Bbc Documentary: Red Rage

[jayboy]

BBC now off my watching list along with CNN.

Agree that aljazeera probably the most balanced.

Glad you appreciate Aljazeera.Did you enjoy its recent flagship programme on Thailand with Rageh Omar?

[kissdani]

Of course it is not fake, i was kidding.

The technique is called time-lapse.

D.W. Griffith may was promoting white supremacy what brings him close to the Nazis and Griffith did some movies, boring to watch nowadays. The grammar of the modern cinema was developed by Russians and Germans.

And time lapse photography of clouds in the sky was first featured by Arnold Fanck and became his director trademark. He did great films in the 20's, his Bergfilm (mountain film) had nothing to do with the Nazis, Leni was first only an actress and directed her own most famous ones a decade later. Politics beside, the way the cameras captured the images is still great to watch and influential and often copied until today.

Discussing 'time-lapse' you may stick to the topic rather than suggesting that D.W. Griffith 'may was promoting white supremacy'.

From Wikipedia:

"Griffith's film The Birth of a Nation made pioneering use of advanced camera and narrative techniques, and its immense popularity set the stage for the dominance of the feature-length film. However, it also proved extremely controversial at the time and ever since for its negative depiction of Black Americans and their supporters, and its positive portrayal of slavery and the Ku Klux Klan. Griffith responded to his critics with his next film, Intolerance, intended to show the dangers of prejudiced thought and behavior"

His files may be boring nowadays, but it's much more like 'dated'. Sometimes you wouldn't say so, but we've progressed at least a bit

You must watch an Arnold Fanck film, when he does that tricky thing with the clouds over the top of a mountain. It is impressive and powerful image. And then look at the BBC documentary at 6:25 , you will see exactly the same. This 100% a Arnold Fanck drama element. Maybe difficult to understand if you are not into film and have to look up Griffith at wikipedia.

The documentary used some other cinematography techniques, sometimes totally overdone. Look at 2:00 when they show Thaksin - pure kitsch. Camp. Or the music, that is also very trashy.

I am discussing the documentary when i pointed that out. The Farang USA thought he knows something better and dragged the debate off topic. Don't blame me.

[tombkk]

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"

Totally agree with the comment "Brought to you by the taksin propaganda machine", well said.

Can't agree at all that is was balanced. Examples:

- "There was some gossip that red attendees were paid". Very inaccurate given that there is well publicized video of numerous people getting their 'pay' after their name card copies had been checked, and given that numerous red shirt rank and file members have admitted that they got paid, and given that the food vendors in my Bangkok Soi have been bragging for months about attending daily for the salary.

- Can't agree that the gov't were interviewed several times in the piece, there were simple sound bites, but it did not in any way even begin to present a full overview of the gov't stand.

- Failed to mention the rallies by the 'anti-dissolution' pink shirts / multi coloured shirts which attracted I believe well over 100,000 people in one rally and failed to mention the 'anti-dissolution' twitter site which attracted from memory well over 200,000 sign ups.

- Mentioned that thaksin won two elections but failed to mention anything about well proven vote buying, etc.

- Mentioned that the reds consider that Abhisit is illegimimate, but failed to explain at all that Abhisit is in the PMs chair thought proper process as provided for in Thai election law, and failed to mention that samak and somchai took up the PMs chair through the same circumstances and application of the Thai electoral laws.

BBC now off my watching list along with CNN.

Agree that aljazeera probably the most balanced.

Well, people's opinions and views may differ. Let me quote the following from the report:

"The protesters clearly had armed supporters"

"They (the army, ed.) weren't the only ones doing the shooting. There were the militia..."

Red shirt supporter clad in black saying, "We are gonna take guns, we are ready"

"They (the protesters, ed.) had grenades too" ... "one of them hit a group of soldiers"

"Army shot at those trying to resist" (not indiscriminately at anybody that moved)

"A black shirt and a home-made bomb left behind, the militant disappeared"

Sean Boonpracong came to word, and so did Padithan. Neither of their comments were commented to be right or wrong.

The single purpose of my post is to say that the BBC report was as balanced as possible. Sure, many details were left out, but they had only 20 minutes of time. I cannot see how the report can be construed as being in favour of any side.

Over to you.

Edited June 27, 2010 by tombkk

[rubl]

Of course it is not fake, i was kidding.

The technique is called time-lapse.

D.W. Griffith may was promoting white supremacy what brings him close to the Nazis and Griffith did some movies, boring to watch nowadays. The grammar of the modern cinema was developed by Russians and Germans.

And time lapse photography of clouds in the sky was first featured by Arnold Fanck and became his director trademark. He did great films in the 20's, his Bergfilm (mountain film) had nothing to do with the Nazis, Leni was first only an actress and directed her own most famous ones a decade later. Politics beside, the way the cameras captured the images is still great to watch and influential and often copied until today.

Discussing 'time-lapse' you may stick to the topic rather than suggesting that D.W. Griffith 'may was promoting white supremacy'.

From Wikipedia:

"Griffith's film The Birth of a Nation made pioneering use of advanced camera and narrative techniques, and its immense popularity set the stage for the dominance of the feature-length film. However, it also proved extremely controversial at the time and ever since for its negative depiction of Black Americans and their supporters, and its positive portrayal of slavery and the Ku Klux Klan. Griffith responded to his critics with his next film, Intolerance, intended to show the dangers of prejudiced thought and behavior"

His files may be boring nowadays, but it's much more like 'dated'. Sometimes you wouldn't say so, but we've progressed at least a bit

You must watch an Arnold Fanck film, when he does that tricky thing with the clouds over the top of a mountain. It is impressive and powerful image. And then look at the BBC documentary at 6:25 , you will see exactly the same. This 100% a Arnold Fanck drama element. Maybe difficult to understand if you are not into film and have to look up Griffith at wikipedia.

The documentary used some other cinematography techniques, sometimes totally overdone. Look at 2:00 when they show Thaksin - pure kitsch. Camp. Or the music, that is also very trashy.

I am discussing the documentary when i pointed that out. The Farang USA thought he knows something better and dragged the debate off topic. Don't blame me.

You dragged NAZI into the discussion with your reply #54 "An old technique, pioneered by Dr. Arnold Fanck, the man who brought Leni Riefenstahl to the film and was most influential on her work. No surprise to see old nazi propaganda style to be copied in a BBC documentary on the red shirts." I don't BLAME you, just point it out. Hope you have no problem with the truth ?

Also going on about cinematography, by the way suggesting I know nothing about it so have to look it up in wikipedia AND ending with 'don't blame me' doesn't seems real logical. Maybe not necessarily in order to post on this forum

Edited June 27, 2010 by rubl

[kissdani]

Rubl, why don't move back to the topic? Irony seems to complicated for you, maybe partly my fault. Farangs take everything word-for-word.

Better watch how they show Thaksin at 2:00. I am surprised that nobody finds that objectionable.

[rubl]

Rubl, why don't move back to the topic? Irony seems to complicated for you, maybe partly my fault. Farangs take everything word-for-word.

Better watch how they show Thaksin at 2:00. I am surprised that nobody finds that objectionable.

My dear chap, your remarks are far from ironic, not even sarcastic. The only good part is the suggestion to move back to topic.

who will show K. Thaksin and why should that be objectable? I may not like what he says, but so be it.

By the way, I asked before who and where are you complaining about farang. Your profile doesn't show much.

Edited June 27, 2010 by rubl

[coolhandjoe]

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

google search BBC i player

[cdnvic]

One post that was unnecessarily combative and trollish removed.

[craigt3365]

For such a short documentary, I thought they did a good job. Sure, a lot was left out...but given the length, they did a decent job. Was this done to help with all the criticism they have gotten recently? Or did it just stoke the fire more?

[MikeyIdea]

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.

Of course I do, that's why I say that the burning of Bangkok was carried out according to plan by red-shirt terrorists

Edited June 28, 2010 by MikeyIdea

[ThaksinKharma]

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

APC sounds scary, belligerent, a word straight from the vocabulary of combatants, militarists, war veterans, soldiers.

Soldiers are murderers.

When the military (US or major allied nations) mistakes journalists for civilians and shoot them dead, we should be indulgently when civilians and journalists mistake APC for a tanks.

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.

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.

Thank you for setting the record straight. If journalists use the incorrect terminology, it's beneficial to keeping things as factual as possible with the proper word/phrase.

Any advance in language is dependent upon updating the knowledge base of its listeners.

As a side, I'm struggling with the previous poster's comment:

"Soldiers are murderers"

That would indicate that within just 15 countries, there are 48.1 million murderers.

Nevermind the millions and millions in the other 185 or so.

[Rucharee]

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

APC sounds scary, belligerent, a word straight from the vocabulary of combatants, militarists, war veterans, soldiers.

Soldiers are murderers.

When the military (US or major allied nations) mistakes journalists for civilians and shoot them dead, we should be indulgently when civilians and journalists mistake APC for a tanks.

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.

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.

Thank you for setting the record straight. If journalists use the incorrect terminology, it's beneficial to keeping things as factual as possible with the proper word/phrase.

Any advance in language is dependent upon updating the knowledge base of its listeners.

As a side, I'm struggling with the previous poster's comment:

"Soldiers are murderers"

That would indicate that within just 15 countries, there are 48.1 million murderers.

Nevermind the millions and millions in the other 185 or so.

If it can hold water, it is a tank.

[jayjay0]

1. Sacking an outspoken maverick General (OB)

2. Leadership ballot to replace a gutless leader (Rudd)

3, Apologising for Northern Ireland's Bloody Sunday (CMD)

Just three recent examples from mature democracies!

Sod all to do with this topic! I know!.

More power to the Beeb, those feisty women journo's they employ (World service) are worth the licence fee alone ha ha.

PS: CMD is the UK's HM Forces topical nickname for the old Etonian new PM - have fun working it out.

Apologising for Northern Ireland's Bloody Sunday? After 38 years the UK Government gives a half-arsed apology and this is evidence of a mature democracy? Hmm...

It only took Japan about 65 years to apologize for the rape of Korea. More evidence of a mature democracy I guess.

It would appear that the red shirt idea of democracy is the right to vote for who ever pays the most and if they don't win try to burn down Bangkok

[hammered]

Seem to have missed out a few events that were critical to what happened, but what do you expect from the world infotainment.

[jayjay0]

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

It's on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1GigNLd9Tw

Thanks for the video. My take on it was it was slightly biased in favor of the red shirts. The audio seemed fair but the video was definatly pro red shirt. Over all it lacked any information on the real cause of the insurection. It neglected to mention that the protestors seeking democracy voted for who ever paid the most. It neglected to show where all the values they suposadly were representing they themselves were violating in there treatment of the people in Bangkok. In general typical western idea of news shock rather than fact.

[ThaksinKharma]

APC sounds scary, belligerent, a word straight from the vocabulary of combatants, militarists, war veterans, soldiers.

Soldiers are murderers.

When the military (US or major allied nations) mistakes journalists for civilians and shoot them dead, we should be indulgently when civilians and journalists mistake APC for a tanks.

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.

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.

Thank you for setting the record straight. If journalists use the incorrect terminology, it's beneficial to keeping things as factual as possible with the proper word/phrase.

Any advance in language is dependent upon updating the knowledge base of its listeners.

As a side, I'm struggling with the previous poster's comment:

"Soldiers are murderers"

That would indicate that within just 15 countries, there are 48.1 million murderers.

Nevermind the millions and millions in the other 185 or so.

If it can hold water, it is a tank.

As said previously,

Any advance in language is dependent upon updating the knowledge base of its listeners.

[MikeyIdea]

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"

Totally agree with the comment "Brought to you by the taksin propaganda machine", well said.

Can't agree at all that is was balanced. Examples:

- "There was some gossip that red attendees were paid". Very inaccurate given that there is well publicized video of numerous people getting their 'pay' after their name card copies had been checked, and given that numerous red shirt rank and file members have admitted that they got paid, and given that the food vendors in my Bangkok Soi have been bragging for months about attending daily for the salary.

- Can't agree that the gov't were interviewed several times in the piece, there were simple sound bites, but it did not in any way even begin to present a full overview of the gov't stand.

- Failed to mention the rallies by the 'anti-dissolution' pink shirts / multi coloured shirts which attracted I believe well over 100,000 people in one rally and failed to mention the 'anti-dissolution' twitter site which attracted from memory well over 200,000 sign ups.

- Mentioned that thaksin won two elections but failed to mention anything about well proven vote buying, etc.

- Mentioned that the reds consider that Abhisit is illegimimate, but failed to explain at all that Abhisit is in the PMs chair thought proper process as provided for in Thai election law, and failed to mention that samak and somchai took up the PMs chair through the same circumstances and application of the Thai electoral laws.

BBC now off my watching list along with CNN.

Agree that aljazeera probably the most balanced.

Well, people's opinions and views may differ. Let me quote the following from the report:

"The protesters clearly had armed supporters"

"They (the army, ed.) weren't the only ones doing the shooting. There were the militia..."

Red shirt supporter clad in black saying, "We are gonna take guns, we are ready"

"They (the protesters, ed.) had grenades too" ... "one of them hit a group of soldiers"

"Army shot at those trying to resist" (not indiscriminately at anybody that moved)

"A black shirt and a home-made bomb left behind, the militant disappeared"

Sean Boonpracong came to word, and so did Padithan. Neither of their comments were commented to be right or wrong.

The single purpose of my post is to say that the BBC report was as balanced as possible. Sure, many details were left out, but they had only 20 minutes of time. I cannot see how the report can be construed as being in favour of any side.

Over to you.

Do you think that the report should have included that the red shirt leaders openly talked about burning Bangkok since last year?

Do you think that the report should have included that numerous witnesses have stated that the reds were stock-piling accelerants in strategic positions around Central World long before they set fire to it?

[Samuian]

who sacked the editor?

[MikeyIdea]

who sacked the editor?

He's getting promoted for providing BBC viewers easy-to-understand material that they want to hear. Nothing better to make viewers come back than providing them with what they want to hear...

I't all about money, BBC's newest slogan - "Putting News Last"

[MikeyIdea]

The doc is OK. There is nothing new at all in it though for people who followed the events closely. You may refer people who don't have a clue about it for some basic, superficial background.

Sorry but I don't understand you. Did you say that the doc (documentary) was OK?

Did we see a red-shirt spokesman talking about the unfortunate and perhaps unavoidable ending? Yes we did. Did perhaps the interviewer ask him why red shirt leaders openly had said that they would burn Bangkok already last year? Did the interviewer ask him why the red-shirt leader had encouraged people to burn Bangkok? Did the interviewer ask him why there are so many witnesses saying that the reds were stock-piling accelerants in strategic positions around Central World long before they set fire to it? No.

In My Opinion, that distorts the picture totally and makes the documentary the kind of shallow coverage that makes you laugh out loud if you come to think of the slogan "Putting News First"

Edited June 28, 2010 by MikeyIdea

[scorecard]

Haven't seen the documentary but there are three critical points that no reporter has mentioned here;

1. Thailand averted a situation where the govt was forced out by a mob

2. The king didn't get involved

3. There was no coup

All three of those means Thailand democracy survived a pretty important test, for which we will be thankful for in the future.

Nice points, valuable points. I agree with you.

[Insight]

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"

[Splatter]

"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?"

Hmmm. I'm not sure Alistair did the job as described above.

[TAWP]

What was the answer? Did he supply any?

[kissdani]

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

Did they show any?

[Rucharee]

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

Did they show any?

Was there any 'peaceful' speeches made from the stages?

Please don't mix up the Red and the Yellow demonstrations.

[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.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Jai Dee
Flame deleted

[Insight]

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.

In the minds of many of us (on varying academic levels) if the court ruled in favour of Thaksin we wouldn't be having this "conversation" right now. Yes - months, if not years, went into the planning of this rally, but the fact remains that many of us see the court verdict has a "green light" for it to go ahead. Do you not?

Perhaps it's time for me to now demand you "grow up", or at least find time to insert a space between each sentence. Not like you're trying to hide anything now, is it?

/edit - it's seriously hard to believe you don't consider the accused funder of these rallies having 1bn USD confiscated from him a significant event.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Jai Dee
Quoted flame deleted

[SomTumTiger]

Was there any 'peaceful' speeches made from the stages?

Please don't mix up the Red and the Yellow demonstrations.

Red and Yellow are both seriously flawed. Both should crawl away and die, for the sake of the country. If you want to fight - VOTE. Funny that the Yellow candidates seem afraid of an election. The Red leader is about to get reamed in the upcoming election - that should be good sport to watch.

[MikeyIdea]

Was there any 'peaceful' speeches made from the stages?

Please don't mix up the Red and the Yellow demonstrations.

Red and Yellow are both seriously flawed. Both should crawl away and die, for the sake of the country. If you want to fight - VOTE. Funny that the Yellow candidates seem afraid of an election. The Red leader is about to get reamed in the upcoming election - that should be good sport to watch.

In democracies, you wait for your turn, not burn capital cities in order to get elections quicker. Election will be held before end of next year, as democratically planned

Or do you?