Deadly Riots In Bangkok Let Local Photographers Shine In Top Photo Contest

[webfact]

The fruits of chaos

By JIM POLLARD

THE NATION

The deadly riots in Bangkok helped local photographers shine in a top regional photo contest

The bloody riots that unfolded in Bangkok during the red-shirt protests in the middle of this year had one unexpected outcome - they ensured that local photographers had a feast of powerful images to enter in one of the region's top photo competitions.

Two Bangkok-based photographers were among the top winners of the FCCT/OnAsia Photo Awards, announced recently at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand.

This competition has grown dramatically since its inception in 2007. In that year, the contest attracted about 35 photographers and only a few hundred pictures. But this year's contest drew more than 7,000 images from over 350 shutterbugs across the region.

Organiser Patrick Barta said: "It underlines how Asia's photographers remain committed to reporting challenging stories despite economic pressures in the international media industry that are making it harder and harder for photojournalists to earn a sufficient working wage."

Judges selected winners in four categories: Spot News, Feature Photography, Human Rights (a special category sponsored by the European Union) and Photo Essay. In addition, a Photographer of the Year, the contest's top prize, was also selected.

The judges were Reuters photography chief Damir Sagolj, veteran correspondent Dominic Faulder and Yumi Goto, an art and documentary photography curator. They had a difficult job in picking the best entries, which covered such topics as acid attacks, the Pakistan floods, suicides and the sex industry in Japan and workers in an Indonesian sulphur mine.

The Spot News prize went to Athit Perawongmetha for his striking image of a man throwing a tyre on a burning vehicle during the red-shirt chaos. Athit is a Bangkok-based freelancer who started shooting photos as a hobby in 1997 while working as a computer engineer. He has worked for ThaiDay and Getty Images as a stringer covering news in Thailand and around the region. His images on the red shirts featured at the "Visa Pour L'image" show in Perpignan, France, in September.

The Feature Photography prize was won by Probal Rashid, for his clever image of thousands of Muslims praying at a religious festival in Bangladesh.

The Photo Essay prize went to Korean photographer Seok Jae-hyun for a series of pictures of a young Filipino woman working in a go-go bar to help raise two children, one of whom was disabled and died during the time Seok recorded her life.

The Human Rights prize went to Japanese lensman Katsuo Takahashi, whose photos examined the plight of Burmese women trafficked to China and forced into unwanted marriages. The women are promised employment in China's fast-growing economy, only to find themselves trapped; those who escape report tales of rape, physical abuse and loneliness. "The winning image, showing a Burmese woman who was freed in China as she reunited with her husband, showed an extraordinary ability by the photographer to build trust with the victims and bring their inner struggles to the outside world," Barta said.

American Paula Bronstein, who has been based in Bangkok for more than a decade, won the coveted Photographer of the Year award. Bronstein has won a number of top awards and is highly respected for her classic images from the war in Afghanistan. She was in Kabul on assignment for Getty Images when the award was announced.

Winners in the Spot News, Feature Photography and Photo Essay categories won US$1,000 (Bt30,000) cash and a round-trip flight in Asia, courtesy of Star Alliance. The winner of the Human Rights category won $2,000, courtesy of the EU. Bronstein won an additional $1,000 and a round-trip ticket for air travel in Asia.

Jim Pollard is an executive on the FCCT.

VIEWFINDER

- The winning photos can be viewed until January 31 at the FCCT.

- There's also a slideshow at www.FCCThai.com.

-- The Nation 2010-12-14

[random]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

[ianf]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

Opinion stated as fact again.

Perhaps this should be reworded: "Assuming that unarmed people were allegedly shot by both sides in this conflict, I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive."

By a simple act of rewording, a strong case is made rather than exposing the bigotry of the original poster.

[Pi Sek]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

Another clearly ridiculous post - posting their opinion like "random shooting of unarmed people by the army" when they have not been able to provide any reasonable source of information.

Here is a fact, not opinion - you monotonously keep coming up with the same claims, despite these claims consistently being opposed by undeniable ambiguities. Why is that? I can only think of three reasons: 1) you are an idiot; 2) you are a "devil's advocate" troll fishing for an argument; 3) you are being paid to spread hatred based on lies. Did I miss another reason? Please enlighten me.

And before I get labelled as a red-hater or whatever - my objection is that opinion is being painted as fact, on many occasions by the same people, not the opinion itself. You don't see me painting "Thaksin funded both the Red Shirts to create a popular movement and the 'Ronin Warriors' as a separate agency to create chaos by summary killings of those on both sides to instigate civil war, with a view to clearing a path for him to return as the country’s saviour", which is my opinion, as fact. It's not fact, at least not a proven fact.

[Northman061]

I assume the well respected members of the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand have a good laywer?

Now that they have highlighted, through this competition, images clearly shown to be "anti reconcilliation" and awarding those who, by taking the pictures, are themselves sustaining the idea of "disunity amongst the people of Thailand" and therby suggesting that violence should be used, that they will all be arrested soon?

Big Brother is watching!

[angiud]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

You talk just random

[TAWP]

random shooting of unarmed people

Why did you shoot unarmed people?

[Beetlejuice]

These photographers are just cashing in on the recent violent troubles at Bangkok. It`s when horrific images of suffering and violence become entertainment in the name of art for public pleasure.

Imagine how you would feel if a photo of someone dear to you showing injuries or death were to be entered into a competition, as if or no more significant then a wildlife shot or scenic view?

It`s a sick world for sure.

[richard_smith237]

Perhaps the irony here is that in the main photo the person throwing the tyre on the burning truck is wearing a yellow shirt !

[Buchholz]

Perhaps the irony here is that in the main photo the person throwing the tyre on the burning truck is wearing a yellow shirt !

Probably "old school" Red Shirt...

Back in their early DAAD times, they often wore yellow.

DAAD protesters clash with police.

July 22, 2007

[asiawatcher]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

Another clearly ridiculous post - posting their opinion like "random shooting of unarmed people by the army" when they have not been able to provide any reasonable source of information.

Here is a fact, not opinion - you monotonously keep coming up with the same claims, despite these claims consistently being opposed by undeniable ambiguities. Why is that? I can only think of three reasons: 1) you are an idiot; 2) you are a "devil's advocate" troll fishing for an argument; 3) you are being paid to spread hatred based on lies. Did I miss another reason? Please enlighten me.

And before I get labelled as a red-hater or whatever - my objection is that opinion is being painted as fact, on many occasions by the same people, not the opinion itself. You don't see me painting "Thaksin funded both the Red Shirts to create a popular movement and the 'Ronin Warriors' as a separate agency to create chaos by summary killings of those on both sides to instigate civil war, with a view to clearing a path for him to return as the country's saviour", which is my opinion, as fact. It's not fact, at least not a proven fact.

Wholeheartedly agree. Moronic rhetoric based on assumption not fact with obvious intent to incite. Get a life.

[SamritT]

The photo, Discus exercise, preparing for Asian game.

[PNGinBKK]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

Judging by your spurious and ill informed comment I guess we are lucky you managed to crawl out of the swamp.

[thaihome]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

[GeorgeO]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

Random,

Is this an admission of guilt that you were actually involved in shooting unarmed people??

[whybother]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

German photographer Nick Nostitz was with a group of slingshot-armed Reds who were building a barricade. Without warning, troops opened fire, then advanced. Nostitz is briefly held at gun-point — a harrowing account, (with photos):

<snip>

There's a surprise. The army was shooting at protesters. Probably because some of them were armed. Which would explain the 400+ soldiers that were injured.

[truethailand]

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

German photographer Nick Nostitz was with a group of slingshot-armed Reds who were building a barricade. Without warning, troops opened fire, then advanced. Nostitz is briefly held at gun-point — a harrowing account, (with photos):

<snip>

There's a surprise. The army was shooting at protesters. Probably because some of them were armed. Which would explain the 400+ soldiers that were injured.

Come on stop cropping my full report the point is two foreign journo gave accounts of army behaviour or blood lust, and you focus on slingshots at 400 m. Do you think the journos are lying yes or no. Can you make your next answer concise

[truethailand]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/7729061/Home-made-rockets-vs-army-snipers-on-the-frontline-of-the-Thai-protests.html

Another lying foreign journalist

[truethailand]

The International Press Institute (IPI) on 26 May called on the government of Thailand to launch as a matter of urgency a full and transparent investigation into the killing and wounding of journalists during violent clashes between ‘Red Shirt’ protestors and the army in April and May of this year.

The violence in Thailand claimed the lives of two journalists, and injured at least five more.

Despite calls from international organizations, including IPI, no arrests have been made.

One of the journalists shot during the clashes was Dutch reporter Michel Maas, who reports for Netherlands Radio Worldwide (NWR) and the Volkskrant newspaper – also based in the Netherlands. He was shot in the shoulder during the chaos that surrounded the assault on Red Shirt barricades by the Thai army.Maas was with the Red Shirt protestors when the army began its assault. At the time he told Leen Verraeke, an editor at Volkskrant told IPI by phone, that the biggest danger was the army, “because they shoot everything that’s moving and don’t ask if you are a reporter before shooting.”

IPI recently conducted a Q&A with Maas:

IPI: What was it like for journalists reporting on the unrest that gripped Thailand for weeks?

MM: The main problem was to find out what was really going on on the ground. Thai media were almost all under the control of the government, including ‘independent’ newspapers The Nation and The Bangkok Post. Especially reporting by The Nation was nothing better than ‘anti-Reds-propaganda’. That made the task of international reporters much more important – and difficult.Also the international press agencies sometimes followed the local media. So since there were no reliable sources of information, one had to have eyes and ears everywhere, and check every bit of information more than once.

Practically, working was somewhat inhibited by checkpoints, especially those of the military. I got stopped more than once, and a couple of times the soldiers insisted that I take no pictures in Bangkok. Apparently they particularly didn’t like photographers (which I am not, I am a correspondent for Dutch national broadcaster ‘NOS’ and national newspaper De Volkskrant).

The military issued several warnings that journalists, and especially foreign journalists were ‘a target’ of unnamed armed ‘terrorists’. There were rumours that the Red Shirts harassed journalists and warnings not to go into the Red Shirt Camp. Though I know the Red Shirts did harass one or two local journalists, and that some international journalists at some point were stopped from entering the place, or forced to leave, I myself did not encounter any such hostility. I rather felt the warnings as an attempt to keep journalists away from the Red Shirts. I visited the Camp, which was located right next to my hotel, several times a day and was received in an extremely friendly way. I could report freely and interview whomever I wanted. Even at times when things got ‘hot’.

IPI: What exactly happened to you in Bangkok on May 19, 2010?

MM: I saw on television that the army had started to open the barricade at the ‘Silom’ side of the Red Shirt camp. I entered the camp from the other side, which was approximately two kilometers from Silom. On this side everything was quiet. Red Shirts were following the events on television, while on the center stage speeches by their leaders were going on.

I walked all the way to the other end, to see the military come in. When I was about 200 meters from the barricade I saw smoke, and after a while in the smoke soldiers came in on foot. Red Shirts prepared small Molotov cocktails and sharpened bamboo sticks to fight them off. I saw one man with a rather antique handgun. Even this close to the front line there was no sign of the ‘heavy weapons’ the Red Shirts were supposed to have, according to the government media.

By that time I had joined a group of about twenty other international journalists who were watching the scene with me. We were taking cover at the corner of a building, or behind trees, but nobody seemed really worried. On other occasions the military started by firing teargas and shots in the air to disperse the protesters.

But not this time.

The shooting started while I was in the middle of a radio report. Shots were fired from one side: the military – and they were not aimed at the sky. Red Shirts and journalists started running. I ran too, because experience has taught me that in these situations it’s best to follow the locals, who have been through all the previous battles and know when it gets really dangerous.

But this time I probably made the wrong choice. By running away I had to leave the cover of the building, and get out in the open. I got shot in the back. It didn’t knock me down, so I kept running, and after 200 meters somebody hoisted me on the back of a motorbike that rushed me to the police hospital which was on the site.

I was extremely lucky. The bullet (apparently an M16) missed my lungs by half an inch, hit my shoulder and some ribs, and stopped in my muscle tissue, where it still is, waiting for an operation to take it out. The Italian photographer Fabio Polenghi was less lucky. He died on almost the same spot where I got hit. One Canadian freelance journalist seems to have been wounded on the same spot and at the same time too.

IPI: Who do you believe shot you?

MM: I have no doubt whatsoever that it was the Thai army that shot me. No one else was shooting, as far as I could tell. The army had snipers on the ‘Skytrain’ over our heads, and soldiers in the Park just in front of us, covering the entire front line area. And troops were advancing from the direction from where I was shot.

The relatively high number of international casualties, and the earlier warnings issued by the military, raise the suspicion that international journalists might have been a target indeed, not by ‘terrorists’ but by the military. They cannot say that they couldn’t tell the difference between Red Shirts and journalists.

I myself clearly stood out in the crowd, by my length (I am a lot taller than the average Thai), by my clothes, and the color of my hair and skin. Fabio Polenghi was wearing a bulletproof vest and a helmet, also distinguishing him clearly from the protesters. The only defense they might have is that they were firing indiscriminately into the crowd (not over their heads. I got hit below the shoulder, and Fabio Polenghi got shot in the stomach.)

IPI: What does the incident tell you about the manner in which journalists were viewed by the protagonists?

MM: I wouldn’t know what to answer on this question. I have heard complaints that international journalists were siding too much with the protesters, and apparently the military didn’t like the way we reported on earlier violent events which ended in total failure for the government troops. This may have led them to consider journalists who were inside the Red Shirt camp as collaborators of some sort, which might have given them a reason to shoot at us as well as at the protesters.

IPI: How should the protagonists have viewed journalists?

MM: As people whom they should have to protect, even during an attack. They could have issued a warning; they should have given the journalists a chance to leave the area. But nothing of the sort happened. They just opened fire, without warning.

IPI: What were the reactions of the Dutch and Thai authorities following the shootings?

MM: The Thai ministry of Tourism sent me an email in which it offered to cover all the costs of my treatment. But I reckon that was more a courtesy to foreigners in general, to save the image of Thailand as a tourism destination.

I had a long and pleasant conversation with the Dutch ambassador in Bangkok, Mr Tjaco van den Hout, who said he had advised the Dutch government to ask for clarification by the Thai government. I haven’t yet checked whether that has been done already. I have no information about it.

IPI: Has there been an official investigation into who shot you? If so, has it made any headway?

MM: There has been no official investigation to my knowledge. Neither has there been a general police report about what happened.

IPI: As far as you know, what is the situation for journalists in Thailand today?

MM: In general there is press freedom in Thailand. But it is hard to tell how far this freedom stretches. Media are either imposing heavy self-censorship on themselves or they are under the active control of the government. And then there is this one subject no one is allowed to write about freely: His Majesty the King.

IPI: What advice would you give other journalists about covering conflicts?

MM: Every conflict is different. You just have to be cautious all the time and find a local person (fixer) whom you can trust.

Maybe the only other advice I can give is: bring your bulletproof vest (I didn’t) and wear it. But don’t place too much trust in it, because it doesn’t make you invulnerable. Fabio Polenghi was wearing one when he was shot dead.

Are all the experienced reporters lying. Still waiting for your answer

[whybother]

Come on stop cropping my full report the point is two foreign journo gave accounts of army behaviour or blood lust, and you focus on slingshots at 400 m. Do you think the journos are lying yes or no. Can you make your next answer concise

http://www.telegraph...i-protests.html

Another lying foreign journalist

<snip>

Are all the experienced reporters lying. Still waiting for your answer

Did you see the BBC report while the army were coming through the barricades at Silom? They showed a red shirt protester firing at the army.

The reporters above probably aren't lying, but they weren't everywhere, seeing everything.

[Siam Simon]

The reporters above probably aren't lying, but they weren't everywhere, seeing everything.

Oh, right. That made it ok for the Army to shoot at them, then.

[truethailand]

Thank you. of course they where not everywhere but many reporters had covered conflicts throughout the world and knew the lie of the land and who was doing the shooting. Of course reds were armed but not with state of the art weapons. Problem here being the world was watching unlike in other civil unrests in Thailand where the army massacred (spelling) innocent people and never had to answer a question. The army was shooting to kill, indiscrimminantly, but the question we should be asking is who gave the order and I for one dont think it was Abhisit.

The man that stamped this order should be on trial for genocide. You can bet his first name is General

[truethailand]

The reporters above probably aren't lying, but they weren't everywhere, seeing everything.

Oh, right. That made it ok for the Army to shoot at them, then.

I dont believe there is a man alive that can justify an army shooting its own people in the back while they are running away, one man was trying to crawl away and they shot him twice.. Most if not all unarmed. Maybe a shot to the lower legs to bring them down at a push. Creating states of emergency and killzones does not justify slaughtering the citizens of any country for any reason. Please start to question what you type, you cannot justify May 19

[metisdead]

A post containing a personal insult has been removed from view.

[Siam Simon]

Thank you. of course they where not everywhere but many reporters had covered conflicts throughout the world and knew the lie of the land and who was doing the shooting. Of course reds were armed but not with state of the art weapons. Problem here being the world was watching unlike in other civil unrests in Thailand where the army massacred (spelling) innocent people and never had to answer a question. The army was shooting to kill, indiscrimminantly, but the question we should be asking is who gave the order and I for one dont think it was Abhisit.

The man that stamped this order should be on trial for genocide. You can bet his first name is General

It most definitely wasn't Abhisit. He made it clear a few weeks ago that CRES was, quite literally, a law unto itself. Even if he hadn't made that clear, I'd have a hard time accepting that he would be a party to those orders given to the Army.

[Siam Simon]

The reporters above probably aren't lying, but they weren't everywhere, seeing everything.

Oh, right. That made it ok for the Army to shoot at them, then.

I dont believe there is a man alive that can justify an army shooting its own people in the back while they are running away, one man was trying to crawl away and they shot him twice.. Most if not all unarmed. Maybe a shot to the lower legs to bring them down at a push. Creating states of emergency and killzones does not justify slaughtering the citizens of any country for any reason. Please start to question what you type, you cannot justify May 19

Sorry, there's no sarcasm smiley. Otherwise, I'd have used it at the end of my post you quoted.

[whybother]

The reporters above probably aren't lying, but they weren't everywhere, seeing everything.

Oh, right. That made it ok for the Army to shoot at them, then.

No. But it makes it OK for ridiculous, out of context comments.

[thaihome]

...Even this close to the front line there was no sign of the ‘heavy weapons’ the Red Shirts were supposed to have, according to the government media.

....Are all the experienced reporters lying. Still waiting for your answer

No, they are not lying, but they did not see everything.

TH

[cup-O-coffee]

Organiser Patrick Barta said: "It underlines how Asia's photographers remain committed to reporting challenging stories despite economic pressures in the international media industry that are making it harder and harder for photojournalists to earn a sufficient working wage."

Being committed to reporting challenging stories and taking photographs that accompany those stories can be two separate things, or two things that compliment each other. That depends entirely upon the reporter's keen sense of what is going on, and how he or she can get the photo and story to augment the headline message.

The photos are clear and interesting to view, but from my memory of reading news stories from reporters over the last year, I am remiss to give any large degree of credit to stories that lack common sense, intelligence and restraint from moral and political bias.

Judging by the random shooting of unarmed people by the army I guess the photographers are just lucky to be alive.

Another clearly ridiculous post - posting their opinion like "random shooting of unarmed people by the army" when they have not been able to provide any reasonable source of information.

Here is a fact, not opinion - you monotonously keep coming up with the same claims, despite these claims consistently being opposed by undeniable ambiguities. Why is that? I can only think of three reasons: 1) you are an idiot; 2) you are a "devil's advocate" troll fishing for an argument; 3) you are being paid to spread hatred based on lies. Did I miss another reason? Please enlighten me.

And before I get labelled as a red-hater or whatever - my objection is that opinion is being painted as fact, on many occasions by the same people, not the opinion itself. You don't see me painting "Thaksin funded both the Red Shirts to create a popular movement and the 'Ronin Warriors' as a separate agency to create chaos by summary killings of those on both sides to instigate civil war, with a view to clearing a path for him to return as the country's saviour", which is my opinion, as fact. It's not fact, at least not a proven fact.

It looks like 'random' timestamp stepped in it but good!

The thing with Pi Sek's comments is that I can not trust anything beyond what I know. To cry for fact in a country where facts are abused, and the sources of these facts are above the law or any investigation; well! there is simply no way anyone is ever going to get facts, or be able to have the assurance that what they think is fact, is indeed fact, mixed truths, disinformation, or anything that people above the law think they need to release into the public sector in order to spread "fact".

I believe that there is only the information that reaches our conscious levels, and that this information may or may not have a high probability of being a fact, but again, we at the grassroots level can never realistically and truthfully know, because the people involved in this incident last year will never see the inside of a courtroom.

it is the information that never reaches our conscious levels that affects the information that we think is the "factual" stuff. There are people that exist to our consciousness, as well as one who are below our level of consciousness. Most of these people exist and are above the law. Those in government are given a free pass. Those outside of government are labeled as terrorists.

Even were the powers to be to see the inside of a courtroom, then I would be skeptical towards the pristine objectivity and justice used by that court appointed judge and prosecutor. The courts are already tainted with the poison of corruption and prostituting themselves for greed and fear of losing a grip on the power they have established.

I appreciate what Pi Sek touts from an idealistic point of view, but I have simply seen too much in the last 20 years to allow me to trust anything beyond what I know. This is Thailand. If you trust anything beyond what you know, then you will be in it.

The only thing that is getting polluted quicker than the air we breathe is the information we get assaulted with and are subject to on a daily basis.

That is my opinion, and that is a fact.

[random]

Come on stop cropping my full report the point is two foreign journo gave accounts of army behaviour or blood lust, and you focus on slingshots at 400 m. Do you think the journos are lying yes or no. Can you make your next answer concise

http://www.telegraph...i-protests.html

Another lying foreign journalist

<snip>

Are all the experienced reporters lying. Still waiting for your answer

Did you see the BBC report while the army were coming through the barricades at Silom? They showed a red shirt protester firing at the army.

The reporters above probably aren't lying, but they weren't everywhere, seeing everything.

I don't think anyone is denying there were armed reds, but why do people feel the need to deny that unarmed people were shot and killed by the army. the fact is they were either targeted or the victims of random shooting by the military.

We all know the japanese photographer was unarmed, he was posing no immediate threat, he was shot by the military as all the evidence would suggest (we know the army were not exactly careful with their shooting as could be seen when they blew one of their uniformed colleagues brains out when he approached on a moped to help them), so was he targeted or the victim of random shooting?