Shawn W Crispin Wouldn't Live Anywhere Else But Thailand

[webfact]

HEADLINE MAKER

Free enough to be a 'social menace'

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation on Sunday

He cuts a controversial figure here but Shawn W Crispin, Southeast Asian representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists wouldn't live anywhere else but Thailand

In Thailand, even one of the most important advocates of press freedom and protection for journalists can find himself in an uneasy situation with the authorities.

Like all foreigners, Shawn W Crispin, an American journalist and the Southeast Asia representative for the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has to go through the annual work visa renewal process. That's when he discovered he's on the "fourth-level secret list", though he's not sure what that means.

A document Crispin copied from the Immigration Office also states (in Thai) that he is a "social danger".

His status changed some eight years ago when he wrote a controversial article about Thaksin Shinawatra and His Royal Highness the Crown Prince for the Far Eastern Economic Review, where he then employed. The American was nearly deported but after having his fingerprints taken and documented, there was an intervention from what Crispin took to be "from above".

Nevertheless, for the last eight years, his official status as a "danger to society" has remained "under review".

It doesn't matter that Thaksin is no longer in power because Crispin believes "the steady harassment" is there.

"This harassment of the press is extending through successive governments," he says.

To prove his point, the soft-spoken Crispin produces a tape recorder and plays what he says is an immigration officer warning him just a week prior to our conversation during his annual visa process. "You must be careful. Have you written something to affect something?" the voice tells him and his American wife.

Those cautionary words did not stop Crispin from producing a CPJ report on the lack of progress in the investigations over the two deaths of foreign journalists and the injuries incurred by foreign and Thai journalists during the red-shirt protests in April and May and subsequent crackdowns. He's been critical of both the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration and the red-shirt leadership.

"The most surprising part of the findings has been the government response to outside investigators," says the 41-year-old native of Kettering, Ohio, adding that there exist examples of "official obstructions" in the independent investigation of Reuters' Japanese cameraman Hiro Muramoto, who was killed on April 10. A request for access to a soldier, a vital witness in the shooting, was denied by the government and CCTV footage that could reveal the killer was also withheld by the authorities.

Five questions submitted by CPJ to the Thai government, including one that asks: "Is it still the government's line that soldiers only fired in self-defence?" were never answered.

"The government is no longer willing to entertain these questions.

"Perhaps we're getting closer to the bone," he says, adding that he detects an "early sign of official cover-ups"

But Crispin feels that the red-shirts were not helpful, either. "The reds actually provided us with misinformation," he says, adding that red shirts tried to mislead one injured Canadian journalist into suing the government even though it is very clear that his injuries did not come at the hand of a soldier.

So will people ever learn the truth?

"Not in this political environment. Not until we're in a genuine mood for reconciliation. Both sides have too much to lose from the truth."

Crispin, who first arrived in Thailand in 1993 at the age of 23, is also concerns that the country's strict lese majeste law is preventing journalists, especially Thai journalists, from "telling the full story here".

"Let's face it, if you're a Thai national and you speak up strongly against lese majeste law, you face potential prison."

He is also pessimistic because Thai press freedom has been on a downward slope for almost a decade now, and considers the recent censorship and proposed new regulations in the name of reform as a plan to close down that space further.

If these are not enough to make him controversial, consider the fact that he works as Southeast Asia editor for Asia Times Online, an internet-based English-language news website owned by yellow-shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul.

Crispin firmly insists that he is "completely insulated from [sondhi's] political activity." because Sondhi sees the website as "an international trophy."

A graduate in Southeast Asian Studies and International Economics from John Hopkins University, some have wondered whether the journalist is a CIA agent.

"Guaranteed I am not!" is Crispin's quick retort. He claims, however, that he might have a clue as to who two of the CIA agents in Thailand may be. "I think I know who they are," he says, adding that one probably masqueraded as a journalist in the past.

But Crispin may still fit the bill. Despite the immigration hassles, he says Thailand has been a land of opportunity for him and that he has everything intention of living out his days here along with his wife and two young boys.

-- The Nation 2010-08-08

[jackdawson]

the red-shirts were not helpful

least he's right about (at least) one thing

[RedNIvar]

the red-shirts were not helpful

least he's right about (at least) one thing

he works as Southeast Asia editor for Asia Times Online, an internet-based English-language news website owned by yellow-shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul.

Expect anything different. His year end review and increment depends would be at risk otherwise.

[jayjay0]

["So will people ever learn the truth?"]

Well if they do it won't be from the press unless it sells newspapers.

Actually most every one knows the truth. The reporters were in a combat zone and for some reason thought they were different than every one else there only to find out they weren't.

SIMPLE

[trogers]

Should based himself and family in Singapore, the most developed and press free country in the region.

[Foggy Bottom]

Should based himself and family in Singapore, the most developed and press free country in the region.

Are you saying there's no press in Singapore?

Or did you mean "the most free-press country in the region"?

[trogers]

Should based himself and family in Singapore, the most developed and press free country in the region.

Are you saying there's no press in Singapore?

Or did you mean "the most free-press country in the region"?

All public media is owned and controlled by the govt. You can assume there is no press in Singapore, only PR media.

Working on this premise, you need only to work on free press in neighboring countries.

Edited August 8, 2010 by trogers

[LikeHeat]

When the Government has consistently stated that the military and police were firing in self defence and according to accepted international procedures they do not really have to answer every repeat asking if was really so. For a reporter to take no response to a stupid question as confirmation the Government had been lying, is well, just like the question .... stupid.

You are as you do, thus to ignore what the Government has said, and continually ask the same questions, you are in fact ignorant. The fact you are a journalist makes it even worse. In the search for the truth you have decided to try and shape the truth by only asking certain leading questions that support your desired outcome.

[dru2]

the red-shirts were not helpful

least he's right about (at least) one thing

he works as Southeast Asia editor for Asia Times Online, an internet-based English-language news website owned by yellow-shirt leader Sondhi Limthongkul.

Expect anything different. His year end review and increment depends would be at risk otherwise.

Shawn Crispin is as fearless, unbiased and well informed as any correspondent in Thailand. Try reading his work on a regular basis and you may, perhaps, just learn something.

[zthyadat]

["So will people ever learn the truth?"]

Well if they do it won't be from the press unless it sells newspapers.

Actually most every one knows the truth. The reporters were in a combat zone and for some reason thought they were different than every one else there only to find out they weren't.

SIMPLE

That is more than a bit simplistic. "The truth" would involve important such facts as who actually shot the journalist in question, and whether he was hit by a stray bullet or deliberately targeted. Journos in a combat zone are pretty aware that they are in danger, and there is nothing "different from everyone else" in expecting that accredited members of the media won't actually be targeted deliberately. Otherwise, either side could just pick them off at will and say afterwards "Well, they was in a combat zone and they wasn't special or nothin' - so goddamn what?! You mean you expect an investigation? They shouldn't-a been there in the first place!"

I find it sad that you demonstrate such contempt for the journalists, as if the ones who were hurt or killed somehow deserved what they got, and as if it was some sort of just punishment for thinking they were special. These are the people who are trying to bring you information on what is actually going on out there - so you don;t have to risk your nuts yourself. But perhaps more importantly than bringing you the news, is the fact that if the media were not present (and risking their lives) at conflicts bearing witness to events, the combatants would be free to do whatever they wanted and commit any war crimes that they felt like, because there would be no credible witnesses to tell the tales of their savagery. In all conflicts it is crucial that the combatants realise that the whole world is watching.

[philw]

["So will people ever learn the truth?"]

Well if they do it won't be from the press unless it sells newspapers.

Actually most every one knows the truth. The reporters were in a combat zone and for some reason thought they were different than every one else there only to find out they weren't.

SIMPLE

That is more than a bit simplistic. "The truth" would involve important such facts as who actually shot the journalist in question, and whether he was hit by a stray bullet or deliberately targeted. Journos in a combat zone are pretty aware that they are in danger, and there is nothing "different from everyone else" in expecting that accredited members of the media won't actually be targeted deliberately. Otherwise, either side could just pick them off at will and say afterwards "Well, they was in a combat zone and they wasn't special or nothin' - so goddamn what?! You mean you expect an investigation? They shouldn't-a been there in the first place!"

I find it sad that you demonstrate such contempt for the journalists, as if the ones who were hurt or killed somehow deserved what they got, and as if it was some sort of just punishment for thinking they were special. These are the people who are trying to bring you information on what is actually going on out there - so you don;t have to risk your nuts yourself. But perhaps more importantly than bringing you the news, is the fact that if the media were not present (and risking their lives) at conflicts bearing witness to events, the combatants would be free to do whatever they wanted and commit any war crimes that they felt like, because there would be no credible witnesses to tell the tales of their savagery. In all conflicts it is crucial that the combatants realise that the whole world is watching.

Absolutely right and well spoken.

The opinions expressed to the effect that it almost "serves them right that they got shot" are repugnant.

The cover up has happened, there will be no accountability and it is Thailand's moral loss in the long term.

[moe666]

As we can see the many fearless keyboard jockeys of Thaivisa are out in force, never let prejudice of some people and occupations get in the way of a dunb post.

I would think that the man is on a government watch list and appears to face yearly scrunity from immigration lends him some crediablity in his job as a journalist. He must be tweaking a few noses.

[surayu]

What journalists needs these days are cameras able to upload on the www whatever they immortalate in real time, in this way even if someone makes "disappear" their equipment, the important stuff can still be retrieved, the camera and mobile phone of the other journalist being killed (the italian) is "missing" as well.....

[jayjay0]

["So will people ever learn the truth?"]

Well if they do it won't be from the press unless it sells newspapers.

Actually most every one knows the truth. The reporters were in a combat zone and for some reason thought they were different than every one else there only to find out they weren't.

SIMPLE

That is more than a bit simplistic. "The truth" would involve important such facts as who actually shot the journalist in question, and whether he was hit by a stray bullet or deliberately targeted. Journos in a combat zone are pretty aware that they are in danger, and there is nothing "different from everyone else" in expecting that accredited members of the media won't actually be targeted deliberately. Otherwise, either side could just pick them off at will and say afterwards "Well, they was in a combat zone and they wasn't special or nothin' - so goddamn what?! You mean you expect an investigation? They shouldn't-a been there in the first place!"

I find it sad that you demonstrate such contempt for the journalists, as if the ones who were hurt or killed somehow deserved what they got, and as if it was some sort of just punishment for thinking they were special. These are the people who are trying to bring you information on what is actually going on out there - so you don;t have to risk your nuts yourself. But perhaps more importantly than bringing you the news, is the fact that if the media were not present (and risking their lives) at conflicts bearing witness to events, the combatants would be free to do whatever they wanted and commit any war crimes that they felt like, because there would be no credible witnesses to tell the tales of their savagery. In all conflicts it is crucial that the combatants realise that the whole world is watching.

Well what you say is true in some situations. Tell me what did they gain by getting in the line of fire that they couldn't have gotten standing of to one side.

I would not go so far as to call it contempt. But the day of a journalist giving the facts with out bending them to his way of thinking or omitting ones that don't agree with him are gone. 95% of the articles I read leave me with questions makes no difference witch side they are on. A red shirt will write a article about thaksin that is true in every way make him look good. a yellow shirt will write a article about Thaksin that is true. Make him look like the devil incarnate. Unfortunately that kind of journalism sells papers So that is what a journalist writes. If you think people are holding you in Contempt maybe you might want to look at why? Of course that wont sell news papers so it wont happen.

In closing yes there are some honest ones out there.

[march]

Who is Shawn Crispin?

In this video, longtime Asia correspondent Shawn Crispin introduces himself and describes his career. Formerly with the Far Eastern Economic Review and The Wall Street Journal, Crispin is now Southeast Asia Editor of Asia Times Online:

http://www.thomascrampton.com/people/shawn-crispin/

==================

I don't always agree with him, but given his experience and accesses, it'd be foolish to disregard this intelligent and knowledgeable journalist and I always enjoy his articles.

[LikeHeat]

["So will people ever learn the truth?"]

Well if they do it won't be from the press unless it sells newspapers.

Actually most every one knows the truth. The reporters were in a combat zone and for some reason thought they were different than every one else there only to find out they weren't.

SIMPLE

That is more than a bit simplistic. "The truth" would involve important such facts as who actually shot the journalist in question, and whether he was hit by a stray bullet or deliberately targeted. Journos in a combat zone are pretty aware that they are in danger, and there is nothing "different from everyone else" in expecting that accredited members of the media won't actually be targeted deliberately. Otherwise, either side could just pick them off at will and say afterwards "Well, they was in a combat zone and they wasn't special or nothin' - so goddamn what?! You mean you expect an investigation? They shouldn't-a been there in the first place!"

I find it sad that you demonstrate such contempt for the journalists, as if the ones who were hurt or killed somehow deserved what they got, and as if it was some sort of just punishment for thinking they were special. These are the people who are trying to bring you information on what is actually going on out there - so you don;t have to risk your nuts yourself. But perhaps more importantly than bringing you the news, is the fact that if the media were not present (and risking their lives) at conflicts bearing witness to events, the combatants would be free to do whatever they wanted and commit any war crimes that they felt like, because there would be no credible witnesses to tell the tales of their savagery. In all conflicts it is crucial that the combatants realise that the whole world is watching.

Well what you say is true in some situations. Tell me what did they gain by getting in the line of fire that they couldn't have gotten standing of to one side.

I would not go so far as to call it contempt. But the day of a journalist giving the facts with out bending them to his way of thinking or omitting ones that don't agree with him are gone. 95% of the articles I read leave me with questions makes no difference witch side they are on. A red shirt will write a article about thaksin that is true in every way make him look good. a yellow shirt will write a article about Thaksin that is true. Make him look like the devil incarnate. Unfortunately that kind of journalism sells papers So that is what a journalist writes. If you think people are holding you in Contempt maybe you might want to look at why? Of course that wont sell news papers so it wont happen.

In closing yes there are some honest ones out there.

Absolutely right about getting in the line of fire. When they do that they lose the ability to observe both sides and only report on the activities of the side in the direction they are looking at. Also a bird's eye view would give a better vantage point to report on the activities of both sides. That would be news reporting like it should be. One sided reports are simply propaganda.

I hope someone will try balanced reporting. If people only read what "their side" has reported it tends to make them easy to manipulate. As an aside, I find it always helps to see what Al Jazeera has to say compared to the US Networks and especially the BBC. It is amazing what some of the networks will "fail" to report and also it is an eye opener to see that many of the networks simply repeat what other organizations have published, sort of like the radios DJ's who read you the news from the morning paper. It does not make them a reporter, merely a news reader, and if you get your information that way, you had better hope they used a good news source.

[hammered]

There are few western journos who understand Thailand as well as Crispin. People may not like or agree with what he writes but in terms of understanding he far surpasses any of the local beat rotated in and out of Thailand while on their career ladder

Of course all journalism is propaganda and so it is right to be cautious in believing what any journo writes but generally those better informed and understanding have the goods somewhere in what they write even if it is half hidden, coded or even accidently let out. Other lesser infromed ones are well just like the not the nation portrayed them as parachuted in.

There are a lot of myths about journalists that have been reinforced over the years by hollywood etc

[jayboy]

There are few western journos who understand Thailand as well as Crispin. People may not like or agree with what he writes but in terms of understanding he far surpasses any of the local beat rotated in and out of Thailand while on their career ladder

Of course all journalism is propaganda and so it is right to be cautious in believing what any journo writes but generally those better informed and understanding have the goods somewhere in what they write even if it is half hidden, coded or even accidently let out. Other lesser infromed ones are well just like the not the nation portrayed them as parachuted in.

There are a lot of myths about journalists that have been reinforced over the years by hollywood etc

Fully agree your views on Crispin.Having said that there's no law of nature which rules that a journalist "parachuted in" is going to have less interesting or relevant insights.Indeed sometimes it takes an outsider to identify issues that are important.My concern about resident journos and stringers (and I exclude people from Reuters,CNN, BBC etc who are only here for a few years) is that they tend to be unduly influenced by the seductive nature and charm of this country.In practice this means that visas and resident status becomes very important (usually but not exclusively because of family ties), and the prospect of offending the authorities becomes difficult to contemplate.This doesn't necessarily make for robust and healthy journalism.I have no idea whether this is an issue for Crispin, and indeed all the evidence is that he is admirably independent minded.

[hammered]

There are few western journos who understand Thailand as well as Crispin. People may not like or agree with what he writes but in terms of understanding he far surpasses any of the local beat rotated in and out of Thailand while on their career ladder

Of course all journalism is propaganda and so it is right to be cautious in believing what any journo writes but generally those better informed and understanding have the goods somewhere in what they write even if it is half hidden, coded or even accidently let out. Other lesser infromed ones are well just like the not the nation portrayed them as parachuted in.

There are a lot of myths about journalists that have been reinforced over the years by hollywood etc

Fully agree your views on Crispin.Having said that there's no law of nature which rules that a journalist "parachuted in" is going to have less interesting or relevant insights.Indeed sometimes it takes an outsider to identify issues that are important.My concern about resident journos and stringers (and I exclude people from Reuters,CNN, BBC etc who are only here for a few years) is that they tend to be unduly influenced by the seductive nature and charm of this country.In practice this means that visas and resident status becomes very important (usually but not exclusively because of family ties), and the prospect of offending the authorities becomes difficult to contemplate.This doesn't necessarily make for robust and healthy journalism.I have no idea whether this is an issue for Crispin, and indeed all the evidence is that he is admirably independent minded.

I tend to approach it with the view that all journalists and their organs are propaganda apparatus;) Independent healthy journalism imho is long dead, if indeed it ever existed outside of a Hollywood film set. That isnt to say journos dont soemtimes publish the truth, or let it out by mistake. The difficult part is seperating the wheat form the chaff and that usually just comes down to our own bias. What I like (my own bias coming out here) about Crispin is that he does have contacts on all sides that others writing in English dont have and at times interesting snippets do come out via him that otherwise can only be found in Thai, and apart from the obvious headaches associated with analysing Thai journalism a lot forget that Asian philosophy is very different from western philosophy being more spiral than linear and this is reflected in rhetorical approach which creates its own problems in seeing what is really being said.

All in my humble and media untrusting opinion of course

[Dakhar]

"Do u work for the CIA" Nahh.... the US does waste a lot of money, but at this point in time has yet to go that far

[mazeltov]

["So will people ever learn the truth?"]

Well if they do it won't be from the press unless it sells newspapers.

Actually most every one knows the truth. The reporters were in a combat zone and for some reason thought they were different than every one else there only to find out they weren't.

SIMPLE

That is more than a bit simplistic. "The truth" would involve important such facts as who actually shot the journalist in question, and whether he was hit by a stray bullet or deliberately targeted. Journos in a combat zone are pretty aware that they are in danger, and there is nothing "different from everyone else" in expecting that accredited members of the media won't actually be targeted deliberately. Otherwise, either side could just pick them off at will and say afterwards "Well, they was in a combat zone and they wasn't special or nothin' - so goddamn what?! You mean you expect an investigation? They shouldn't-a been there in the first place!"

I find it sad that you demonstrate such contempt for the journalists, as if the ones who were hurt or killed somehow deserved what they got, and as if it was some sort of just punishment for thinking they were special. These are the people who are trying to bring you information on what is actually going on out there - so you don;t have to risk your nuts yourself. But perhaps more importantly than bringing you the news, is the fact that if the media were not present (and risking their lives) at conflicts bearing witness to events, the combatants would be free to do whatever they wanted and commit any war crimes that they felt like, because there would be no credible witnesses to tell the tales of their savagery. In all conflicts it is crucial that the combatants realise that the whole world is watching.

second that.

looks like some people start to dislike journalist when they don't deliver the SIMPLE story every one knows.

[mazeltov]

There are few western journos who understand Thailand as well as Crispin. People may not like or agree with what he writes but in terms of understanding he far surpasses any of the local beat rotated in and out of Thailand while on their career ladder

Of course all journalism is propaganda and so it is right to be cautious in believing what any journo writes but generally those better informed and understanding have the goods somewhere in what they write even if it is half hidden, coded or even accidently let out. Other lesser infromed ones are well just like the not the nation portrayed them as parachuted in.

There are a lot of myths about journalists that have been reinforced over the years by hollywood etc

Fully agree your views on Crispin.Having said that there's no law of nature which rules that a journalist "parachuted in" is going to have less interesting or relevant insights.Indeed sometimes it takes an outsider to identify issues that are important.My concern about resident journos and stringers (and I exclude people from Reuters,CNN, BBC etc who are only here for a few years) is that they tend to be unduly influenced by the seductive nature and charm of this country.In practice this means that visas and resident status becomes very important (usually but not exclusively because of family ties), and the prospect of offending the authorities becomes difficult to contemplate.This doesn't necessarily make for robust and healthy journalism.I have no idea whether this is an issue for Crispin, and indeed all the evidence is that he is admirably independent minded.

I tend to approach it with the view that all journalists and their organs are propaganda apparatus;) Independent healthy journalism imho is long dead, if indeed it ever existed outside of a Hollywood film set. That isnt to say journos dont soemtimes publish the truth, or let it out by mistake. The difficult part is seperating the wheat form the chaff and that usually just comes down to our own bias. What I like (my own bias coming out here) about Crispin is that he does have contacts on all sides that others writing in English dont have and at times interesting snippets do come out via him that otherwise can only be found in Thai, and apart from the obvious headaches associated with analysing Thai journalism a lot forget that Asian philosophy is very different from western philosophy being more spiral than linear and this is reflected in rhetorical approach which creates its own problems in seeing what is really being said.

All in my humble and media untrusting opinion of course

Asian philosophy vs. Western philosophy ... what you mean, (beside that it is obvious that there are a lot of differences)? Crispin the Richard Gere of foreign journalism in Asia? 5555. sometimes that 'philosophy' Esoterism is still Western US-american bias.

Nah, Crispin doesn't go to much local. He hangs around with other foreign observers and in the diplomatic circles, mostly the American-English speaking (native) ones bemoan their own loss of influence and the Chinese takeover.

Anyway, what you think of Crispin latest writings? Turns out that he isn't a fan of Abhisits rule by decree. He doesn't show much empathy and appreciation for the current 'Thai way how things are done in politics'. So you could say he has a clearly Western (liberal) approach here. Some board member, the usual suspects, would immediately reply with some "you red shirt" comments if you would post here a few lines from Crispin.

[rubl]

There are few western journos who understand Thailand as well as Crispin. People may not like or agree with what he writes but in terms of understanding he far surpasses any of the local beat rotated in and out of Thailand while on their career ladder

Of course all journalism is propaganda and so it is right to be cautious in believing what any journo writes but generally those better informed and understanding have the goods somewhere in what they write even if it is half hidden, coded or even accidently let out. Other lesser infromed ones are well just like the not the nation portrayed them as parachuted in.

There are a lot of myths about journalists that have been reinforced over the years by hollywood etc

Fully agree your views on Crispin.Having said that there's no law of nature which rules that a journalist "parachuted in" is going to have less interesting or relevant insights.Indeed sometimes it takes an outsider to identify issues that are important.My concern about resident journos and stringers (and I exclude people from Reuters,CNN, BBC etc who are only here for a few years) is that they tend to be unduly influenced by the seductive nature and charm of this country.In practice this means that visas and resident status becomes very important (usually but not exclusively because of family ties), and the prospect of offending the authorities becomes difficult to contemplate.This doesn't necessarily make for robust and healthy journalism.I have no idea whether this is an issue for Crispin, and indeed all the evidence is that he is admirably independent minded.

I tend to approach it with the view that all journalists and their organs are propaganda apparatus;) Independent healthy journalism imho is long dead, if indeed it ever existed outside of a Hollywood film set. That isnt to say journos dont soemtimes publish the truth, or let it out by mistake. The difficult part is seperating the wheat form the chaff and that usually just comes down to our own bias. What I like (my own bias coming out here) about Crispin is that he does have contacts on all sides that others writing in English dont have and at times interesting snippets do come out via him that otherwise can only be found in Thai, and apart from the obvious headaches associated with analysing Thai journalism a lot forget that Asian philosophy is very different from western philosophy being more spiral than linear and this is reflected in rhetorical approach which creates its own problems in seeing what is really being said.

All in my humble and media untrusting opinion of course

Asian philosophy vs. Western philosophy ... what you mean, (beside that it is obvious that there are a lot of differences)? Crispin the Richard Gere of foreign journalism in Asia? 5555. sometimes that 'philosophy' Esoterism is still Western US-american bias.

Nah, Crispin doesn't go to much local. He hangs around with other foreign observers and in the diplomatic circles, mostly the American-English speaking (native) ones bemoan their own loss of influence and the Chinese takeover.

Anyway, what you think of Crispin latest writings? Turns out that he isn't a fan of Abhisits rule by decree. He doesn't show much empathy and appreciation for the current 'Thai way how things are done in politics'. So you could say he has a clearly Western (liberal) approach here. Some board member, the usual suspects, would immediately reply with some "you red shirt" comments if you would post here a few lines from Crispin.

"Abhisits rule by decree" ? Even with an E.D. the PM still only governs, himself ruled by law.

Edited August 9, 2010 by rubl

[HerbalEd]

When the Government has consistently stated that the military and police were firing in self defence and according to accepted international procedures they do not really have to answer every repeat asking if was really so. For a reporter to take no response to a stupid question as confirmation the Government had been lying, is well, just like the question .... stupid.

You are as you do, thus to ignore what the Government has said, and continually ask the same questions, you are in fact ignorant. The fact you are a journalist makes it even worse. In the search for the truth you have decided to try and shape the truth by only asking certain leading questions that support your desired outcome.

How could you possible know that he's "ONLY asking certain leading questions"?? How after reading this brief story could you possible know so much about how he practices journalism? Why is it that so many on this thread are so pessimistic and so quick and ready to assume the worst ... even though they know so little? Why judge what you don't know? Now, is it my turn?

Edited August 9, 2010 by HerbalEd

[samran]

Asian philosophy vs. Western philosophy ... what you mean, (beside that it is obvious that there are a lot of differences)? Crispin the Richard Gere of foreign journalism in Asia? 5555. sometimes that 'philosophy' Esoterism is still Western US-american bias.

Nah, Crispin doesn't go to much local. He hangs around with other foreign observers and in the diplomatic circles, mostly the American-English speaking (native) ones bemoan their own loss of influence and the Chinese takeover.

Anyway, what you think of Crispin latest writings? Turns out that he isn't a fan of Abhisits rule by decree. He doesn't show much empathy and appreciation for the current 'Thai way how things are done in politics'. So you could say he has a clearly Western (liberal) approach here. Some board member, the usual suspects, would immediately reply with some "you red shirt" comments if you would post here a few lines from Crispin.

Rule by decree....geez, all governments of all sides rule by decree. One of the funny things in a nation which loves its bureacracy is that governments usually are bound by cabinet decrees on this and that which were passed by previous governments.

[LikeHeat]

When the Government has consistently stated that the military and police were firing in self defence and according to accepted international procedures they do not really have to answer every repeat asking if was really so. For a reporter to take no response to a stupid question as confirmation the Government had been lying, is well, just like the question .... stupid.

You are as you do, thus to ignore what the Government has said, and continually ask the same questions, you are in fact ignorant. The fact you are a journalist makes it even worse. In the search for the truth you have decided to try and shape the truth by only asking certain leading questions that support your desired outcome.

How could you possible know that he's "ONLY asking certain leading questions"?? How after reading this brief story could you possible know so much about how he practices journalism? Why is it that so many on this thread are so pessimistic and so quick and ready to assume the worst ... even though they know so little? Why judge what you don't know? Now, is it my turn?

You're right. I cannot possibly know what he was asking unless I was at his side when he asked the questions, and I was not there at any time.

I still would like news, or what passes for news, to be balanced. Crispin is no better than Amsterdam if his goal is to make the Government look bad. That "incident" with the reds, blacks, and colorless was not simply one sided with a heavy handed Government out to kill people who were only peacefully demonstrating. Anybody who professes that is either very ignorant or acting out of other unstated interests. Surely someone of Crispins supposed intellect and contacts could ask some hard hitting questions of all parties, and then report back what was said. Until he balances things out he is simply another hired gun like Amsterdam.

[jayboy]

You are as you do, thus Until he balances things out he is simply another hired gun like Amsterdam.

Hired by whom please?

The irony here is that Crispin had rather a high reputation among apologists for this government, partly because he wasn't "taken in" by the class war theory common among Thaksinstas.However as the quoted example shows once a journalists strays from the elite's script of events he is insulted and traduced, although in this case just with a foolish lie.

[hammered]

There are few western journos who understand Thailand as well as Crispin. People may not like or agree with what he writes but in terms of understanding he far surpasses any of the local beat rotated in and out of Thailand while on their career ladder

Of course all journalism is propaganda and so it is right to be cautious in believing what any journo writes but generally those better informed and understanding have the goods somewhere in what they write even if it is half hidden, coded or even accidently let out. Other lesser infromed ones are well just like the not the nation portrayed them as parachuted in.

There are a lot of myths about journalists that have been reinforced over the years by hollywood etc

Fully agree your views on Crispin.Having said that there's no law of nature which rules that a journalist "parachuted in" is going to have less interesting or relevant insights.Indeed sometimes it takes an outsider to identify issues that are important.My concern about resident journos and stringers (and I exclude people from Reuters,CNN, BBC etc who are only here for a few years) is that they tend to be unduly influenced by the seductive nature and charm of this country.In practice this means that visas and resident status becomes very important (usually but not exclusively because of family ties), and the prospect of offending the authorities becomes difficult to contemplate.This doesn't necessarily make for robust and healthy journalism.I have no idea whether this is an issue for Crispin, and indeed all the evidence is that he is admirably independent minded.

I tend to approach it with the view that all journalists and their organs are propaganda apparatus;) Independent healthy journalism imho is long dead, if indeed it ever existed outside of a Hollywood film set. That isnt to say journos dont soemtimes publish the truth, or let it out by mistake. The difficult part is seperating the wheat form the chaff and that usually just comes down to our own bias. What I like (my own bias coming out here) about Crispin is that he does have contacts on all sides that others writing in English dont have and at times interesting snippets do come out via him that otherwise can only be found in Thai, and apart from the obvious headaches associated with analysing Thai journalism a lot forget that Asian philosophy is very different from western philosophy being more spiral than linear and this is reflected in rhetorical approach which creates its own problems in seeing what is really being said.

All in my humble and media untrusting opinion of course

Asian philosophy vs. Western philosophy ... what you mean, (beside that it is obvious that there are a lot of differences)? Crispin the Richard Gere of foreign journalism in Asia? 5555. sometimes that 'philosophy' Esoterism is still Western US-american bias.

Nah, Crispin doesn't go to much local. He hangs around with other foreign observers and in the diplomatic circles, mostly the American-English speaking (native) ones bemoan their own loss of influence and the Chinese takeover.

Anyway, what you think of Crispin latest writings? Turns out that he isn't a fan of Abhisits rule by decree. He doesn't show much empathy and appreciation for the current 'Thai way how things are done in politics'. So you could say he has a clearly Western (liberal) approach here. Some board member, the usual suspects, would immediately reply with some "you red shirt" comments if you would post here a few lines from Crispin.

Asian versus western philosophy is in reference to westerners trying to analyse Thai reports whether media, academic or other and not about Crispin. The rhetorical process is different as the philosophy is different.

As I said I tend to regard all media reports as propaganda. I enjoy the gossipy side/style of Crispin which is perosnal bias. I wouldnt say I buy into his analysis whatever side of the many it takes but it is interesting to see what he is talking about, who he quotes and where he gets his leaks. At the end of the day thopse controlling media use it to spread their message. As well as journalist there is or may be an editor and the juncture of journalist and editor/owner is another interesting area of media especially when journo and editor/owner have different bias. And we shouldnt also forget that media also needs to keep its customer base happy by presenting to them what they want to hear or what fits their group bias. That is an increasingly important thing in modern day media

Increasing Chinese hegemony is a coming fact.