Bangkok Post Reporters Protest

[george]

Bangkok Post reporters protest firing against editor

BANGKOK: -- More than 100 Bangkok Post reporters dressed in black to express their anger against their editor, and sympathy and support for a sacked colleague, demonstrated in the newspaper’s editorial offices today.

Acting Bangkok Post editor David Armstrong, who had fired a veteran news chief who stood by the story, refused to meet with the protesters after he had sacked Sermsuk Kasithipradit, chief of the newspaper’s military affairs and security news desk, following the reports of alleged cracks in two runways at Suvarnabhumi international airport.

The unattributed source of the allegations cost Mr. Sermsuk his job and the Bangkok Post about one billion baht in damages in a libel lawsuit filed by New Bangkok International Airport (NBIA) and the Airports of Thailand (AOT).

But Mr. Sermsuk, a seasoned reporter who had worked for Bangkok Post for 22 years, said he had been mistreated by the owner of the newspaper and planned to file a petition with the Labour Court in pursuit of justice.

The protesters called on the newspaper's executive board to clearly explain a policy regarding news coverage and urged them to name a professional in place of the acting editor.

--TNA 2005-08-29

[apetley]

[

The unattributed source of the allegations cost Mr. Sermsuk his job and the Bangkok Post about one billion baht in damages in a libel lawsuit filed by New Bangkok International Airport (NBIA) and the Airports of Thailand (AOT).

Have they already paid the damages? Has this been pushed through the courts already? Or is this just bad reporting?

[george]

Thai Journalists Protest Editors' Firings

BANGKOK: -- Nearly 100 journalists of Thailand's oldest English-language newspaper wore black and demonstrated Monday in support of editors who they say were fired under pressure from the Thai government.

The ousted editors said the Bangkok Post was in a ``dark era'' and faced the worst censorship in decades.

``I have never encountered the pressure and interference from the newspaper's owners and the government as we are now facing in my entire 22 years as a journalist at the Bangkok Post,'' said Sermsuk Kasitipradit, a military beat editor who was fired along with news editor Chadin Thepawal.

``There have been orders and directions from the government through the newspaper's board as to how news should be presented,'' he said.

The two editors were held responsible for publishing a false story earlier this month about cracks on the runway on Bangkok's new Suvarnabhumi international airport, which is under construction and scheduled to open next year.

David Armstrong, the acting editor of the Bangkok Post, said ``the number of errors and misjudgments in the lead-up to the publication of the story was so great that firm action was both justified and necessary.''

``A responsible newspaper cannot tolerate lapses in standards of this magnitude,'' he said in a statement.

Nearly 100 reporters and editors skipped work to demonstrate outside the newspaper's building.

Sermsuk admitted the mistake but said the dismissal was ``unjustified.'' He said he plans to fight the case in Thailand's labor court.

He said he got the news of the runway cracks from a longtime source close to the government who ``tricked'' him in order to ``sabotage'' the Bangkok Post. The government said the cracks were on the shoulders of the runway and could be repaired.

The two airport authorities - of which the government is the majority shareholder - filed a lawsuit against the Bangkok Post and its editor even though the paper retracted the story the next day.

The maximum penalty for libel is two years' imprisonment and a $4,900 fine.

The airport authorities plan to file a separate charge at the civil court to ask for hefty compensation for tarnishing the airport's image.

Thai journalists have complained repeatedly of government interference on press freedom in the past five years under Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

--AP 2005-08-29

[thaibebop]

How can the paper be sued as pictures have been published of the cracks? They weren't lying. I am not a construction expert but even I know cracks are bad.

[Scott]

I hope someone really takes up this whole story. It is sad for any type of freedom of the press. How did the story start, who started it and how did it get in the paper? Newspapers generally don't make up this sort of news--it's not juicy enough to really boost readership.

Something is fishy in the situation. After all, they printed a retraction and I can't see what damage has been done to an unfinished airport.

[Ricardo]

How can the paper be sued as pictures have been published of the cracks? They weren't lying. I am not a construction expert but even I know cracks are bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We all saw the photos, here on ThaiVisa, of serious cracks on the edge of a brand-new unused runway, and the minister crouching to look worriedly at them. But unfortunately those postings are no-longer on the thread to review.

To attempt to deny that cracks existed is therefore to attempt to re-write history.

That there were also similar/worse cracks on the runways themselves, a story which the newspaper has now withdrawn, remains unproven. As does their claim of a survey, by overseas experts, arranged privately by the PM.

The proof will be when the airport eventually starts operations - whether the runways have the sort of 50-year life-span demanded of them, or not.

Reality has a way of catching-up with spin.

[bulmercke]

This is the man responsible for the sackings.

Yesterday, Bangkok Post's news editor, Sermsuk Kasitipradit, was sacked in connection with reports about there being cracks in the runway of Bangkok's new airport.

Sermsuk: "The management has treated me unfairly. I have worked here for twenty-two years," he said.

Yesterday, some 50 members of the paper's editorial staff - who dressed in black to display their dissatisfaction with Armstrong's "severe" punishment - gathered in front of the interim editor's office in a bid to ask him to review the decision - but got no response from him. (reported in the Nation today).

[Khun Larry]

This is the man responsible for the sackings.

Yesterday, Bangkok Post's news editor, Sermsuk Kasitipradit, was sacked in connection with reports about there being cracks in the runway of Bangkok's new airport.

Sermsuk: "The management has treated me unfairly. I have worked here for twenty-two years," he said.

Yesterday, some 50 members of the paper's editorial staff - who dressed in black to display their dissatisfaction with Armstrong's "severe" punishment - gathered in front of the interim editor's office in a bid to ask him to review the decision - but got no response from him. (reported in the Nation today).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now that guy looks like a real kiss ass

The perfect sap for the job

[kidtongue]

This is the man responsible for the sackings.

Yesterday, Bangkok Post's news editor, Sermsuk Kasitipradit, was sacked in connection with reports about there being cracks in the runway of Bangkok's new airport.

Sermsuk: "The management has treated me unfairly. I have worked here for twenty-two years," he said.

Yesterday, some 50 members of the paper's editorial staff - who dressed in black to display their dissatisfaction with Armstrong's "severe" punishment - gathered in front of the interim editor's office in a bid to ask him to review the decision - but got no response from him. (reported in the Nation today).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice photo, Doesn't the SCMP in HK hold the majority of shares?

More to the point, why would anyone living here (or most places for that matter) think that newspapers are for news?

[lomatopo]

I've only followed this story peripherally but it seems like the reporter and editor (in charge) hastily ran with the story of major cracks in the runways (not the edges) that would likely require complete reconstruction. A retraction the next day (or two) mentioned that the reporter had not actually viewed the major runway cracks that were mentioned (ouch). American experts, unamed (and mentioned as being consulted by the PM) said that the runways were completely unsafe as is, and would need to be completely rebuilt. I think the reporter did not follow through, nor did the editor in charge. The idea of a major scoop caused them to rush the story without verifying the sources. I doubt they were set up but am not sure where these American experts came from (other than America of course). I hate to see anyone get sacked based on a single mistake but you can't challenge the gov't here unless you are absolutely sure of your sources.

[bulmercke]

I've only followed this story peripherally but it seems like the reporter and editor (in charge) hastily ran with the story of major cracks in the runways (not the edges) that would likely require complete reconstruction. A retraction the next day (or two) mentioned that the reporter had not actually viewed the major runway cracks that were mentioned (ouch). American experts, unamed (and mentioned as being consulted by the PM) said that the runways were completely unsafe as is, and would need to be completely rebuilt. I think the reporter did not follow through, nor did the editor in charge. The idea of a major scoop caused them to rush the story without verifying the sources. I doubt they were set up but am not sure where these American experts came from (other than America of course). I hate to see anyone get sacked based on a single mistake but you can't challenge the gov't here unless you are absolutely sure of your sources.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A good point....but you have to agree that these two editors should have been allowed to defend themselves in a court of law about this matter....however, in this case, an editorial decision has decided the fate of these two loyal journalists...two fine jounalists at that.

[Kido]

Do we want just like Japan who re-write the whole war history, We all know that Japanese was the first attack Pearl Harbour but in school history only display Japan was the victim of Atomic bomb.

It was same in this case, (AOT) denied but we all seen in T.V and web that the cracks are huge and inspected but foreign specialise.

You can cover the hole but not justice in heart !

[sriracha john]

Doesn't the SCMP in HK hold the majority of shares?

No, the answer is in the text below.

The editor certainly won't win any popularity contests or diplomacy awards based on the following, but then again, if he's a hard-as-nails newspaper editor, he doesn't need to be those things. I'm really rather undecided on the matter now. If the reporting were actually as ship-shod as the editor proclaims, then I guess getting fired was right, although I do have my doubts about whether firing is the proper punishment for these long-serving employees.

If they reports were totally false I can see how they could easily cause extensive damage to the airport's reputation resulting in a large punitive suit. Of course, even without the runway issue, there are plenty of other dubious goings on that also damage the airport's reputation.

With all the vague informants and reports of foreign experts... it certainly sounded like unverified, unprofessional reporting.

And in the end, yes indeed, there were cracks...

Put up here for the poster wanting to see:

Interim editor calls Post staff ‘cowards'

Published on August 31, 2005

The battle of wills between the Bangkok Post’s editorial staff and its interim editor, David Armstrong, continued yesterday with the upset editor hitting out at the “cowards” who endorsed a letter calling for his head.

According to a reliable source, during the editorial meeting yesterday morning, which lasted about an hour, Armstrong lashed out at a demand by numerous editorial hands for him to be replaced. He went on to rebuke the 103 journalists, editors, and other staff who backed a call for his resignation, the source said.

“You are not brave even to speak to me directly, and then you demand that I show responsibility. Just how do you think I am supposed to do that?” the source quoted Armstrong as saying.

The morning meeting was attended by some 50 employees all dressed in black in protest at Armstrong’s decision to fire news editor Sermsuk Kasitipradit over an erroneous and later retracted story published on August 9 about alleged cracks in runways at the new airport.

Armstrong refuted claims he was culpable for his “involvement” as interim editor, insisting that the two news editors bore sole blame for the mistake and therefore deserved severe punishment.

“For my part, I’ve done the best I could,” the source quoted Armstrong as saying. “Days before the story was published, I had expressed my concerns over the reliability of the information and the source quoted. I asked the editors to verify their allegations.

“On August 9, I was abroad, having passed responsibility on to a senior staffer. I never thought the story would be published in that shape and form,” he reportedly said.

“It was a two-fold mistake. Our paper also failed to publish a story about the government officials who visited the airport on August 6 and to clarify our information. Such negligence has never happened before in our office, and our internal investigation showed the two editors had failed in their jobs, which led to their firing.”

The source said that Armstrong emphasised, however, it was not his policy to fire employees who made mistakes, and that each mistake had to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

During the meeting Armstrong denied he had caved in to senior government officials demanding that he sack news editor Sermsuk, which he did on Monday.

The source said Armstrong stressed that Suttikiat Chirathiwat, the paper’s major shareholder, had also rejected allegations that any outside influence played a part in the decision.

Armstrong conceded that the relationship between him and editorial staff was poisonous and said that as long as it remained that way, he would not discuss his future plans for the paper.

The source said Armstrong left the meeting after addressing journalists, without allowing questions or arguments to be raised.

[The_Moog]

That guy doesn't look like he's being photographed on the Runway.

See the background of the shot.

[buadhai]

See this AsiaMedia article which explains the situation and quotes the original Post article:

According to the suit, on Aug 9 the Post published false information on the front page which stated: "A team of US aviation experts is insisting that both runways of Suvarnabhumi airport need reconstruction as there are severe cracks that are large enough to sink the nose wheel of an aircraft. They are also not tiny cracks on runaway shoulders that the deputy transport minister showed to reporters.''

[sriracha john]

Other reports had maps of the airport that showed the areas that these photos were taken as the lanes that connect or lead to the the runways...either just prior to take off or just after landing. If there are cracks this big ANYWHERE on the tarmac that a plane rides over it seems to be cause for concern.

[sriracha john]

[kidtongue]

Doesn't the SCMP in HK hold the majority of shares?

No, the answer is in the text below.

The editor certainly won't win any popularity contests or diplomacy awards based on the following, but then again, if he's a hard-as-nails newspaper editor, he doesn't need to be those things. I'm really rather undecided on the matter now. If the reporting were actually as ship-shod as the editor proclaims, then I guess getting fired was right, although I do have my doubts about whether firing is the proper punishment for these long-serving employees.

(snip)

And in the end, yes indeed, there were cracks...

Put up here for the poster wanting to see:

Interim editor calls Post staff ‘cowards'

Published on August 31, 2005

The battle of wills between the Bangkok Post’s editorial staff and its interim editor, David Armstrong, continued yesterday with the upset editor hitting out at the “cowards” who endorsed a letter calling for his head.

According to a reliable source, during the editorial meeting yesterday morning, which lasted about an hour, Armstrong lashed out at a demand by numerous editorial hands for him to be replaced. He went on to rebuke the 103 journalists, editors, and other staff who backed a call for his resignation, the source said.

“You are not brave even to speak to me directly, and then you demand that I show responsibility. Just how do you think I am supposed to do that?” the source quoted Armstrong as saying.

The morning meeting was attended by some 50 employees all dressed in black in protest at Armstrong’s decision to fire news editor Sermsuk Kasitipradit over an erroneous and later retracted story published on August 9 about alleged cracks in runways at the new airport.

Armstrong refuted claims he was culpable for his “involvement” as interim editor, insisting that the two news editors bore sole blame for the mistake and therefore deserved severe punishment.

“For my part, I’ve done the best I could,” the source quoted Armstrong as saying. “Days before the story was published, I had expressed my concerns over the reliability of the information and the source quoted. I asked the editors to verify their allegations.

“On August 9, I was abroad, having passed responsibility on to a senior staffer. I never thought the story would be published in that shape and form,” he reportedly said.

“It was a two-fold mistake. Our paper also failed to publish a story about the government officials who visited the airport on August 6 and to clarify our information. Such negligence has never happened before in our office, and our internal investigation showed the two editors had failed in their jobs, which led to their firing.”

The source said that Armstrong emphasised, however, it was not his policy to fire employees who made mistakes, and that each mistake had to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

During the meeting Armstrong denied he had caved in to senior government officials demanding that he sack news editor Sermsuk, which he did on Monday.

The source said Armstrong stressed that Suttikiat Chirathiwat, the paper’s major shareholder, had also rejected allegations that any outside influence played a part in the decision.

Armstrong conceded that the relationship between him and editorial staff was poisonous and said that as long as it remained that way, he would not discuss his future plans for the paper.

The source said Armstrong left the meeting after addressing journalists, without allowing questions or arguments to be raised.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the photos and cartoon - now only if I can tell which is which...

Well, like most large construction projects anywhere, it's wise to defend against encroachments brought on by sloth and let's remember that this is Japanese money paying for it, and that it's not an airport until it's commissioned as one, so it would be interesting to see a non-entity bring a lawsuit, although I know that wouldn't be a problem for any of the Thai courts.

If the sand in the background (that's what it looks like) is sub-standard then it would explain the crack. BUt not being a geologist, it might be a volcanic fissure.

Or...maybe what Mr. T's really concerned about is anyone laying a foundation for the rumor that the entire nation is on (a) crack (definite articles often dropped in regular conversation).

But I still remember the South China Morning Post as holding some 38% of the shares.

[Rumpole]

Sermsuk admitted the mistake but said the dismissal was ``unjustified.'' He said he plans to fight the case in Thailand's labor court.

He said he got the news of the runway cracks from a longtime source close to the government who ``tricked'' him in order to ``sabotage'' the Bangkok Post. The government said the cracks were on the shoulders of the runway and could be repaired.

The two airport authorities - of which the government is the majority shareholder - filed a lawsuit against the Bangkok Post and its editor even though the paper retracted the story the next day.

If there is any truth to this element of the story, it would appear that the Dear Leader has taken lessons from certain other governments in the region, and is becoming rather more subtle in his attempts to stifle criticism of his unpleasant administration. Insidious charges of Criminal Libel and actions for Civil Libel are common methods of suppressing political dissent in some parts of Asia - generally a little more palatable to the international community than the unsportsmanlike modus operandi of assassination and detention of those whose opinions you seek to silence. The UK libel laws were, incidentally, also manipulated to great effect by the crooked media tycoon Robert Maxwell, in order to prevent the fact that he was plundering his company's pension fund from becoming public knowledge.

Edited September 1, 2005 by Rumpole

[WhiteShiva]

Armstrong refuted claims he was culpable for his “involvement” as interim editor, insisting that the two news editors bore sole blame for the mistake and therefore deserved severe punishment.

“For my part, I’ve done the best I could,” the source quoted Armstrong as saying. “Days before the story was published, I had expressed my concerns over the reliability of the information and the source quoted. I asked the editors to verify their allegations.

“On August 9, I was abroad, having passed responsibility on to a senior staffer. I never thought the story would be published in that shape and form,” he reportedly said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Seems to me he had requested the editors to verify the allegations, and they disobeyed and published the story against his order.

If this is indeed the case, I would say the dismissal was in order. This is not about making an honest mistake, it is about failing to act in a professional manner. In fact, Armstrong should not even have had to tell them to get their fact right before going public - it is part of the editors job.