvertant bias,

or direct lack of research or pandering to percieved editorial biases.

Argument lost before being started.

Same old Mark Twain of the swamps. There is a BBC complaint procedure and if you think that their reporting was biased you can follow that procedure and you will get a reply.

But on the other hand when the PM stands up in Parliament and not only states that there were no troops on the railway overlooking the the Temple but produces diagrams of bullet entry wounds to prove his statement is that also bias and if it is who does one complain to without risking being tossed into gaol under the emergency decree. The Sunday Post printed pictures showing those Special Forces troops on the railway line with rifles pointing staight down into the Temple.

Pardon me.

Who would you rather believe?

The creditable PM Mark or the entertaining Sunday Post.

PM Mark is responsible for what he said. While your Sunday Post will just print a a small apology in the hay stack if the complaints gather enough momentum.

[scorecard]

I was disappointed in the sensationalism displayed by some of the reporters while they were doing feeds from the street/hotels several blocks from the action. This and the continual reference to the red shirts and democracy in the same sentence, left me wondering if the reporters took time to do any research prior to their assignment to the referenced coverage. I understand the networks are after market share of viewers and sponsors, thus the number of so called experts called in to analyze the situation. But, evidently, the reporters appeared to be substitute experts in Bangkok, noted by their daily recap and personal opinions broadcast around the globe.

There are several possible reasons for this, no experts available, asking fee from same too high, reporters did not have the where with all to locate and interview, experts, etc, etc. I mentioned at the time, that someone missed a great aside story on the army encamped in Pat pong, but maybe that was 'the rest of the story'that was not aired.

I agree with this. The level of research applied was woefully low and imbalanced.

Makes no difference how many interviews of both sides you do,

if you questioning is skewed to a direction that doesn't fit the majority of facts,

but also hits the most sensational and airtime worthy notes.

They are on the defensive, but now weeks too late to matter.

This is English/Yank journalistic face saving, not ackowlegment of inadvertant bias,

or direct lack of research or pandering to percieved editorial biases.

Argument lost before being started.

Agree. They should of courte be trying to get comments from numerous sources ensuring that they have covered all appropriate areas of input.

However, the botom line, for me, is that (in the recent Bangkok mess) they were on numerous occasions way off the mark with their comments often giving very distorted / wrong analysis.

I suggest there is another point to look at. The demise of the old style journalism now taken over by instant on screen comments by all of the various news channels (CNN, BBC, Aljazeera, ChannelNewsAsia, etc) in a race to be first to have something on screen and with no attention paid as to whether the person 'on screen' has enough local awareness or solid information about what has just happened. First is the only criteria and I suggest that, unfortunately, we all need to realize that this is the quality of journalism we are now stuck with along with state of the art communications equipment. Seems a little ironic actually.

[Samuian]

What i dont get is how with these people have the nerve to criticise CNN when the lack of free speech in Thailand created by their beloved present govt.

Posts like this drive me up the wall, trying to defend the red shirt action, declare that

the lies and deceptions strewn by an array of PR and Media crews of the red clowns army

and their puppet master are the truth, and nothing but the truth today even it is so obvious!

twisted brains = twisted thruth's = deceptive lies and mind boggling constructions which only have one aim = bring back the master and let the game begin!

Censored are the lies, deceptions and constructions which aim to destroy this Nation, it's legal and rightful government and anyone who is not in favor of the Master...!

This is the "TRUTH TODAY"!

I can access

any media I wish to.... the last stand off in Bangkok, with the Grenade Attacks, random shootings, the looting and setting numerous places in the very center of Bangkok ablaze, carries it's very own signature.....

It is nothing but a load of BS and aimed to deceit the people, make them believe that there is "something wrong".... and in turn white wash the Master's grand coups and those committed by his his followers - it's simply evil!

Edited June 14, 2010 by Samuian

[slapout]

To be publicly critical of reporting/propaganda methods used by reporters, governments, private sector companies, etc is a expression of free speech. To argue against the criticism of the offending person/group, by comparing the degree of action being criticized, to those who have done the same or worse does not approach the original complaint/problem. This does seem to be a regular occurrence here on TV forums, which appears to contribute very little/nothing to what could be informative topics.

[Rucharee]

To be publicly critical of reporting/propaganda methods used by reporters, governments, private sector companies, etc is a expression of free speech. To argue against the criticism of the offending person/group, by comparing the degree of action being criticized, to those who have done the same or worse does not approach the original complaint/problem. This does seem to be a regular occurrence here on TV forums, which appears to contribute very little/nothing to what could be informative topics.

Exactly. I take it as a self criticism.

[jayboy]

What i dont get is how with these people have the nerve to criticise CNN when the lack of free speech in Thailand created by their beloved present govt.

Posts like this drive me up the wall, trying to defend the red shirt action, declare that

the lies and deceptions strewn by an array of PR and Media crews of the red clowns army

and their puppet master are the truth, and nothing but the truth today even it is so obvious!

twisted brains = twisted thruth's = deceptive lies and mind boggling constructions which only have one aim = bring back the master and let the game begin!

Censored are the lies, deceptions and constructions which aim to destroy this Nation, it's legal and rightful government and anyone who is not in favor of the Master...!

This is the "TRUTH TODAY"!

I can access

any media I wish to.... the last stand off in Bangkok, with the Grenade Attacks, random shootings, the looting and setting numerous places in the very center of Bangkok ablaze, carries it's very own signature.....

It is nothing but a load of BS and aimed to deceit the people, make them believe that there is "something wrong".... and in turn white wash the Master's grand coups and those committed by his his followers - it's simply evil!

This person is clearly in hysterical mode so perhaps one shouldn't take his barely literate ranting seriously.One telling phrase is at the end when he appears appalled that anyone should think there's "something wrong", presumably with the status quo and is clearly angry that any news outlet should give the impression there's "something wrong" with the Good Ship Siam.Perhaps we can just ignore his ignorant tripe and move on to a more considered assessment of the press coverage.But here's a parting word for this genius.Yes, there is something "very wrong" indeed with Thailand, chum.

Clearly however there has been bias in both CNN and BBC coverage, as well as the rest of the foreign and local press.Khun Somtow has some interesting thoughts particularly on the foreign press briefly that some may be seeing the events here through a Western prism, perceiving the Reds simplistically as the poor downtrodden struggling against the privileged elite.He has a point.This is a very complex set of events and it's important not to draw simple minded conclusions.But overall I think it has been possible to be informed, while accepting there has been some crass and stupid reporting from both foreign and local press.I'm not sure this is really that different from any other international crisis.I certainly don't buy the argument that the mysteries of Thai language and culture make rational analysis by a foreign reporter almost impossible.I think what gives the amart and some sections of the Bangkok middle class such annoyance is the fact that the unquestioning social deference of the past is crumbling, and is all open to international scrutiny.But all journalism is biased and one's reaction to a particular piece of journalism reflects one own biases.

Edited June 14, 2010 by jayboy

[JLester]

Thais getting shot in the head by the Army

I must have missed that footage. I've seen an untold number of videos of people dying, but not one that showed someone specifically getting shot in the head by the Army. Do you have a link for any of them?

There was one on U Tube during the Songkran Army attack - how could you have missed that?

I am unaware of any video that specifically depicts "Thais (plural) getting shot in the head by the Army" as stated by philw.

If you or philw have a link to the shootings (plural OR singular, for that matter), that'd be great.

Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

Edited June 14, 2010 by JLester

[Siam Simon]

In a rather more sophisticated form it is the same excuse that many Bangkok amart provide when foreigners ask awkward questions.Needless to say it's nonsense.

I'm more familiar with this excuse being trotted out by "Bangkok" red shirts, and it is nonsense when directed at a foreigner who does speak the language and who has lived here since before some of the red shirts were even born.

Are you referring to yourself with the second part of your statement?

[philw]

Thais getting shot in the head by the Army

I must have missed that footage. I've seen an untold number of videos of people dying, but not one that showed someone specifically getting shot in the head by the Army. Do you have a link for any of them?

There was one on U Tube during the Songkran Army attack - how could you have missed that?

I am unaware of any video that specifically depicts "Thais (plural) getting shot in the head by the Army" as stated by philw.

If you or philw have a link to the shootings (plural OR singular, for that matter), that'd be great.

Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

For clear evidence of Thai Army shooting at Thai civilians please research, in no particular order:-

BBC

New Mandela

CNN

Al Jazera

Bangkok Pundit

2BKK.com

Political Prisoners Thailand.com

Nick Nosterlitz

The Canadian who believes he was shot by the Army

vaitor.com » Video Footage 19th May

That other forum something to do with doorways that cannot be mentioned.

Another newspaper.

Uk Times

Time magazine

UK Guardian.

Independant

Several Australian newspapers.

etc etc

In short there is a lot of substantive information out there that pretty much proves that the RTA were shooting at and killing Thai citizens.

ph

[David006]

BBC = Biased Broadcasting Company

CNN = Completely Naff News

News is no longer about informing the people...it's entertainment and ratings count for the advertisers....this all reminds me of the movie "Wag the Dog"...sensationalism is what the masses want...a talking head from the early days of news when it was read won't cut it these days.....absolute unbiased truth and facts have gone by the by ...it seems.

I suggest it's not what the reporters want, it's the editors or whoever airs the stuff..play ball or move on methinks.

Just hope Al Jazeera doesn't follow suit....great reporting and seems not to care what others do ..as you don't see any advertising..not sure how they are funded?

[Siam Simon]

[

I am unaware of any video that specifically depicts "Thais (plural) getting shot in the head by the Army" as stated by philw.

If you or philw have a link to the shootings (plural OR singular, for that matter), that'd be great.

Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

For clear evidence of Thai Army shooting at Thai civilians please research, in no particular order:-

BBC

New Mandela

CNN

Al Jazera

Bangkok Pundit

2BKK.com

Political Prisoners Thailand.com

Nick Nosterlitz

The Canadian who believes he was shot by the Army

vaitor.com » Video Footage 19th May

That other forum something to do with doorways that cannot be mentioned.

Another newspaper.

Uk Times

Time magazine

UK Guardian.

Independant

Several Australian newspapers.

etc etc

In short there is a lot of substantive information out there that pretty much proves that the RTA were shooting at and killing Thai citizens.

ph

Phil,

Every single one of the media outlets you referenced has either been bribed or turned by Thaksin's propaganda machine. As opposed to the current Thai government, who would, of course, never try to influence any news media .

[philw]

Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

For clear evidence of Thai Army shooting at Thai civilians please research, in no particular order:-

BBC

New Mandela

CNN

Al Jazera

Bangkok Pundit

2BKK.com

Political Prisoners Thailand.com

Nick Nosterlitz

The Canadian who believes he was shot by the Army

vaitor.com » Video Footage 19th May

That other forum something to do with doorways that cannot be mentioned.

Another newspaper.

Uk Times

Time magazine

UK Guardian.

Independant

Several Australian newspapers.

etc etc

In short there is a lot of substantive information out there that pretty much proves that the RTA were shooting at and killing Thai citizens.

ph

Phil,

Every single one of the media outlets you referenced has either been bribed or turned by Thaksin's propaganda machine. As opposed to the current Thai government, who would, of course, never try to influence any news media .

Absolutely and the 9 ( only 9 ) published red shirt autopsies indicating single bullets to the head must have been entirely self inflicted or done by those nasty Bangkok gremlins that seem to emerge from time to time.

ph

[rabo]

Thais getting shot in the head by the Army

I must have missed that footage. I've seen an untold number of videos of people dying, but not one that showed someone specifically getting shot in the head by the Army. Do you have a link for any of them?

There was one on U Tube during the Songkran Army attack - how could you have missed that?

I am unaware of any video that specifically depicts "Thais (plural) getting shot in the head by the Army" as stated by philw.

If you or philw have a link to the shootings (plural OR singular, for that matter), that'd be great.

Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

For clear evidence of Thai Army shooting at Thai civilians please research, in no particular order:-

BBC

New Mandela

CNN

Al Jazera

Bangkok Pundit

2BKK.com

Political Prisoners Thailand.com

Nick Nosterlitz

The Canadian who believes he was shot by the Army

vaitor.com » Video Footage 19th May

That other forum something to do with doorways that cannot be mentioned.

Another newspaper.

Uk Times

Time magazine

UK Guardian.

Independant

Several Australian newspapers.

etc etc

In short there is a lot of substantive information out there that pretty much proves that the RTA were shooting at and killing Thai citizens.

ph

The original insinuation was the Thai army purposefully targeted and shot innocent civilians in the head, and the subsequent request was for evidence that this really happened.

Since you are not able to produce any evidence, then we are left to assume the statement is nothing more than the kind of disinformation so often posted by violence apologists.

Edited June 15, 2010 by rabo

[JLester]

I am unaware of any video that specifically depicts "Thais (plural) getting shot in the head by the Army" as stated by philw.

If you or philw have a link to the shootings (plural OR singular, for that matter), that'd be great.

Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

For clear evidence of Thai Army shooting at Thai civilians please research, in no particular order:-

vaitor.com » Video Footage 19th May

* non-specific, non-linked, and thus unnecessary referrals removed *

In the only video link you provided, its content depicts red tire burnings, red guard intimidations, red burnings on the ONCB government building compound, reds shooting slingshots, reds firing of homemade bombs, reds-constructed barricade destruction, red burned buses, construction of more red barricades, reds burning of Central World, and reds looting of Central World, BUT no

"Thais (plural) getting shot in the head by the Army"

In short there is a lot of substantive information out there that pretty much proves that the RTA were shooting at and killing Thai citizens.

ph

if that's the case, then it shouldn't be difficult to document

"Thais (plural) getting shot in the head by the Army"

Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

[philw]

Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

Ok, Sorry I had forgotten how stupid this can all be.

My apologies for my misunderstanding and it must obviously be the case that during the recent civil unrest in Thailand, the Royal Thai Army did not shoot anybody in the head, did not have any snipers positioned above street level, did not really shoot anybody at all actually and the approx 1,800 injured demonstrators must have hurt themselves in a selfish, dishonest and deliberate attempt to damage the superb reputation of the RTA.

Naughty little people.

Further more it is of inconceivable that the shooting of Saeh Daeng was anything more than a massage deal gone wrong.

Hope this view now blends with your assessment.

It's either above or the gremlins did it..............But, can I ask,LJester and Rabo who do you think was doing the shooting ??

ph

[JLester]

Otherwise, it's just another red misstatement.

Ok, Sorry I had forgotten how stupid this can all be.

My apologies for my misunderstanding

the Royal Thai Army did not shoot anybody in the head

Thank you for the retraction of your misstatement.

can I ask, JLester and Rabo who do you think was doing the shooting ??

I don't know who definitively did any specific shootings. I'm waiting for the investigation. I just saw a bold statement on your part that something had definitively occurred and had asked for evidence of that. After some further obfuscation, you've subsequently retracted your statement, and thus the issue concludes in that regard.

[Splatter]

"...in recent years I’ve noticed that “news” is not what’s happened. It’s what’s happened on camera.

If a herd of tigers runs amok in a remote Indian village, it’s not news. If a gang of wide-eyed rebels slaughters the inhabitants of a faraway African village, it’s not news. But if it’s a bit windy in America, it is news. Because in America everything that happens is recorded.

I find myself wondering if last week’s Israeli raid on a Turkish ship in a flotilla carrying aid to Gaza would have had the coverage it did if the battle hadn’t been captured on film. And likewise the racing driver who broke a leg after crashing in the Indy 500. It only became a big deal because we could watch the accident from several angles in slow motion.

In recent months this phenomenon has even spread to the natural world. I mean it. When an animal does something normal, it’s not news. But when it is “caught on camera” doing something normal, then it’s in the Daily Mail. These days, if you snap an owl catching a mouse, you are Robert Capa.

In the end, this can only be good for all of us. Figures out recently show that more people in India have access to a mobile phone than a lavatory. Soon, it will be the same story in China and Africa. And then, when all the world’s being filmed, all of the time, we can go back to a time when news was something interesting rather than something we can simply see. "

full article here...

Please, carry on filming - I'm only burning to death | Jeremy Clarkson - Times Online