Bbc Documentary: Red Rage

[sabaijai]

The BBC's Asia Correspondent, Alastair Leithead, traces the background to the Thailand crisis and asks what next?

For two months Bangkok city centre was blockaded by protesters wearing red, shouting for democracy and calling for the prime minister to resign.

The demonstrations ended in violence with the army moving in exchanging fire with a small group of armed protesters, killing and injuring dozens of people.

The BBC's Asia Correspondent, Alastair Leithead, traces the background to the crisis and asks what next for Thailand: is this class war or more about the ambitions of a former prime minister?

[TAWP]

Any bets if they will show the 'peaceful' speeches made from the stages?

[rubl]

Any bets if they will show the 'peaceful' speeches made from the stages?

Show probably, but with a correct translation of the Thai language ?

[Steele404]

Any bets if they will show the 'peaceful' speeches made from the stages?

ummmmm......what peaceful speeches?

[tonywebster]

just watched it, anyone expecting a purely a red propaganda piece needs to know that the government were also interviewed and shown numerous time during the report, in my opinion a good honest report.

[timekeeper]

it was a fairly balanced piece that got its chronology a bit wrong but with the glaring ommission of the reds invading the hospital that turned any sympathy the public may have had against them.

[ivowatson]

Sorry, don't watch bbc anymore. couldn't care less about their "balanced" reporting.

[DocHolliday]

Just finnished watching it. BBC should be burned at the stake for that "documentary" -

or was it a "report"? Now we know what has happened in Bangkok.....

I am speechless.

Kudos to Al Jazeera

Edited June 26, 2010 by DocHolliday

[DP25]

Any bets if they will show the 'peaceful' speeches made from the stages?

Of course not, their red "translators" leave all that out

[exalll]

just watched it, anyone expecting a purely a red propaganda piece needs to know that the government were also interviewed and shown numerous time during the report, in my opinion a good honest report.

Should have carried a caption "Brought to you by the Taksin Shinawatra propaganda machine"

[kissdani]

Any bets if they will show the 'peaceful' speeches made from the stages?

Of course not, their red "translators" leave all that out

Do the both of you understand speeches in Thai language? If yes - very good.

[TAWP]

I let my red shirt gf translate it. Well, she was red shirt before he violence begun...now I am not so sure, she was happy when everybody was forced to go home...

In anyway, I have confidence that she would not paint the speeches overly negative. For the obvious reasons.

[tigerbalm]

I prefer to get all my unbiased news from channel 3 or 7. or the Nation ..wide media

[Portlandstone]

I don't get BBC in my apartment. Anyone know where on the net I can watch it all?

[Insight]

No mention of a significant court case which preceded the rallies.

No mention that negotiations were ongoing up until a few hours before the tanks rolled in.

Protesters being paid is far more than just a rumour. If Mr Leithead spoke to more than one of them he might of established this himself.

The footage shown of the protester being shot in the foot - the army did warn people they'd be using live rounds, and the shot wasn't fatal, in accordance with the tactics they said they would be using.

Could've been much worse, but still more than a few glaring omissions.

[tombkk]

I don't get BBC in my apartment. Anyone know where on the net I can watch it all?

I don't know, but have you tried their website yet?

[rubl]

No mention of a significant court case which preceded the rallies.

No mention that negotiations were ongoing up until a few hours before the tanks rolled in.

Protesters being paid is far more than just a rumour. If Mr Leithead spoke to more than one of them he might of established this himself.

The footage shown of the protester being shot in the foot - the army did warn people they'd be using live rounds, and the shot wasn't fatal, in accordance with the tactics they said they would be using.

Could've been much worse, but still more than a few glaring omissions.

Just a minor remark here. No tanks this time, only APC's.

[DP25]

No mention of a significant court case which preceded the rallies.

Any "documentary" that doesn't deeply cover this is an absolute joke. That's what the entire thing was about. No guilty verdict and there would have been no protest.

[Insight]

Thanks Rubl.

One more - no mention of the PM's car bring attacked before the use of force by the army during the riots last year.

[george]

Some off topic posts removed.

[rubl]

Thanks Rubl.

One more - no mention of the PM's car bring attacked before the use of force by the army during the riots last year.

No idea how long the documentary lasted, but if less than 30 min. it's impossible to show/tell all. The moment you have to decide what to skip you start to have a lesser picture. Details of last year are the most likely to be skipped, although I would expect the storming of the ASIAN venue. Getting curious, will start to look for the clip myself.

[Insight]

Can't quote as using my phone. The context that the use of force was introduced was under how the red rallies were being treated differently by the authorities compared with the PAD airport siege beforehand. However the army didn't go straight in as far as I recall - it took a few days of chaos including the collapse of the ASIAN summet and the attack on the PM's car.

Any one of these actions would've met with a heavy handed response elsewhere.

[roykeanz]

No mention of a significant court case which preceded the rallies.

No mention that negotiations were ongoing up until a few hours before the tanks rolled in.

Protesters being paid is far more than just a rumour. If Mr Leithead spoke to more than one of them he might of established this himself.

The footage shown of the protester being shot in the foot - the army did warn people they'd be using live rounds, and the shot wasn't fatal, in accordance with the tactics they said they would be using.

Could've been much worse, but still more than a few glaring omissions.

Yeah.  All predictably incredibly soft  (nay deliberately forgetful) on numeorus aspects of the Thaksin factor - the key critical factor in the whole affair, ab initio (the 46Billion confiscation trigger) ad infinitum!

No exploration of very important aspects that, as well as the glaring omissions already mentioned by  various posters, included things such as ....

No footage of Thacky urging on his sheeple via video connection to rally site(s).

No mention of Thacky's  'clan' exiting the country in double-quick time well before any vviolence 'kicked off'.

No mention of impending critical events such as the army reshuffle and new budget that made the protest so insanely  'urgent' and acceptance of any Govt. compromise that differed from Red demands,  impossible. (Another perhaps even more critical scenario - which pertains to a certain esteemed personage - was briefly referred to ... but, in fariness, understandably  could not be gone into in any detail in the programme.)

No mention of the Govt's electoral-timing concession being initially accepted by so-called Red  'leaders'  .. but then suddenly a few days later being rejected out of hand at the obvious insistance of some external personage (who the hel_l that could be, I have no idea!)

No mention of the Reds' "dry run" Songkran 2009 violence and .... deaths and devastation to the country.

No specifics gone into in relation to money paid to the mercenary protesters (i.e. how such a sum might compare to the daily wage - if any -  the average protestor might otherwise be earning if at home.)

No mention of Thacky's injury and death allowance paid to the sheeple - a small fortune in terms of the protestors' average income)

No mention of the so-called Red 'leaders' staying in high class hotels while the mob slept on the piss strewn streets.

No mention of the cops being 'influenced' (can't imagine how exactly said 'influence' might manifest itself!) by Thacky and, not alone being unable to do anything approaching their proper job, but in fact in many cases assisting the terrorists.

No mention of the Red Shirt 'attacks' on civilians in various media outlets, Electoral Commission Office  etc. etc. and the resultant kidnappings.

No mention of the bomb attacks happening almost nightly in numerous locations across the city.

No mention of the numerous smaller bands of Red Shirts, in the early weeks,  traversing throughout BKK and terrorising citizens.

No mention of the dumping of human excrement on Parliament and onthe PM's private home.

No mention of the ongoing harrassment by so-called 'Red Shirt guards" of civilians in BKK and many other places.

No mention of Red Shirt leaders on countless occassions pledging Bangkok would become a 'sea of fire'.

No mention why exactly Central World was burned to the ground (or how it was rigged woth incendiary devices age in advance) .. when numerous other similar so-called 'Elite' entities located nearby were untouched.

No mention why countless Bangkok Band branches were bombed/ burned / attacked  over a 2-month period ... and the reason why.

No mention of the attacks on a number of media outlets and threats on many more (including, for some strange reason, the BBC itself!)

No mention of the devastating financial effect the 'protest' had on nearby businesses, during the protest (and on some business destroyed   afterwards) and on thousands of folk of the same 'class' that the mob puroprted to represent.

No detail on the masive cache of weapons taken by the Govt from Red Shirts.

Man, this list is getting way, way too long ... and I'm not remotely finished yet! 

Therefore, I have to say this biased Beeb BS  was a crock!! (not on the 'Red Rivers' level, but a crock nonetheless!)

Had its moment(s) though ... Yap, such as the priceless one where Leithy in one of his 'Hollywood' reports(May 19th), in the 'dangerzone', spouting something like ... "the protesters are moving out of here really fast .. and so must we!" ... and then the scary/hilarious sight of the rotund creature 'sprinting' in front of the camera for about 10 metres as if running for his life!! .. Man, the guy must have needed respiratory treatment  when the cameraman cut, having run all of 10 metres at one time!!  

[Jimi007]

Just finnished watching it. BBC should be burned at the stake for that "documentary" -

or was it a "report"? Now we know what has happened in Bangkok.....

I am speechless.

Kudos to Al Jazeera

I agree that Al Jazeera was the best reporting during the crisis. For some reason the BBC and CNN had and still have rose colored glasses on. The Red Rage show was just a rehash of their reports with little background information, especially Thaksin's role in the whole thing. It made some short reference to people being paid, then cut to some red shirt "spokesman" denying it. It was another, oh the poor red shirts just want "democracy" piece. With a bit of the government's point of view thrown in to make it appear slightly balanced. Hum, they call that journalism? Or a sensationalistic show for ratings?

[MengWan]

Just finnished watching it. BBC should be burned at the stake for that "documentary" -

or was it a "report"? Now we know what has happened in Bangkok.....

I am speechless.

Kudos to Al Jazeera

I agree that Al Jazeera was the best reporting during the crisis. For some reason the BBC and CNN had and still have rose colored glasses on. The Red Rage show was just a rehash of their reports with little background information, especially Thaksin's role in the whole thing. It made some short reference to people being paid, then cut to some red shirt "spokesman" denying it. It was another, oh the poor red shirts just want "democracy" piece. With a bit of the government's point of view thrown in to make it appear slightly balanced. Hum, they call that journalism? Or a sensationalistic show for ratings?

I would dream of a reporter asking some of those very sympathetic "protesters" how do they define "DEMOCRACY" !

[Portlandstone]

Not taking any side, neither red or yellow, it's clear that those who argue the Western media is "so bad" are really saying they want certain political representation to be aired. Essentially they are calling for more political bias, not less. What they seem to admit is that the Western media doesn't intend to operate in their special political interests. Such people seem to be rather obviously cheering on "Al Jazeera" and just about calling for a boycott of cnn and bbc. Shouldn't we really be welcoming all forms of media, and actually calling for more stories like this to be aired, rather than dismissing most sources and only touting one of them as "legitimate". I should add that such complaining really does look terrible in the eyes of those in the West, that you cry or turn your nose up at any news source unless it meets your finely tuned political ideology.

Roykaenz, from what I understand, neither did Al Jazeera go through that ten page list of perspectives that you want aired, which by the way contains a lot more allegations, yet-to-be-proven accusations, and some downright questionable. For example, "the numerous bomb attacks that occur in 'numerous locations' across the city almost nightly" ?????????

The only reference on the BBC website I could find is here, but I didn't see any link to a video. http://tinyurl.com/25x5su6

[Portlandstone]

In addition to my comment above, would the same posters be willing to call out CNN type channels if say, that channel aired a one hour special about Muslims being oppressed in the US only days after a 9-11 bombing, or how about a "Gary and Tony ('husbands') get a surrogate baby" special that shows all the unfair challenges and prejudices from society and in the one hour only fields one comment from the opposition that takes up all but less than two minutes (actually not even that)? Or do you only call out CNN types if they don't present your Thaksin the Devil perspective? (Maybe he is, but is it CNNs responsibility to portray him that way?)

It looks to me that some of you are thinking the major media channels have a responsibility to air "regionally and cautionally sensitive" material and be a vehicle for certain ideas. I hope they never do. I like seeing the wide-eyed Western guy who just arrived last week trying to make sense of all the craziness, but in reality most of these reporters have been here on and off for years.

edit: added additional comment

Edited June 27, 2010 by Portlandstone

[jackdawson]

i like the part near the end where the "reporter" is still wearing a military helmut (and maybe flak) as he walks through the squatters empty "campground" (rajdamri) AFTER they have been routed and retreated back to the rice farms .

what a blowhard .

(gee, what a surprise)

[Theo007]

Wonder how much Taksin paid to get this report aired?

[rabo]

Not taking any side, neither red or yellow, it's clear that those who argue the Western media is "so bad" are really saying they want certain political representation to be aired. Essentially they are calling for more political bias, not less. What they seem to admit is that the Western media doesn't intend to operate in their special political interests. Such people seem to be rather obviously cheering on "Al Jazeera" and just about calling for a boycott of cnn and bbc. Shouldn't we really be welcoming all forms of media, and actually calling for more stories like this to be aired, rather than dismissing most sources and only touting one of them as "legitimate". I should add that such complaining really does look terrible in the eyes of those in the West, that you cry or turn your nose up at any news source unless it meets your finely tuned political ideology.

Roykaenz, from what I understand, neither did Al Jazeera go through that ten page list of perspectives that you want aired, which by the way contains a lot more allegations, yet-to-be-proven accusations, and some downright questionable. For example, "the numerous bomb attacks that occur in 'numerous locations' across the city almost nightly" ?????????

The only reference on the BBC website I could find is here, but I didn't see any link to a video. http://tinyurl.com/25x5su6

Your comments have no logical bearing and drip with denial of alternate views, the same thing you accuse other posters of. In one breath you dismiss those who disagree with the BBC and then call for more views. The majority of the posts in this thread so far have complained about the omission of factual information and events. How does a news agency report a story to its audience with out reporting the events that caused the story to unfold in the first place? No problem if the audience simply wants to be entertained, amused, or shocked, and the news agency just wants its ratings.

The deterioration of news agencies like CNN and even the BBC into sound bite infomercialtainment has been going on for 20 years and has little to do with Thailand, other than they are no longer able to report complex stories that are beyond their audiences or even their reporters' ability to grasp in the allotted time space.

You said that complaining about your favorite news reporting looks terrible in the eyes of those in the West. I certainly hope so. When someone grabs my shoulder and shakes me out of a pleasant daydream, I'm shocked too. You certainly have all the right to choose your own form of entertainment, but please do not come and complain about others who may not agree with the last episode of your favorite news soap.