Bbc Documentary: Red Rage

[Jai Dee]

Some off-topic and flame posts have been deleted from this thread.

[MikeyIdea]

Can anybody give any suggestions (apart from the obvious) why the recent court cases confiscating Thaksin's assets were completely side-stepped in this documentary?

It's not as if all journalists see it as an unrelated incident after all; the Bangkok Post had the entire protest under a special report on their website entitled something like "Thaksin's Asset Seizure: The Aftermath"

<snip> I watched the programme and there were several aspects supporting the Redshirt movement that just weren't mentioned by Alistair Leithead.So what? But it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism.I don't know why these people go off like a Catherine Wheel just because their particular perception isn't reinforced.

This post has been edited by Jai Dee: 12 minutes ago

Reason for edit: Flame deleted

I challenge your thinking in stating that "it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism" and "just because their particular perception isn't reinforced."

In my opinion, the picture put forward was totally distorted because it did not put forward that red shirt leaders openly had said that they would burn Bangkok already last year, it did not put forward that the red-shirt leader had encouraged people to burn Bangkok and it did not put forward that there are many witnesses saying that the reds were stock-piling accelerants in strategic positions around Central World long before they set fire to it

Simple question: Do you really consider that the picture put forward in the documentary was perfectly acceptable leaving the key information stated above out?

Simple question: Do you really consider that the the key information stated above can be classified as some people's particular perception of what happened?

[jayboy]

Can anybody give any suggestions (apart from the obvious) why the recent court cases confiscating Thaksin's assets were completely side-stepped in this documentary?

It's not as if all journalists see it as an unrelated incident after all; the Bangkok Post had the entire protest under a special report on their website entitled something like "Thaksin's Asset Seizure: The Aftermath"

<snip> I watched the programme and there were several aspects supporting the Redshirt movement that just weren't mentioned by Alistair Leithead.So what? But it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism.I don't know why these people go off like a Catherine Wheel just because their particular perception isn't reinforced.

This post has been edited by Jai Dee: 12 minutes ago

Reason for edit: Flame deleted

I challenge your thinking in stating that "it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism" and "just because their particular perception isn't reinforced."

In my opinion, the picture put forward was totally distorted because it did not put forward that red shirt leaders openly had said that they would burn Bangkok already last year, it did not put forward that the red-shirt leader had encouraged people to burn Bangkok and it did not put forward that there are many witnesses saying that the reds were stock-piling accelerants in strategic positions around Central World long before they set fire to it

Simple question: Do you really consider that the picture put forward in the documentary was perfectly acceptable leaving the key information stated above out?

Simple question: Do you really consider that the the key information stated above can be classified as some people's particular perception of what happened?

Yes to both questions.There was a great deal left out that would be sympathetic to the Red movement as well.Part of the problem is that some crawl around the mosaic like angry ants, completely failing to see the big picture.It's just a piece of journalism and Leithead is a competent reporter.Just suck it up or find some news source that feeds your own prejudices if that's what you prefer.

[thaihome]

Can anybody give any suggestions (apart from the obvious) why the recent court cases confiscating Thaksin's assets were completely side-stepped in this documentary?

It's not as if all journalists see it as an unrelated incident after all; the Bangkok Post had the entire protest under a special report on their website entitled something like "Thaksin's Asset Seizure: The Aftermath"

<snip> I watched the programme and there were several aspects supporting the Redshirt movement that just weren't mentioned by Alistair Leithead.So what? But it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism.I don't know why these people go off like a Catherine Wheel just because their particular perception isn't reinforced.

This post has been edited by Jai Dee: 12 minutes ago

Reason for edit: Flame deleted

I challenge your thinking in stating that "it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism" and "just because their particular perception isn't reinforced."

In my opinion, the picture put forward was totally distorted because it did not put forward that red shirt leaders openly had said that they would burn Bangkok already last year, it did not put forward that the red-shirt leader had encouraged people to burn Bangkok and it did not put forward that there are many witnesses saying that the reds were stock-piling accelerants in strategic positions around Central World long before they set fire to it

Simple question: Do you really consider that the picture put forward in the documentary was perfectly acceptable leaving the key information stated above out?

Simple question: Do you really consider that the the key information stated above can be classified as some people's particular perception of what happened?

Yes to both questions.There was a great deal left out that would be sympathetic to the Red movement as well.Part of the problem is that some crawl around the mosaic like angry ants, completely failing to see the big picture.It's just a piece of journalism and Leithead is a competent reporter.Just suck it up or find some news source that feeds your own prejudices if that's what you prefer.

So you think leaving out all the speeches leading up to the protest and during the protest that said they were going to burn Bangkok should have been left out since it might be considered sympathetic to the "yellows".

TH

[MikeyIdea]

Can anybody give any suggestions (apart from the obvious) why the recent court cases confiscating Thaksin's assets were completely side-stepped in this documentary?

It's not as if all journalists see it as an unrelated incident after all; the Bangkok Post had the entire protest under a special report on their website entitled something like "Thaksin's Asset Seizure: The Aftermath"

<snip> I watched the programme and there were several aspects supporting the Redshirt movement that just weren't mentioned by Alistair Leithead.So what? But it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism.I don't know why these people go off like a Catherine Wheel just because their particular perception isn't reinforced.

This post has been edited by Jai Dee: 12 minutes ago

Reason for edit: Flame deleted

I challenge your thinking in stating that "it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism" and "just because their particular perception isn't reinforced."

In my opinion, the picture put forward was totally distorted because it did not put forward that red shirt leaders openly had said that they would burn Bangkok already last year, it did not put forward that the red-shirt leader had encouraged people to burn Bangkok and it did not put forward that there are many witnesses saying that the reds were stock-piling accelerants in strategic positions around Central World long before they set fire to it

Simple question: Do you really consider that the picture put forward in the documentary was perfectly acceptable leaving the key information stated above out?

Simple question: Do you really consider that the the key information stated above can be classified as some people's particular perception of what happened?

Yes to both questions.There was a great deal left out that would be sympathetic to the Red movement as well.Part of the problem is that some crawl around the mosaic like angry ants, completely failing to see the big picture.It's just a piece of journalism and Leithead is a competent reporter.Just suck it up or find some news source that feeds your own prejudices if that's what you prefer.

Fine, if your opinion of a perfectable acceptable picture of how Bangkok came to burn does not include that red leaders said that they would burn Bangkok already last year and that they encouraged people to burn Bangkok, then that is your choice

Somewhat blurred picture perhaps?

Edited June 30, 2010 by MikeyIdea

[rabo]

Can anybody give any suggestions (apart from the obvious) why the recent court cases confiscating Thaksin's assets were completely side-stepped in this documentary?

It's not as if all journalists see it as an unrelated incident after all; the Bangkok Post had the entire protest under a special report on their website entitled something like "Thaksin's Asset Seizure: The Aftermath"

<snip> I watched the programme and there were several aspects supporting the Redshirt movement that just weren't mentioned by Alistair Leithead.So what? But it was a perfectly acceptable if unexciting piece of journalism.I don't know why these people go off like a Catherine Wheel just because their particular perception isn't reinforced.

Your level of acceptable journalism is well below mine, perhaps you have adapted to modern standards better than I. I do expect any attempt to piece together a story to be accurate, not just one particular perception over another. If they can't do that then I expect them to just report factual information and let reader's work from that.

The BBC report was slightly better than their previous reporting because they did attempt to piece together a story. However, aside from some additional facts that were not well tied in, it was still mostly their earlier Cinderella we just want democracy story, which is easily digestible by most Westerners but does not reflect what is happening in Thialand.

Edited June 30, 2010 by rabo

[yothai]

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.

well written

Edited July 2, 2010 by cdnvic
no need to quote two entire posts for a two word response

[psyclonB]

No actual reports from people in the field, and I am not talking about people posting rumours on the forum, reported any tanks and showed pictures of any. The tanks would have no use in the operation, only APCs was used.

And your defense that APCs can be called tank or that APC is hard for people to understand is clear back-tracking and pure nonsense.

Let's take the first definition here: http://www.google.co...l=&oq=&gs_rfai=

"an enclosed armored military vehicle; has a cannon and moves on caterpillar treads"

An APC does not full-fill this definition. And the goal is to use the correct terms, not to falsely use the incorrect ones. So I would appreciate if you would stop saying that tanks was used.

:violin:

Then tell that to 'insight', he spokes of tanks.

Many normal, non-military people make that mistake. And so did reporters, from Al Jazeera, The Time magazine, The Nation and The Sun and many others.

Just for example:

• Al Jazeera: ""The military has pulled well away, with the red shirts having won control of their vehicles, tanks and armoured personnel carriers."
• Time: "With army tanks, troops and police moving into their rally site, Thailand's antigovernment Red Shirt leaders called an end to their two-month-long occupation of Bangkok's main commercial district on Wednesday afternoon "
• Al Jazeera: "The Army flushed out opposition protesters from their base with the help of tanks and armored vehicles."
• The Nation: "Government troops, police tanks, armored vehicles are gathering at Silom, Saladaeng to prepare for possible crackdown to disperse protesters at Rajprasong intersection early Wednesday."
• THE SUN: with the headline " Thai tanks roll in for blitz on rebels"(I am surprised that nobody from the true believers had attacked The Sun yet)

It is not only CNN and BBC, if you follow The Nation, Al Jazeera and THE SUN you get it wrong. 'Insight' probably made that mistake.

You can put them on your list of - "i don't watch and listen to them anymore because they don't report the world as i wanted to see them."

Your problem is that you don't speak Thai and don't understand Thai and also don't follow the News.

In a similar discussion you started to argue that the soldiers in a video clip are not snipers. You and a couple of other Farangs didn't understand a single word what was said by the soldiers in the video and started the attempt to ridicule the video or those who said that where snipers.

Meanwhile CRES spokesman Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd used the same video on a press conference to explain the why the Thai army use snipers and what these snipers are doing.

Many news reporters, even the one who are not accused of pro-red bias yet got it wrong same as the govt got it wrong, only Farang at TVF know it better.

Last month I wrote my personal account how is it to stay near the 'live fire zone' on Praram 4, that got immediately dismissed by the fanatic anti-red Farangs at TVF. And you come up with stories by your 'red shirt gf'. That a new variation, other farangs try to gain credibility with quoting their 'Thai wife from good family' or their 'Thai maid'.

So I would appreciate if Farangs, who don't even speak Thai and make a lot of mistakes themselves would stop lecturing others.

Thank you :jap: .

Just wondering, how good is your understanding of the Thai language? Your profile doesn't give any indication of who or where you are.

Although I cant tell you where he is or what he is, I can assure you that he is someone with a Hungarian name. Typical guy released from the grim Hungarian reality into the wild who thinks he knows everything and is the best at it all. Being of hungarian origin myself, seeing this kind of behavior makes me very very sad.

[kissdani]

:violin:

Then tell that to 'insight', he spokes of tanks.

Many normal, non-military people make that mistake. And so did reporters, from Al Jazeera, The Time magazine, The Nation and The Sun and many others.

Just for example:

• Al Jazeera: ""The military has pulled well away, with the red shirts having won control of their vehicles, tanks and armoured personnel carriers."
• Time: "With army tanks, troops and police moving into their rally site, Thailand's antigovernment Red Shirt leaders called an end to their two-month-long occupation of Bangkok's main commercial district on Wednesday afternoon "
• Al Jazeera: "The Army flushed out opposition protesters from their base with the help of tanks and armored vehicles."
• The Nation: "Government troops, police tanks, armored vehicles are gathering at Silom, Saladaeng to prepare for possible crackdown to disperse protesters at Rajprasong intersection early Wednesday."
• THE SUN: with the headline " Thai tanks roll in for blitz on rebels"(I am surprised that nobody from the true believers had attacked The Sun yet)

It is not only CNN and BBC, if you follow The Nation, Al Jazeera and THE SUN you get it wrong. 'Insight' probably made that mistake.

You can put them on your list of - "i don't watch and listen to them anymore because they don't report the world as i wanted to see them."

Your problem is that you don't speak Thai and don't understand Thai and also don't follow the News.

In a similar discussion you started to argue that the soldiers in a video clip are not snipers. You and a couple of other Farangs didn't understand a single word what was said by the soldiers in the video and started the attempt to ridicule the video or those who said that where snipers.

Meanwhile CRES spokesman Col Sansern Kaewkamnerd used the same video on a press conference to explain the why the Thai army use snipers and what these snipers are doing.

Many news reporters, even the one who are not accused of pro-red bias yet got it wrong same as the govt got it wrong, only Farang at TVF know it better.

Last month I wrote my personal account how is it to stay near the 'live fire zone' on Praram 4, that got immediately dismissed by the fanatic anti-red Farangs at TVF. And you come up with stories by your 'red shirt gf'. That a new variation, other farangs try to gain credibility with quoting their 'Thai wife from good family' or their 'Thai maid'.

So I would appreciate if Farangs, who don't even speak Thai and make a lot of mistakes themselves would stop lecturing others.

Thank you :jap: .

Although I cant tell you where he is or what he is, I can assure you that he is someone with a Hungarian name. Typical guy released from the grim Hungarian reality into the wild who thinks he knows everything and is the best at it all. Being of hungarian origin myself, seeing this kind of behavior makes me very very sad.

Hungarian name??? I am not Hungarian. What makes you think that? Does kissdani have some special meaning in Hungarian?

Sorry if my post hurt somehow your feelings as Hungarian or as a person of Hungarian name, but do you think your choice of a user name represents the Hungarian people well in the internet.

And could you explain what does you actually make sad? Do Hungarians or people of Hungarian origin know more and better than everyone else in the world how to tell a tank from a AFV or APC and would never make the same mistake as journalists from The Nation, The Sun, Al Jazeera, Time magazine and many other people? Or what is your point?

[plachon]

One of the things about the documentary that didn't quite ring true, which although I'm sure was genuine enough footage, was the presentation of the average redshirt supporter being a poor rice farmer from Isaan, as exemplified by their couple from Udon. The hardcore Redshirt supporters I've witnessed tend to be more urbane and better off than the couple shown, in their small concrete house next the paddies. They tend to be people above the median income level in the village and a lot of the urban lower classes in cities like Udon and Khon Kaen, who while not well-off, usually have fairly steady incomes (often small traders and shop owners) far better than their village-dwelling cousins. Then their was the tomato police and a whole heap of dodgy karachagan, cheering on and goading from the sidelines, not to mention the slum-dwellers of Bangkok who again have much higher incomes than the poor-end Isaan rice farmer portrayed.

This was an over-simplification of the complex network of people and shady figures who made up the Redshirt movement, and was definitely intended to invoke sympathy from the viewer that these were ordinary poor farmers calling for democracy. Why not follow the lives of one of the taxi drivers or even better, a motorbike taxi driver from Klong Toey supporting the Reds, donning a mask, stick, catapult and firing off rockets towards the soldiers in attempt to provoke them into firing back and creating the incident that Thaksin and the Red leaders had tried so hard to create for so many months? These more typical Reds would have made more interesting viewing, as they collected their daily wage, bought their bottles of lao kao, got pissed up and headed to the barricades for another day of provocation and anarchy, occasionally passing out in a drunked stupor on the tyres of lifting up their two year old sons in the air in the process. How would that have changed the viewers' perceptions to the "Peaceful Protesters"?