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

[monkfish]

I think the foreign media did a great job!

They risked their lives to bring us some great footage and pictures.

Reporting what they saw and not what CRES told them to report.

This made them unpopular only because it didn't line up with what the Government were saying.

Anybody remember any great footage or pictures from the Thai Media??

The only one I recall is from Springnews of the freindly fire incident!

Incidently Springnews has now been blocked by the Government.

Were there any great pictures from the Thai Media?

[eggomaniac]

Okay,,, let's put it this way...

CNN and BBC put journalists in jail = nada 0 nil zilch

---------

Thai Government put journalists in jail = dozens?

---

CNN and BBC blocked websites and online news sites = not one , none

------------

Thai Government blocked news outlets = hundreds

---

---

With things SO back to ABnormal, all of those innocent people are out of jail, right?

Their BLOGS and news sites are up and running again, I am sure, no?

---

WHO is guilty of news manipulation?

----------------

If PM Abhisit could get IMPARTIAL, some his ideas, statements and plans bode well for Thailand's future.

If he, somehow, 'thinks' window dressing will work in this day and age, there is NO hope.

---

I think he is a good fish in a shark tank, trying to direct the feeding frenzies.

There IS a way to build an Aquarium, find reconciliation and judicially mete out amnesty.

Edited June 12, 2010 by eggomaniac

[noel2499rk]

Some more response from the foreign media here. Time journalist Andrew Marshall looks back to 2001 when he criticized Thaksin and received very similar treatment from the Thai media as those who now criticize Ahbisit. Thaksin even threatened to beat him up.

Myhttp://blogs.reuters.com/andrew-marshall/2010/06/12/thaksin_and_me/ link

[BenCanuck]

It's not these reporters who were "biased", it's the Thailand netizens , both foreign and local, that think so because their own visions of what they believe are real are actually narrow and slim.

I can't agree with this one-sided comment. Yes, we all have biases with which we must deal. This is a tragic truth. But the real problem with BBC was something deeper and more damning. The very nature of the BBC biases led large sections and topics in the story to be unreported (please note, I do not watch CNN and cannot fairly comment on it). I went through this tragic, developing ordeal trying to understand what was happening. I did not have strong, preformed, narrow views. What I found was that BBC was not helping me understand.

The easiest or safest way to see this was to follow, not Thai news, but one of the other international news organizations, Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera's coverage was different. It showed protesters obsessed with weapons, but it showed protesters speaking about democracy, but it showed protesters saying why they'd vote for Mr X. It occasionally had hard interviews with experts. It also ran interviews with the government. Now, BBC ran an interview with PM Abhisit, too, but it was purposefully confrontational and intentionally divisive (Zeinab Badawi accused Abhisit of being "unelected" and "without mandate" - blatant projection of the UK Election 2010 feelings - and then curtly dismissed Abhisit's explanation as "too long"). Al Jazeera's interviews with both sides had the interviewee, not the interviewer, at the centre of the narrative. They refused to use language which decided the overall narrative. They never or rarely used phrases like "protesters demanding democracy", "largely peaceful and highly disciplined", "government crackdown". They did not evoke images with which the Western imagination is obsessed. Whereas BBC did.

Of course, Al Jazeera's regional expertise is in conflict situations related to democracy, growing political participation, economics, socio-political inequality, and armed conflict combined. They were able to give many sides to this story without describing an overall, oversimplified narrative where reporters and interviewers were the main stars. We know that the BBC is not a internationally recognized news source based in, and having grown up in, the developing world. But what's tragic is that we want the BBC to be that good nonetheless. That shows we care.

[BenCanuck]

Some more response from the foreign media here. Time journalist Andrew Marshall looks back to 2001 when he criticized Thaksin and received very similar treatment from the Thai media as those who now criticize Ahbisit. Thaksin even threatened to beat him up.

Myhttp://blogs.reuters.com/andrew-marshall/2010/06/12/thaksin_and_me/ link

Thank you for pointing out this blog.

I feel bad if anyone has lumped foreign reporters who tried to describe many sides of the situation and who avoided sensational, prejudging language which dictated the whole narrative -- i.e. those who continually presented many aspects like Reuters, Al Jazeera, and so on -- together with the international media which did genuinely fail.

[citizen33]

If the charge is that the BBC and CNN didn't consult the experts, I'd be intrigued to hear who these experts are. In my experience there are very few academic Thailand specialists who share the TV analysis of the situation. Yes, you could probably rope in a few Thai commentators from Chula or Thammasat, but if you go to international experts like McCargo, the Australian scholars or the people in ASEASUK, most are sceptical in equal measure of the Thaksin regime and the present bunch. Even that arch conservative and outspoken Thaksin critic, Stephen Young, said in a BBC World Service interview just before the crackdown, that Thaksin was a spent force and only one element in the overall situation (I think he took a step back in his Nation interview). So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

Edited June 12, 2010 by citizen33

[Insight]

If the charge is that the BBC and CNN didn't consult the experts, I'd be intrigued to hear who these experts are. In my experience there are very few academic Thailand specialists who share the TV analysis of the situation. Yes, you could probably rope in a few Thai commentators from Chula or Thammasat, but if you go to international experts like McCargo, the Australian scholars or the people in ASEASUK, most are sceptical in equal measure of the Thaksin regime and the present bunch. Even that arch conservative and outspoken Thaksin critic, Stephen Young, said in a BBC World Service interview just before the crackdown, that Thaksin was a spent force and only one element in the overall situation (I think he took a step back in his Nation interview). So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

We've been hearing this argument for the past two years, yet for the riots in 2009 he placed himself under the cameras when the army moved in, and this year he's been blamed as the primary reason negotiations broke down. In short, anybody claiming Thaksin is not a significant player in the current crisis is either utterly misinformed or attempting to manipulate opinion.

[BenCanuck]

So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

Undoubtedly, they could have put themselves on a better track. The BBC could have been on a better track if Rachel Harvey and Vaudine England refused to use overly emotional language which dictates the overall narrative (e.g. "unelected prime minister", "protesters demanding democracy", "largely peaceful and highly disciplined", "government crackdown"). It's a matter of discipline. But there will only be a will to refrain from such language if you already care about parts of the story which don't fit this sweeping, oversimplifying narrative. The worst thing is, you get the impression that anything outside BBC's oversimplified narrative doesn't matter to the people talking on camera and writing on the Beeb website. When you contact them, this impression is reinforced. This was a source of much bitterness, which I am sad to learn was converted into nastiness.

(I'd like to note that the language of BBC's Chris Hogg was less sensational and oversimplifying than his colleagues', but that did not help the overall BBC sweeping narrative much.)

[rabo]

If the charge is that the BBC and CNN didn't consult the experts, I'd be intrigued to hear who these experts are. In my experience there are very few academic Thailand specialists who share the TV analysis of the situation. Yes, you could probably rope in a few Thai commentators from Chula or Thammasat, but if you go to international experts like McCargo, the Australian scholars or the people in ASEASUK, most are sceptical in equal measure of the Thaksin regime and the present bunch. Even that arch conservative and outspoken Thaksin critic, Stephen Young, said in a BBC World Service interview just before the crackdown, that Thaksin was a spent force and only one element in the overall situation (I think he took a step back in his Nation interview). So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

I think the charge is that BBC and CNN did not try very hard. As for who are the "experts", the whole of Thailand, the country and its people. On any day during the protest, I could easily talk to a handful of people and pickup most of the story from both, or many, sides. At least enough to tip off a reporter that his one sided notions are clearly off. In fact, many Thais could probably see much of what happened in advance, given Thaksin's history, what happened in April 2009, and Sed Daeng's involvement.

Granted, most foreign media and organizations have a hard time because of curtural and language problems but in the case of the BBC and CCN, I don't think they even tried.

[jayboy]

If the charge is that the BBC and CNN didn't consult the experts, I'd be intrigued to hear who these experts are. In my experience there are very few academic Thailand specialists who share the TV analysis of the situation. Yes, you could probably rope in a few Thai commentators from Chula or Thammasat, but if you go to international experts like McCargo, the Australian scholars or the people in ASEASUK, most are sceptical in equal measure of the Thaksin regime and the present bunch. Even that arch conservative and outspoken Thaksin critic, Stephen Young, said in a BBC World Service interview just before the crackdown, that Thaksin was a spent force and only one element in the overall situation (I think he took a step back in his Nation interview). So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

I think the charge is that BBC and CNN did not try very hard. As for who are the "experts", the whole of Thailand, the country and its people. On any day during the protest, I could easily talk to a handful of people and pickup most of the story from both, or many, sides. At least enough to tip off a reporter that his one sided notions are clearly off. In fact, many Thais could probably see much of what happened in advance, given Thaksin's history, what happened in April 2009, and Sed Daeng's involvement.

Granted, most foreign media and organizations have a hard time because of curtural and language problems but in the case of the BBC and CCN, I don't think they even tried.

This is fairly typical of the slightly mindless "I don't think they even tried" criticism that is quite common, not really worth bothering with.As for the other more specific reasoned criticisms of other posters don't they really serve to confirm only that they don't like anyone pointing out to the world that there is a self serving and greedy elite in Bangkok, Abhisit while legally PM is unelected by the people, that the Reds do have powerful arguments on their side and that it's not all about Thaksin? I seriously doubt whether this group has read or understood the background that citizen333 mentions.The Neanderthals will rant and rave but time and gravity are not on their side.

[Ponbkk]

From the moment the protest left the plaza area and blocked traffic and interfered with businesses, blocked hospitals, burned toxic fires, and put resident's and their children's lives in danger, and so on, and harboring 'terrorists', it became an illegal act of civil disruption intended to intimidate a legitimate government into suddenly dissolving itself, and nothing other than that (because what could have occurred after that dissolution, elections or insurrection,  is speculation). The "peaceful protest"  became akin to violent anti-war protests intended  to intimidate presidents into withdrawing troops. It was "justified" by foreign media repeating slogans like "we just want democracy". I remember a foreign newswoman reading from her teleprompter about the taunting (music and flag waving) of Silom pedestrians from along the Rama 4 curb that "the protesters are just trying to create a festive atmosphere". US news went no further back in Thaksin's history than the '06 coup. Then when Abhissit came out and defended the normal constitutional succession of events leading to his PM-ship (elected by elected persons, at that)  the foreign media invented "the silent coup" of '08. US news reports sound like Thaksin is speaking.  The current Thai gov't is legitimate, as much as Gerald Ford's whose was not directly elected at first and of George Bush who cheated on both of his elections. The US press disrespect for Abhissit as "an illegitimate ruler" are as despicable as one Hollywood movie producer's personal attacks on George Bush. The general reporting of the news so one-lopsidedly pro-Thaksin is not consistent with what I am sure it would be in the anti-US-war case, as in favor of LAW AND ORDER, instead was designed to foment unrest.  How can Americans justify fomenting insurrection and  snap elections as "pro-democratic" when the same situation cannot arise in US democracy, that is, a President can't be intimidated (as far as I know) to dissolve. Sure, one could be impeached for lying about his infidelity, but the succession behind him is certain, and in the US we would just have to wait PATIENTLY  for new elections, why isn't waiting patiently the view of US media???

We don't assume the general concerns of the protesters are unwarranted (can anyone LIST them? - other than a call for a hurried election???) - WE JUST WANT UNBIASED REPORTING.

I am waiting for replies to the many serious concerns raised by so many affected persons.

[rabo]

If the charge is that the BBC and CNN didn't consult the experts, I'd be intrigued to hear who these experts are. In my experience there are very few academic Thailand specialists who share the TV analysis of the situation. Yes, you could probably rope in a few Thai commentators from Chula or Thammasat, but if you go to international experts like McCargo, the Australian scholars or the people in ASEASUK, most are sceptical in equal measure of the Thaksin regime and the present bunch. Even that arch conservative and outspoken Thaksin critic, Stephen Young, said in a BBC World Service interview just before the crackdown, that Thaksin was a spent force and only one element in the overall situation (I think he took a step back in his Nation interview). So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

I think the charge is that BBC and CNN did not try very hard. As for who are the "experts", the whole of Thailand, the country and its people. On any day during the protest, I could easily talk to a handful of people and pickup most of the story from both, or many, sides. At least enough to tip off a reporter that his one sided notions are clearly off. In fact, many Thais could probably see much of what happened in advance, given Thaksin's history, what happened in April 2009, and Sed Daeng's involvement.

Granted, most foreign media and organizations have a hard time because of curtural and language problems but in the case of the BBC and CCN, I don't think they even tried.

This is fairly typical of the slightly mindless "I don't think they even tried" criticism that is quite common, not really worth bothering with.As for the other more specific reasoned criticisms of other posters don't they really serve to confirm only that they don't like anyone pointing out to the world that there is a self serving and greedy elite in Bangkok, Abhisit while legally PM is unelected by the people, that the Reds do have powerful arguments on their side and that it's not all about Thaksin? I seriously doubt whether this group has read or understood the background that citizen333 mentions.The Neanderthals will rant and rave but time and gravity are not on their side.

Glad my opinion was only simple and mindless, thus I was able to escape the majority of your negative criticism of posters/ Neanderthals. There is another guy/cat around who keeps insinuating that posters who don't agree with him are poorly educated. Nice of you to suggest it is a genetic rather than education problem.

My simple point, which seems to have escaped your genetically advanced brain, was that the cultural and language barriers play an important role in the foreign media reporting, and that Thaksin's role in the violent attempt to overthrow the government was close to common knowledge among the Thais. Even Neanderthals who speak reasonable Thai and are in contact with the Thai people could see that.

I fully understand the social background behind the whole story as I am the head of a really big Northeastern family, none of who would agree with your viewpoint. You are not wrong to say that there is more to the story than just Thaksin, but beyond that your views are very Westernized and overly simplistic.

Edited June 12, 2010 by rabo

[philw]

I think the foreign media did a great job!

They risked their lives to bring us some great footage and pictures.

Reporting what they saw and not what CRES told them to report.

This made them unpopular only because it didn't line up with what the Government were saying.

Anybody remember any great footage or pictures from the Thai Media??

The only one I recall is from Springnews of the freindly fire incident!

Incidently Springnews has now been blocked by the Government.

Were there any great pictures from the Thai Media?

Dead right mate.

Were there any pictures ??

Thais getting shot in the head by the Army and the best Thai TV can do is soap operas and game shows..........

If you want a compliant media come to Thailand.

Astonishing that folks here have it in for CNN and BBC but not a word of criticism of our domestic apology for journalists.......

Phil

notanothenetizen.

[tigerboy]

cnn you lost me and many more... now i use aljazeera for my news. just can not trust cnn. sad but true.

I will second Aljazeera. I also like Channel News Asia out of Singapore. I think that both of these networks are providing good coverage of events here in Thailand.

[BenCanuck]

As for the other more specific reasoned criticisms of other posters don't they really serve to confirm only that they don't like anyone pointing out to the world that there is a self serving and greedy elite in Bangkok

This may be true in some cases. But in general, reasoned criticism of select foreign news sources indicates, quite hopefully and almost unexpectedly, that some people -- including that growing group which expresses appreciation of Al Jazeera, which did not glorify or absolve anyone involved in the situation -- are tired of news coverage which is exclusively, distortedly, and sneakily filtered through Western prejudices and imagination. To say the least, this is an interesting development in the history of news.

[wayfarer108]

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 think that is the crux of the problem. Although stationed in Bangkok, neither Rivers nor Harvey speaks Thai well enough to distinguish the difference between the UDD propaganda presented to them in English and the diametrically opposed sentiments spoken on the stage in Thai.

Of the two, I think Rivers is at least trying to be neutral in his approach. As someone else suggested, it does appear that Harvey selectes and slants the news she reports with a UDD bias, and I think that goes back to what Somtow said at a previous FCCT panel discussion, that this is the expected story among western audiences.

In my opinion, major news agenceis like CNN and BBC should be hiring correspondents with near-native proficiency in Thai.

Edited June 12, 2010 by wayfarer108

[wayfarer108]

As for the other more specific reasoned criticisms of other posters don't they really serve to confirm only that they don't like anyone pointing out to the world that there is a self serving and greedy elite in Bangkok

This may be true in some cases. But in general, reasoned criticism of select foreign news sources indicates, quite hopefully and almost unexpectedly, that some people -- including that growing group which expresses appreciation of Al Jazeera, which did not glorify or absolve anyone involved in the situation -- are tired of news coverage which is exclusively, distortedly, and sneakily filtered through Western prejudices and imagination. To say the least, this is an interesting development in the history of news.

I agree that Al Jazeera covered the situation with more depth and neutrality. TVThai (aka Thai PBS) beat them all, however, in terms of depth and detail. I switched channels back and forth among BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera and TVThai, and the latter had an obvious advantage in understanding what was going on, especially in offering live commentary on what was being shouted back and forth, for example, between the soldiers and the UDD guards.

[BenCanuck]

Abhisit while legally PM is unelected by the people

These are the kinds of comments that got tiring from the BBC. Prime ministers are not elected "by the people" to be prime minister. To say that Abhisit should have been elected "by the people" as prime minister (of course, he has been elected many times as MP) is the kind of gross oversimplification and sensationalism which I quickly got tired of. Yes, there were vast amounts of politicking and questionable dissolutions of political parties involved. Those are very real issues. So mention that! Don't say he's "unelected". Saying he's "unelected" only serves to emotionalize and distort the issues. It is more difficult to properly deal with emotionalized, sensationalized, distorted issues.

I understand some people have trouble accepting the messy workings of a parliamentary democracy. All the recent elected/unelected hullaballoo in the UK's own politics shows this. But really! If there are real issues to tackle, tackle them. Report them. Research them. Probe them. Criticize them. It doesn't help to distort the issues to the point of being unrecognizable.

(In a more controversial vein, I also realize that many BBC viewers "expect" to be able to look down on an unelected, undemocratic leader of a developing country. But really! Surely the gritty facts matter more than the oversimplified, sweeping narrative BBC viewers "expect" to be treated to.)

Astonishing that folks here have it in for CNN and BBC but not a word of criticism of our domestic apology for journalists.......

This is a thread largely about quality/reputable international journalism. What is perhaps most remarkable is the number of times international sources outside BBC and CNN have been publicly appreciated by the same voices which criticize BBC and/or CNN.

I agree that Al Jazeera covered the situation with more depth and neutrality. TVThai (aka Thai PBS) beat them all, however, in terms of depth and detail. I switched channels back and forth among BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera and TVThai, and the latter had an obvious advantage in understanding what was going on, especially in offering live commentary on what was being shouted back and forth, for example, between the soldiers and the UDD guards.

Thank you for this information regarding TVThai. I was in Thailand for a month of the most recent protests and will be going back soon. While following the news, I had to rely mostly on print & Al Jazeera/BBC/CNN. I'm grateful for your information. I hope to put it to use in the near future. If I need to learn Thai in order to follow -- perhaps in the more distant future.

[wayfarer108]

It's a Thai-language station so yes, you do need to learn Thai

[YHJB]

BBC = Biased Broadcasting Company

CNN = Completely Naff News

[BNZ]

That they were up at the journalist's club having to defend  ".. their work as impartial against relentless criticism .."  is an overt declaration of their bias and professional incompetence. 

There are ethical news outlets available and CNN ( Childrens Network News ) and the BBC have failed that basic mandate. 

Rivers and the rest of the CNN 'performers' have consciously reduced Ted Turner's original vision of international news to 'entertainment lite ' hence Childrens Network News. 

One can't take Rivers et al seriously as none possess the gravity required to deliver serious 'World News'.

That nice looking woman with long dark hair and the grating nasal twang certainly lacks the needed depth to properly deliver my mail ! 

The appalling Richard Quest who 'BARKS ABOUT BUSINESS TRAVEL'  has us in fits of laughter (as we lunge to change the channel ) but he couldn't be successful as a comedian as he lacks wit.  

He just ..oozes a smarmy sleaze. 

 And the BBC's very scary Rachel Harvey has even frightened the local wildlife   ..eek.

Even Hitler wouldn't listen to the BBC now !      

.

[hansum]

BBC lie, CNN lie, The Thai Govenment lie and the Thai media lie.

Three words; pot, kettle, black.

Thais don't care what foreigners think. None of our business. Keep watching the Thai media because they report what the government want people to hear. Nation included.

We now have the internet. There is a ridiculous number of sources people can use to get information. Why keep watching BBC and CNN? Ha ha, they're the only two English speaking news channels I have on my cable.

I like Abbisit and despise Taksin. But at the end of the day, it's just a different set of old greedy wanke_rs pulling the strings.

Like the last sentence, pity not many on here see it that way.

Some well to do Thais that were round my place the other week would watch CNN due to their reporting.

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. before any protests started is up there with China, Cuba, Iran etc... yet they dont mention this ... asses brains their up.

My view on it is the reporters were just reporting on which way the bullets were flying .. and pretty much all of them were heading towards the redshirts.

Edited June 12, 2010 by hansum

[monkfish]

CNN International documentary wins award

CNN.com - World's Untold Stories

[Siam Simon]

If the charge is that the BBC and CNN didn't consult the experts, I'd be intrigued to hear who these experts are. In my experience there are very few academic Thailand specialists who share the TV analysis of the situation. Yes, you could probably rope in a few Thai commentators from Chula or Thammasat, but if you go to international experts like McCargo, the Australian scholars or the people in ASEASUK, most are sceptical in equal measure of the Thaksin regime and the present bunch. Even that arch conservative and outspoken Thaksin critic, Stephen Young, said in a BBC World Service interview just before the crackdown, that Thaksin was a spent force and only one element in the overall situation (I think he took a step back in his Nation interview). So who are the experts who could have put the BBC and CNN on the right track?

I think the charge is that BBC and CNN did not try very hard. As for who are the "experts", the whole of Thailand, the country and its people. On any day during the protest, I could easily talk to a handful of people and pickup most of the story from both, or many, sides. At least enough to tip off a reporter that his one sided notions are clearly off. In fact, many Thais could probably see much of what happened in advance, given Thaksin's history, what happened in April 2009, and Sed Daeng's involvement.

Granted, most foreign media and organizations have a hard time because of curtural and language problems but in the case of the BBC and CCN, I don't think they even tried.

This is fairly typical of the slightly mindless "I don't think they even tried" criticism that is quite common, not really worth bothering with.As for the other more specific reasoned criticisms of other posters don't they really serve to confirm only that they don't like anyone pointing out to the world that there is a self serving and greedy elite in Bangkok, Abhisit while legally PM is unelected by the people, that the Reds do have powerful arguments on their side and that it's not all about Thaksin? I seriously doubt whether this group has read or understood the background that citizen333 mentions.The Neanderthals will rant and rave but time and gravity are not on their side.

Glad my opinion was only simple and mindless, thus I was able to escape the majority of your negative criticism of posters/ Neanderthals. There is another guy/cat around who keeps insinuating that posters who don't agree with him are poorly educated. Nice of you to suggest it is a genetic rather than education problem.

My simple point, which seems to have escaped your genetically advanced brain, was that the cultural and language barriers play an important role in the foreign media reporting, and that Thaksin's role in the violent attempt to overthrow the government was close to common knowledge among the Thais. Even Neanderthals who speak reasonable Thai and are in contact with the Thai people could see that.

I fully understand the social background behind the whole story as I am the head of a really big Northeastern family, none of who would agree with your viewpoint. You are not wrong to say that there is more to the story than just Thaksin, but beyond that your views are very Westernized and overly simplistic.

Welcome to the forum, "head of a really big Northeastern family". Care to boast some further detail about your credentials? And while you're at it, why not explain why you joined so recently and feel the need to be so prolific, posting in only one section of Thai Visa? You're not, by any chance part of the recent anti-red spam flood on here are you?

[Siam Simon]

The stupidity of the various posters making this mixture of daft and sinister attacks on the international media has to be quantified: The daft posters are fools. Other more sinister posters are posing on behalf of the government or in protection of their personal little third-world paradises. Their stupidity is that they think that world class press such as the BBC and CNN will be cowed by a semi-third world country's latest corrupt government's criticism. Said world class press didn't fall for Thaksin's tosh when he was at the helm, and the attempts to intimidate the likes of Jonathan Head, Dan Rivers and their replacements will only serve to focus that press more precisely on the current regime's corruption and abuses of power. Get used to it. It won't go away.

[Scott]

Let's take care to confine our remarks to the posts and not to our guess as to the intelligence or motives of the posters.

[JLester]

Incidently Springnews has now been blocked by the Government.

Apparently our cable television provider didn't get that memo as it continues to broadcast SpringNews unhindered to this very minute.

[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?

[jayboy]

My simple point, which seems to have escaped your genetically advanced brain, was that the cultural and language barriers play an important role in the foreign media reporting, and that Thaksin's role in the violent attempt to overthrow the government was close to common knowledge among the Thais. Even Neanderthals who speak reasonable Thai and are in contact with the Thai people could see that.

I fully understand the social background behind the whole story as I am the head of a really big Northeastern family, none of who would agree with your viewpoint. You are not wrong to say that there is more to the story than just Thaksin, but beyond that your views are very Westernized and overly simplistic.

I'm not sure which reports you were studying.To be fair I have never a great CNN fan and didn't monitor its coverage closely.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.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.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.

Good luck with your responsibilities as head of that really big Northeastern family, and it's impressive you are so familiar with all their thoughts, concerns and aspirations.

[simon43]

I think by 'north-eastern' family, he means Sunderland, or possible New Hampshire

Simon