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

[jayboy]

I dont buy into your theory of highly educated and high achieving foreigners by the way. That is to assume high achieving is definable in career terms rather than personal ones;)

"The world is what it is.Men who are nothing or allow themselves to be nothing have no place in it"

V.S Naipaul

[rabo]

A well written article coached in carefully chosen words to appear neutral. There are, however, a couple of glaring omissions and points that need to be made.

How can someone say they are describing Thai politics and not mention once, except to describe one as "one of Thailand's more unsavory politicians" the role of the rural faction leaders? To ignore the rural faction leaders also ignores how Thaksin was able really able to form the TRT and later win control of the Parliament. It had nothing to do with his policies. The rural poor did not "vote for Thaksin", the voted for MP candidates that the local faction leader chose. He also plays down the demagoguery the community radios stations and the "Red Schools" used in "political education" of the rural poor. Nor does he address in any of his paths to reconciliation what must be done to control the rural factions leaders. He fails to explain why Abhisit is unable to visit areas of the North and Northeast due to the rabid, hate filled propaganda that has been going on for over a year now, making Abhisit the devil incarnate and cause of all their troubles.

The other telling item is his use of the word "amat". This shows how much he is a tool of the UDD propaganda that brought that obsolete term back into common usage.

To me, this is just another attempt by a western left wing liberal to put the situation into context that fits his paradigm. Perhaps maybe unique in that he actually addresses this with his section on "Thai Particularism" in which he says fit into a pattern of belief by the "elite" and therefore idea that this is not a western type political struggle is wrong. He fails to acknowledge that in most cases, particularly the BBC and CNN, they did a very shallow job of reporting and continued to portray events in the incorrect or over simplified context. You only have to watch the BBC Hard Talk interview of Abhisit to see that bias.

TH

The author's favoritism is certainly clear, as you said. He lightly steps over the level of red violence and the shortcomings of many of Thaksin's early programs, while taking careful aim at Abhisit. Given that bias, he did get all the pieces in all the right places, and the article is still worthy. Seems everything is biased these days, sigh.

[jayboy]

His view of Abhisit as a bit wet behind the ears and unlikely to be effective may no longer apply. Nothing can change us like facing insurmountable crisis and I imagine Abhisit is not the person he was a couple of months ago. I don't know if he used the crying towels sent to mock him by the red leadership but with in a month, the same red leadership was fractured and many were shaking in their boots.

You do not seem to have absorbed,let alone addressed, the writer's devastating criticism of Abhisit at all.The article was written very recently and fully takes into account latest events

[jayboy]

A well written article coached in carefully chosen words to appear neutral. There are, however, a couple of glaring omissions and points that need to be made.

The other telling item is his use of the word “amat”. This shows how much he is a tool of the UDD propaganda that brought that obsolete term back into common usage.

To me, this is just another attempt by a western left wing liberal to put the situation into context that fits his paradigm. Perhaps maybe unique in that he actually addresses this with his section on “Thai Particularism” in which he says fit into a pattern of belief by the “elite” and therefore idea that this is not a western type political struggle is wrong. He fails to acknowledge that in most cases, particularly the BBC and CNN, they did a very shallow job of reporting and continued to portray events in the incorrect or over simplified context. You only have to watch the BBC Hard Talk interview of Abhisit to see that bias.

TH

There are some glaring omissions certainly.We all know what they are and why they are missing.

"Amat" is a widely used term and has no particular connotation.If you prefer the term "Establishment", that's fine.

I don't think the article is neutral, nor should it be.

[yoshiwara]

A well written article coached in carefully chosen words to appear neutral. There are, however, a couple of glaring omissions and points that need to be made.

How can someone say they are describing Thai politics and not mention once, except to describe one as “one of Thailand’s more unsavory politicians” the role of the rural faction leaders? To ignore the rural faction leaders also ignores how Thaksin was able really able to form the TRT and later win control of the Parliament. It had nothing to do with his policies. The rural poor did not “vote for Thaksin”, the voted for MP candidates that the local faction leader chose. He also plays down the demagoguery the community radios stations and the “Red Schools” used in “political education” of the rural poor. Nor does he address in any of his paths to reconciliation what must be done to control the rural factions leaders. He fails to explain why Abhisit is unable to visit areas of the North and Northeast due to the rabid, hate filled propaganda that has been going on for over a year now, making Abhisit the devil incarnate and cause of all their troubles.

The other telling item is his use of the word “amat”. This shows how much he is a tool of the UDD propaganda that brought that obsolete term back into common usage.

To me, this is just another attempt by a western left wing liberal to put the situation into context that fits his paradigm. Perhaps maybe unique in that he actually addresses this with his section on “Thai Particularism” in which he says fit into a pattern of belief by the “elite” and therefore idea that this is not a western type political struggle is wrong. He fails to acknowledge that in most cases, particularly the BBC and CNN, they did a very shallow job of reporting and continued to portray events in the incorrect or over simplified context. You only have to watch the BBC Hard Talk interview of Abhisit to see that bias.

TH

Excellent commentary by TH.

To add:

Some of the international press (and forum red apologists)like to present the 'rebellion' in terms of the 'the two elephants in the room' (the reds and Thaksin) or 'this thing is separate from Thakin' (the bigger elephant in the room). Both wings of this argument wish to position the reds as appearing an independent force. What the arguments forget is that the red movement has no economic class demands of its own. None. This is no accident. It is deliberate on behalf of Thaksin to not only ensure that the rural landowners and the political leadership stay onside (did I hear the word elite?), but that the rural peasantry and petty-bourgeois supporters under no circumstances line up behind a set of class demands which would necessitate a cross-national class struggle rather than that of lining up behind Thaksin and his regional ruling class interests paid for and in his pocket.

In short, the whole of the red movement has been created against the concept of class interests (except for the ruling ones in the region)and instead designed to be fully dependent on returning Thaksin to power with the promise of Thaksin handouts. Not self-liberation but thorough-going dependency on the largesse of Thaksin.

That only a few journalists have grasped these essential points is disappointing, but things may change.

[rixalex]

I dont buy into your theory of highly educated and high achieving foreigners by the way. That is to assume high achieving is definable in career terms rather than personal ones;)

"The world is what it is.Men who are nothing or allow themselves to be nothing have no place in it"

V.S Naipaul

Question is, how do we define a man who is nothing?

Some might say a man who sexually and physically abuses his wife and his mistress, and a man who consorts with prostitutes whilst his wife battles cancer, is a man who is nothing.

Maybe Mr Naipaul measures men in a different way from me.

[rabo]

His view of Abhisit as a bit wet behind the ears and unlikely to be effective may no longer apply. Nothing can change us like facing insurmountable crisis and I imagine Abhisit is not the person he was a couple of months ago. I don't know if he used the crying towels sent to mock him by the red leadership but with in a month, the same red leadership was fractured and many were shaking in their boots.

You do not seem to have absorbed,let alone addressed, the writer's devastating criticism of Abhisit at all.The article was written very recently and fully takes into account latest events

Not at all, I simply think the author has an axe to grind and rather than attack the article's weakness, I choose to consider its valid points and give my own views of Abhist and a good path for Thailand's future. If you view the article as Thaksin +1 and Abhisit -1, it is perhaps you who has not understood the article.

If you would like me to address the author's views of Abhisist, let me simply place his 4 points here.

1. He is temperamentally unable to empathize with people who

do not share his ordered and rational way of looking at the world. Many Thai

voters of the lower economic echelons instinctively sense this, and do not

identify with him, even if what he is saying makes sense. A foreign journalist

who was given a private interview with Abhisit told me that when she asked

Abhisit what was his favorite book, he responded with the title of his favorite

economics text. This anecdote gives a clue to the psychological make-up of the

man.

2. He is an intensely private and self-controlled man, whose only soul-mate has

been his wife. [same was true of Seh Daeng]

3. He has never been exposed to people with different backgrounds from his own

"Sukhumvit-Oxford" background. I wonder how many Thai villagers he has ever

spent time with, or how often he has had real conversations with ordinary

working folk, listened to what they said, and pondered on what he could learn

from them? He appears to have massive self-confidence in his own rectitude.

4. The attempt on his life during the Songkran riots of 2009, and the smearing

of blood on the gate of his house may have deeply embittered him, rendering him

inflexible.

If I had such ability to analyze another man's psychology using only spontanious knowlege, I could easily write an entire book about Mr. Thaksin's shortcomings as a human being.

[Samuian]

I find it stunningly breathtaking how far this "Thaksin-Drama" is taken!

Writers, Journo's, all imaginable media is used to spread his message of a assumingly "biased" Judiciary, "biased" Courts, "biased" Judges, "biased" Elite, the whole power structure entirely "biased" against him, his Samaritan ship, he only wants to help the poor and the country - if this would be true, than why did he cheat on the taxes, on the Radjadapisek plot, why was he, defender of "edible, genuine democracy" after Journalists and Reporters, including TV Stations, who dared to criticize him in the slightest sense, not to mention his administrations heavy hand in the "war of drugs"... and, and, and.. the piece is just another whitewash attempt of Mr.Thaksin's Propaganda-Lobbyists?

It seems that much of all this Bloodshed and Upheaval is instigated just to clear him in turning the all available weaponry against, what he considers his enemy whilst saying: "See they too, they too!".....

After the final Standoff, I simply can't trust anything waht doesn't criticize him and the action of the red shirts... there is no struggle of the poor!

They struggle, like anywhere else on this planet to take care of their livelihood, the rice paddy's and the countries vegetable and fruit supplies... the impoverished are only cheap means to get supporters for his very, very own and hidden agenda.. none else, his words are twisted he loves deceit - I never would trust this man, since... he showed his true face!

it's bit of... well sort of sick, very sick I think he needs help, seriously!

Money, Power.... and Ego.. become a very dangerous cocktail if stirred vigorously!

[jayboy]

Maybe Mr Naipaul measures men in a different way from me.

I think we can assume that is definitely the case.

Actually I don't disagree with you or Hammered.The private virtues are to be cherished, as is the love of family and friends.Ultimately for most of us these values transcend worldly success although they are not of course mutually exclusive.I know with your allusions to wife and mistress you refer to Naipaul.Has there ever been such a badly behaved man of genius, who remarkably hid nothing of his excesses from his biographer.

But Naipaul was making a point.The world is out there and has to be reckoned with.Worldly success is a yardstick of how we measure up.It doesn't mean we are better or worse men.

[jayboy]

If I had such ability to analyze another man's psychology using only spontanious knowlege, I could easily write an entire book about Mr. Thaksin's shortcomings as a human being.

I have no idea what you mean by "spontanious knowledge" but the difference is that the writer knows Abhisit well and knows many others that know Abhisit well.The high level farang world interacts with the amart, and is actually rather a small one.

My guess is that most of us in contrast don't know Abhisit at all.

[rixalex]

Worldly success is a yardstick of how we measure up.It doesn't mean we are better or worse men.

I wish your sentiments in that last sentence were expressed by you more often. One who reads your posts could be forgiven for thinking - what with all the great importance you place on high education, social standing, income etc - that those mere mortals who didn't graduate from Cambridge to then become leading pillars of society with six figure incomes, are mortals really not worth the bother.

A sort of attitude which incidently and ironically you claim to be opposed to when observing it in certain Thais looking down on rural, less educated, less well-off working classes.

[Ulysses G.]

I have no idea what you mean by "spontanious knowledge" but the difference is that the writer knows Abhisit well and knows many others that know Abhisit well.

My guess is that most of us in contrast don't know Abhisit at all.

Maybe he does know the PM, but every single human being has shortcomings and a possibly biased individual claiming to point them out does not prove anything. We also know nothing about the writer. 

[jayboy]

We also know nothing about the writer. 

Actually we do now since I have been researching him on Google and have made a couple of phone calls.

He is exactly as I expected from reading his piece.

[Ulysses G.]

OK, what are his character flaws? 

[jayboy]

OK, what are his character flaws? 

I'll pass on this one if you don't mind.Too nutty.

[Ulysses G.]

The point is that you say that we know nothing about Abhisit, but you know about the writer by Googling his name (and "making some phone calls" ).You are taking his word on what someone is like and trying to convince us that he knows what he is talking about, but you really do not know him at all.

I know a lot of professional writers and the great majority are not only not impartial, but, in fact, full of s__t.

[hideki]

I don't know Jim Stent

You don't know him, but you know who he knows and what he knows about them? Interesting.

the writer knows Abhisit well and knows many others that know Abhisit well

[jayboy]

I don't know Jim Stent

You don't know him, but you know who he knows and what he knows about them? Interesting.

the writer knows Abhisit well and knows many others that know Abhisit well

Fascinating, isn't it?

[wayfarer108]

Poppy Field Journal: Thoughts on Thailand’s Turmoil, by James Stent

The best overall summary I have seen, which does cover the issue of media coverage and a great deal else.

Some - notably the taliban whether of red or yellow stripe - in this forum - will not be pleased.However unprejudiced people will recognise the intelligence and knowledge.I don't know Jim Stent but he definitely falls into that category of highly educated and high achieving foreigners I have mentioned elsewhere.

You said "highly educated and high achieving" doesn't matter in an earlier post. Guess it only matters when they are pro-Red like you, as Stent clearly is, as any neutral party can see.

Stent reveals his true colours as soon as he invokes the false concept, 'the amat.' There is no such thing in Thailand as amat or phrai anymore. These were very specific roles under the absolute monarchy, revived by Thaksin as political jargon but without any basis in reality. If we could use these terms as loosely as Thaksin and his Reds have, than all the Red leaders and their recruited protestors would be bound together as amat and phrai, much more so than the protestors and the curent government.

I don't buy the 'awakening the masses' argument either. It glosses over the fact that the so-called masses (what he calls the 'masses, don't exist, as the Reds are far from being a majority) are being manipulated by elites. The awakening lasts only as long as they're following the script. As soon as things stabilise, they'll fall back asleep on cue. Even the ones who say 'Once I was stupid, but I'm not stupid anymore.' They *never were stupid*, but the UDD leaders try to make them feel that they were. More demagoguery.

These are both concepts invented and perpetuated by Thai demagogues, and I'm always surprised when otherwise intelligent foreigners fall for them.

Stent is also quite clearly pro-Red in his comparative analysis of the PAD and the UDD as well. He relies on stereotypes for the former while trying to dispel stereotypes of the latter. Can't have it both ways.

His essay wears the suit of intellect, but the actual arguments don't hold up. Stent should stick to the poppy fields, about which he is no doubt very knowledgable.

[wayfarer108]

A well written article coached in carefully chosen words to appear neutral. There are, however, a couple of glaring omissions and points that need to be made.

How can someone say they are describing Thai politics and not mention once, except to describe one as “one of Thailand’s more unsavory politicians” the role of the rural faction leaders? To ignore the rural faction leaders also ignores how Thaksin was able really able to form the TRT and later win control of the Parliament. It had nothing to do with his policies. The rural poor did not “vote for Thaksin”, the voted for MP candidates that the local faction leader chose. He also plays down the demagoguery the community radios stations and the “Red Schools” used in “political education” of the rural poor. Nor does he address in any of his paths to reconciliation what must be done to control the rural factions leaders. He fails to explain why Abhisit is unable to visit areas of the North and Northeast due to the rabid, hate filled propaganda that has been going on for over a year now, making Abhisit the devil incarnate and cause of all their troubles.

The other telling item is his use of the word “amat”. This shows how much he is a tool of the UDD propaganda that brought that obsolete term back into common usage.

To me, this is just another attempt by a western left wing liberal to put the situation into context that fits his paradigm. Perhaps maybe unique in that he actually addresses this with his section on “Thai Particularism” in which he says fit into a pattern of belief by the “elite” and therefore idea that this is not a western type political struggle is wrong. He fails to acknowledge that in most cases, particularly the BBC and CNN, they did a very shallow job of reporting and continued to portray events in the incorrect or over simplified context. You only have to watch the BBC Hard Talk interview of Abhisit to see that bias.

TH

Excellent commentary by TH.

To add:

Some of the international press (and forum red apologists)like to present the 'rebellion' in terms of the 'the two elephants in the room' (the reds and Thaksin) or 'this thing is separate from Thakin' (the bigger elephant in the room). Both wings of this argument wish to position the reds as appearing an independent force. What the arguments forget is that the red movement has no economic class demands of its own. None. This is no accident. It is deliberate on behalf of Thaksin to not only ensure that the rural landowners and the political leadership stay onside (did I hear the word elite?), but that the rural peasantry and petty-bourgeois supporters under no circumstances line up behind a set of class demands which would necessitate a cross-national class struggle rather than that of lining up behind Thaksin and his regional ruling class interests paid for and in his pocket.

In short, the whole of the red movement has been created against the concept of class interests (except for the ruling ones in the region)and instead designed to be fully dependent on returning Thaksin to power with the promise of Thaksin handouts. Not self-liberation but thorough-going dependency on the largesse of Thaksin.

That only a few journalists have grasped these essential points is disappointing, but things may change.

Spot on.

[jayboy]

Poppy Field Journal: Thoughts on Thailand’s Turmoil, by James Stent

The best overall summary I have seen, which does cover the issue of media coverage and a great deal else.

Some - notably the taliban whether of red or yellow stripe - in this forum - will not be pleased.However unprejudiced people will recognise the intelligence and knowledge.I don't know Jim Stent but he definitely falls into that category of highly educated and high achieving foreigners I have mentioned elsewhere.

You said "highly educated and high achieving" doesn't matter in an earlier post. Guess it only matters when they are pro-Red like you, as Stent clearly is, as any neutral party can see.

Stent reveals his true colours as soon as he invokes the false concept, 'the amat.' There is no such thing in Thailand as amat or phrai anymore. These were very specific roles under the absolute monarchy, revived by Thaksin as political jargon but without any basis in reality. If we could use these terms as loosely as Thaksin and his Reds have, than all the Red leaders and their recruited protestors would be bound together as amat and phrai, much more so than the protestors and the curent government.

I don't buy the 'awakening the masses' argument either. It glosses over the fact that the so-called masses (what he calls the 'masses, don't exist, as the Reds are far from being a majority) are being manipulated by elites. The awakening lasts only as long as they're following the script. As soon as things stabilise, they'll fall back asleep on cue. Even the ones who say 'Once I was stupid, but I'm not stupid anymore.' They *never were stupid*, but the UDD leaders try to make them feel that they were. More demagoguery.

These are both concepts invented and perpetuated by Thai demagogues, and I'm always surprised when otherwise intelligent foreigners fall for them.

Stent is also quite clearly pro-Red in his comparative analysis of the PAD and the UDD as well. He relies on stereotypes for the former while trying to dispel stereotypes of the latter. Can't have it both ways.

His essay wears the suit of intellect, but the actual arguments don't hold up. Stent should stick to the poppy fields, about which he is no doubt very knowledgable.

I remain of the view that most highly educated resident farang in the liberal tradition are sympathetic to the red cause though with many many caveats.I am certain of this as of any opinion I have voiced on this forum.The terms amart and phrai are certainly anachronistic and there is an irony in their usage now.

[wayfarer108]

I remain of the view that most highly educated resident farang in the liberal tradition are sympathetic to the red cause though with many many caveats.I am certain of this as of any opinion I have voiced on this forum.

We had this discussion before. When I said that most highly educated [and achieving] resident farang I knew saw the red movement as a sham, you responded sarcasticly, basically saying you didn't believe it. I work in Thailand among journalists and academics and have done so for over 20 years. My guess is you're retired.

[jayboy]

I remain of the view that most highly educated resident farang in the liberal tradition are sympathetic to the red cause though with many many caveats.I am certain of this as of any opinion I have voiced on this forum.

We had this discussion before. When I said that most highly educated [and achieving] resident farang I knew saw the red movement as a sham, you responded sarcasticly, basically saying you didn't believe it. I work in Thailand among journalists and academics and have done so for over 20 years. My guess is you're retired.

I don't remember the exchange you refer to.Also with the greatest possible respect foreigners who are locally based journalists and "academics" are in the most part hardly high achievers.My guess, supported by a quick glance at your posting record, is that you are not mixing in the circles I refer to.But hey it's an anonymous forum - you can pretend to be anyone you like.

[hansum]

<br>

<br>

<br>

<br>I remain of the view that most highly educated resident farang in the liberal tradition are sympathetic to the red cause though with many many caveats.I am certain of this as of any opinion I have voiced on this forum.<br>

<br><br>We had this discussion before. When I said that most highly educated [and achieving] resident farang I knew saw the red movement as a sham, you responded sarcasticly, basically saying you didn't believe it. I work in Thailand among journalists and academics and have done so for over 20 years. My guess is you're retired.<br>

<br><br>I don't remember the exchange you refer to.Also with the greatest possible respect foreigners who are locally based journalists and "academics" are in the most part hardly high achievers.My guess, supported by a quick glance at your posting record, is that you are not mixing in the circles I refer to.But hey it's an anonymous forum - you can pretend to be anyone you like.<br>

<br><br>JayBoy is really clever and dead upmarket so dont say it how it is.<br><br>

[wayfarer108]

I remain of the view that most highly educated resident farang in the liberal tradition are sympathetic to the red cause though with many many caveats.I am certain of this as of any opinion I have voiced on this forum.

We had this discussion before. When I said that most highly educated [and achieving] resident farang I knew saw the red movement as a sham, you responded sarcasticly, basically saying you didn't believe it. I work in Thailand among journalists and academics and have done so for over 20 years. My guess is you're retired.

I don't remember the exchange you refer to.Also with the greatest possible respect foreigners who are locally based journalists and "academics" are in the most part hardly high achievers.My guess, supported by a quick glance at your posting record, is that you are not mixing in the circles I refer to.But hey it's an anonymous forum - you can pretend to be anyone you like.

I stated the truth; you can think whatever you like. I'll stand by my conclusion that you aren't employed and stand in a circle of one.

[otherstuff1957]

I do think that the article linked to by Jayboy is quite perceptive and his analysis, though not necessarily his conclusions, seem to be pretty accurate to me. For those of you who did not read the article, here are a couple of quotes:

The tragedy is that Thaksin proved to be a false prophet—a venal and egotistical demagogue who had recognized the potential power of the rural voting masses, but did not use this insight to genuinely reform the nature of Thai society. His motivations seem to me to have been a complex mixture of genuine interest in promoting the good of the nation with greed for power and wealth for himself. I see him in shades of gray—neither the messiah that his rural followers take him for even today, nor the devil incarnate that the Bangkok elite see him as being. But whatever his true nature, he did implement several good policies, such as health care for the poor and the “One Tambol One Product”, but he became increasingly corrupt, intolerant, and dictatorial in his governing style. The press was gradually intimidated, the judiciary and other independent parts of the government were subverted, and human rights violations became increasingly blatant.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

3. The arson on the final afternoon was clearly planned in advance by the red shirt leaders, and went beyond what can be justified as legitimate civil disobedience. The same can be said of sniper and grenade attacks, at least a portion of which came from the red shirts (such as the attack on the Dusit Thani Hotel).

Anyone who isn't wearing a red blindfold can see that this is probably true.

One final point related to violence. There has been some criticism of the army for using excessive force in dispersing the protestors. I am not an expert on such matters, but it is clear that the army resisted being called into the fight for many weeks, insisting that political problems should be sorted out by political means. When Commander in Chief Anupong finally acceded to Abhisit’s request to clear the protestors, it appeared to me that every effort was made to carry out this difficult task while using the minimum of force. But in any event, military movements are by nature not peaceful affairs, and some casualties are inevitable no matter how much caution is exercised. The final responsibility for the 89 deaths and hundreds of wounded rests with the political leadership that chose a military solution.

Again, I would agree with everything written up to the final line. Obviously a police solution would have been preferable to a military solution, but the police in Thailand are incompetent and either Red themselves or cowardly.

In all the emotion-charged debate over Thailand’s political travails, perhaps nothing is more confusing, or raises more controversy, than the nature, composition and leadership of the Red Shirts. At one pole are those who say that the protesters are paid to attend, and are heavily infiltrated by well armed “terrorists” who are under the direction and control of extremists taking their orders from Thaksin. While allowing that many of the protesters are decent farmers from the northeast and north, this school of thought maintains that they have been “brainwashed” or at least misled by Thaksin’s disciples through community radio and the endless speeches at Rajaprasong, and that they do not have the educational qualifications to be able to see through Thaksin’s propaganda. In other words, they were manipulated pawns in a cynical game. Since the protest was obviously well organized and financed, and since violent acts were perpetrated by some members of the protest group, this school of thought cannot be dismissed as entirely false. On the other side of the debate are those who would paint the protesters as entirely peaceful, which is obviously not true. The truth probably lies somewhere between these two poles.

I don't think that anyone, with the caveat stated above, would disagree with this, the question is: which group was actually in the majority?