Transparency Essential For Democracy Campaigner

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Transparency essential for democracy campaigner

By Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

The not-for-profit prachatai.com online newspaper has come under ferocious accusations of late, to wit that the left-leaning newspaper is actually a fake and an agent of the "neo-imperialist" United States, to use the word of its accuser, who comes by the name of Tony Cartalucci.

Cartalucci has for months demanded on Twitter that prachaitai.com reveal its funding sources but has failed to reveal his own identity.

He went on to attack prachatai on his August 10 blog posting, accusing the paper of undermining the Thai establishment's "legitimacy".

"They are traitors not just to the Thai people and the Thai nation, but traitors to humanity … traitors who wilfully help usher in global governance under the dominion of autocrats who openly plot a global scientific dictatorship."

Yours truly, who has been contributing to prachatai on a pro-bono basis since the September 19, 2006 military coup, after learning that the Thai mainstream mass media are mostly pro-coup, confesses to being disturbed upon hearing such vicious accusations made by someone who does not even reveal his or her true self.

To be fair, you can read more of Cartalucci's rantings at landdestroyers.blogspot.com.

Knowing prachatai staff for nearly five years, this writer feels they are mostly highly committed to forging a more open and democratic Thailand. Over the past five years, it has established itself as a reliable voice for real political debate, for detailed reports about the marginalised and those tried under the undemocratic lese majeste law as well as the Computer Crimes Act.

This apparently includes the director of prachatai, Chiranuch Premchaiporn, who's on trial facing a possible 20-year jail sentence for failing to remove 10 allegedly defamatory remarks about the monarchy from its webboard "quickly enough".

"Who is this person?" some prachatai staff asked me. I said I didn't know, and as much as it may sound unfair, I think the primary burden of proof falls upon prachatai itself because of its mission to promote a more transparent and democratic society.

Prachatai eventually disclosed its funding sources, with names like the US-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) spending roughly Bt1.5 million for fiscal 2011-12. In the 2010-11 year, the same amount was funded by NED, while Bt1.8 million came from George Soros' Open Society Foundation.

While there is no clear evidence that prachatai is toeing the US foreign policy line on politics through its writings and reporting, which by the way includes Thai-language commentaries written by people of various political persuasions, it would be best for prachatai to try to diversify its funding sources as much as possible.

Prachatai insisted in its English-language funding disclosure that "none of our foreign donors has ever put up any demands connected to the funds they provided, nor did they interfere with our reporting". But one can hardly be independent if a major bulk of its income comes from a few organisations.

Being too dependent on funding from the US can make prachatai shy about being critical of the US' role abroad, Thailand included. The same can be said of, say, any newspaper owned by a big corporate, which perhaps cannot be fully trusted to report critically on, not to mention criticise, the business of such a firm.

Another example is, how much can we trust a television station to criticise a major politician when the station's owner is the son of that politician?

Cartalucci's conspiracy may be farfetched, delirious even, but then prachatai.com, as a self-avowed "independent" media champion for democracy, must try harder to be less dependent on funding sources aligned with a superpower.

Equally responsible for ensuring the survival of prachatai are the local and foreign readers of this bilingual website, however. As a Thai saying goes, "one cannot borrow someone's nose to breathe forever".

-- The Nation 2011-09-07

[webfact]

Before you post your comment please take note:

Many people have been losing their posting rights or receiving suspensions because they continue to make comments on the Monarchy, and members of the Thai Royal Family in a political context. This is in violation of Thai law which explicitly states that The Monarchy is above politics.

- Do not make any accusations about any individual's or groups' loyalty toward The Monarchy.

- Do not speculate on the opinions of any member of The Royal Family.

- Do not discuss succession or speculate on the future of The Monarchy.

Thank you for your co-operation and understanding

/Admin

[hyperdimension]

Tony Cartalucci's response is here: Alternative Media Making Waves

Here's a quote:

Prachatai to this day still insists that it is "an independent, non-profit, daily web newspaper" despite the fact that it is wholly funded by the US government via some of the most dubious organizations in existence. The National Endowment for Democracy, for example, despite its benign name, is loaded from top to bottom with members of the American corporate and financial elite, including notorious warmongers. The organization has a long, documented history of leveraging the ideals of democracy to build up opposition movements, enact regime change, and then extend US military and economic hegemony over targeted nations.

[hammered]

A few comments:

1. Even the politically bias can make good or accurate points and sometimes addressing the message rather than the messneger is the best approach

2. Every media has an owner. Does anyone for example know the political leanings of the money behind the Bangkok Post? It is not difficult to find out.

3. Rabid xenophobia doesnt make for a good arguement. Rather full content analysis to show bias and how it links to funding is recommended.

4. There is nothing wrong with a partisan media. It is a reflection of reality in society and ideas of fair balanced press are just utopian fantasies. The main point being that a media that covers the political spectrum in its bias is better than a faux "independent", "balanced" or "fair" media. Describing any form of media as any of those is a lie whether in Thailand or any other country anywhere in the world.

5. Celebrate diversity of opinion and let it play out in the decision making structures of a country with th media playing its part even with its own biases

[Thaddeus]

A few comments:

1. Even the politically bias can make good or accurate points and sometimes addressing the message rather than the messneger is the best approach

2. Every media has an owner. Does anyone for example know the political leanings of the money behind the Bangkok Post? It is not difficult to find out.

3. Rabid xenophobia doesnt make for a good arguement. Rather full content analysis to show bias and how it links to funding is recommended.

4. There is nothing wrong with a partisan media. It is a reflection of reality in society and ideas of fair balanced press are just utopian fantasies. The main point being that a media that covers the political spectrum in its bias is better than a faux "independent", "balanced" or "fair" media. Describing any form of media as any of those is a lie whether in Thailand or any other country anywhere in the world.

5. Celebrate diversity of opinion and let it play out in the decision making structures of a country with th media playing its part even with its own biases

Good points, all of them.

[anterian]

All forms of media are political tools, thus to get a balanced view what has to access a broad spectrum of sources.

[jayboy]

Tony Cartalucci's response is here: Alternative Media Making Waves

Here's a quote:

Prachatai to this day still insists that it is "an independent, non-profit, daily web newspaper" despite the fact that it is wholly funded by the US government via some of the most dubious organizations in existence. The National Endowment for Democracy, for example, despite its benign name, is loaded from top to bottom with members of the American corporate and financial elite, including notorious warmongers. The organization has a long, documented history of leveraging the ideals of democracy to build up opposition movements, enact regime change, and then extend US military and economic hegemony over targeted nations.

I defy anyone to have a reasonably careful look at Tony Cartalucci's website and not come to the conclusion he is several sandwiches short of a picnic.His ideas about the Arab Spring and the American "globalists" behind it are especially comic, though his defence of the murderous thug Assad is in my eyes a disgrace.Ah well that's the internet for you where the barking mad can explain their theories at interminable length to the world.He probably can't help himself and in former days he would just be scribbling notes to his fellow paranoids!Anyway for anyone who refers to Cartalucci as a credible source does himself a disservice.

As to Prachatai there's rather less here than meets the eye.The important thing is to be honest and straightforward about funding sources.I remember decades ago the British left leaning intellectual magazine Encounter was revealed to be funded by the CIA.

Edited September 7, 2011 by jayboy

[hyperdimension]

His ideas about the Arab Spring and the American "globalists" behind it are especially comic, though his defence of the murderous thug Assad is in my eyes a disgrace.

What are your thoughts on his writings on Thailand? Do you dismiss his evidence of the connections between Thaksin and the interests of global corporations?

As to Prachatai there's rather less here than meets the eye.The important thing is to be honest and straightforward about funding sources.I remember decades ago the British left leaning intellectual magazine Encounter was revealed to be funded by the CIA.

So what do you think is the motivation behind The National Endowment for Democracy, a US entity, to fund Prachathai? Do you think they are merely being charitable? I think it's not too different from Thaksin paying Amsterdam. Usually whenever payment is involved, some kind of return is expected.

[Thai at Heart]

from George Soros' Open Society Foundation

This is something that jumps off the page to me. Considering that he was universally slated for being the cause of the 1997 crash in Thailand (of course we won't mention all the dodgy lending to all and sundry to build sky scrapers). He is Glenn Beck's poster boy for left wing conspiracy (which isn't exactly a reference of all seeing truth).

If the reason was simply to support open media, it is still odd.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Thai at Heart

[Emptyset]

2. Every media has an owner. Does anyone for example know the political leanings of the money behind the Bangkok Post? It is not difficult to find out.

Does anyone know who owns The Nation? I always thought it was owned by Suthichai Yoon, but have been told it's actually owned by a Democrat MP. Not that I really care, just curious. Bangkok Post, I forget who owns that actually. I think it's edited by a Vejjajiva, Abhisit's cousin, but also cousin of red leaning BP commentator Suranand, of course.

Tony Cartlucci is someone who believes world leaders are in fact giant lizards who worship a great owl, i.e. someone not to be taken seriously. I just don't know where all this conspiracy theorist stuff came from. There were conspiracy theorists 10 years ago, of course, but they weren't an organized group around Alex Jones, David Icke and the like. Now it seems every third person you meet believes in this stuff (they do tend to be overweight 40 year old World of Warcraft players that still live with their mother though).

[jayboy]

His ideas about the Arab Spring and the American "globalists" behind it are especially comic, though his defence of the murderous thug Assad is in my eyes a disgrace.

What are your thoughts on his writings on Thailand? Do you dismiss his evidence of the connections between Thaksin and the interests of global corporations?

As to Prachatai there's rather less here than meets the eye.The important thing is to be honest and straightforward about funding sources.I remember decades ago the British left leaning intellectual magazine Encounter was revealed to be funded by the CIA.

So what do you think is the motivation behind The National Endowment for Democracy, a US entity, to fund Prachathai? Do you think they are merely being charitable? I think it's not too different from Thaksin paying Amsterdam. Usually whenever payment is involved, some kind of return is expected.

Sorry I'm not going to dignify Cartalucci with a discussion of his absurd and paranoic ideas.The man is deranged.If you really want my views on his Thailand ideas, can we do it by pm please.

[Siam Simon]

2. Every media has an owner. Does anyone for example know the political leanings of the money behind the Bangkok Post? It is not difficult to find out.

Does anyone know who owns The Nation? I always thought it was owned by Suthichai Yoon, but have been told it's actually owned by a Democrat MP. Not that I really care, just curious. Bangkok Post, I forget who owns that actually. I think it's edited by a Vejjajiva, Abhisit's cousin, but also cousin of red leaning BP commentator Suranand, of course.

Tony Cartlucci is someone who believes world leaders are in fact giant lizards who worship a great owl, i.e. someone not to be taken seriously. I just don't know where all this conspiracy theorist stuff came from. There were conspiracy theorists 10 years ago, of course, but they weren't an organized group around Alex Jones, David Icke and the like. Now it seems every third person you meet believes in this stuff (they do tend to be overweight 40 year old World of Warcraft players that still live with their mother though).

I'd noticed that Cartalucci had started referencing David Icke wrt the Arab Spring. I hadn't noticed him making the final leap of faith, with the shape-shifting lizards and suchlike, but I tend to speed read his stuff just for the chortle factor these days. He doesn't seem to be posting on these threads any more, which is a shame, because he was unintentionally hilarious, accusing posters disagreeing with him of being evil and of slapping his cheek with their filthy hand. even the forum's right wing eccentrics struggled to side with him, despite him offering up obsequious praise to them on several occasions. A true oddball.

[Thai at Heart]

2. Every media has an owner. Does anyone for example know the political leanings of the money behind the Bangkok Post? It is not difficult to find out.

Does anyone know who owns The Nation? I always thought it was owned by Suthichai Yoon, but have been told it's actually owned by a Democrat MP. Not that I really care, just curious. Bangkok Post, I forget who owns that actually. I think it's edited by a Vejjajiva, Abhisit's cousin, but also cousin of red leaning BP commentator Suranand, of course.

Tony Cartlucci is someone who believes world leaders are in fact giant lizards who worship a great owl, i.e. someone not to be taken seriously. I just don't know where all this conspiracy theorist stuff came from. There were conspiracy theorists 10 years ago, of course, but they weren't an organized group around Alex Jones, David Icke and the like. Now it seems every third person you meet believes in this stuff (they do tend to be overweight 40 year old World of Warcraft players that still live with their mother though).

I'd noticed that Cartalucci had started referencing David Icke wrt the Arab Spring. I hadn't noticed him making the final leap of faith, with the shape-shifting lizards and suchlike, but I tend to speed read his stuff just for the chortle factor these days. He doesn't seem to be posting on these threads any more, which is a shame, because he was unintentionally hilarious, accusing posters disagreeing with him of being evil and of slapping his cheek with their filthy hand. even the forum's right wing eccentrics struggled to side with him, despite him offering up obsequious praise to them on several occasions. A true oddball.

So obviously more than worthy of a Nation editorial piece then.

[hyperdimension]

Tony Cartlucci is someone who believes world leaders are in fact giant lizards who worship a great owl, i.e. someone not to be taken seriously.

I haven't come across Cartalucci saying such a thing about lizards, and I'd agree that it is a crazy notion. Though his statements about US powers and corporations (both of which have become pretty much one and the same) and their continued push for global dominance are not that far fetched. Using the weight of their wealth, they are able to influence countries' policies through a number of different avenues, such as through lobbyists and via membership in or association with elite international clubs like Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission (founded by David Rockefeller), and Chatham House. Cartalucci isn't the only one spouting this kind of "nonsense" if you want to call it that. More people are becoming aware of the control that corporations have over governments, such as with the "bought congress" in the U.S.A. These are not radical thoughts. The Federal Reserve itself, who has the monopoly of printing the currency of the U.S.A., is a private for-profit corporation. Do you know who the shareholders are?

The evidence is out there of Thaksin having connections with some of these organizations and other international and multinational business interests (e.g. ASEAN Business Council). He would sell out Thailand to them if he were to greatly benefit, not unlike how he sold AIS.

Edited September 8, 2011 by hyperdimension

[hyperdimension]

As to Prachatai there's rather less here than meets the eye.The important thing is to be honest and straightforward about funding sources.I remember decades ago the British left leaning intellectual magazine Encounter was revealed to be funded by the CIA.

So what do you think is the motivation behind The National Endowment for Democracy, a US entity, to fund Prachathai? Do you think they are merely being charitable? I think it's not too different from Thaksin paying Amsterdam. Usually whenever payment is involved, some kind of return is expected.

Sorry I'm not going to dignify Cartalucci with a discussion of his absurd and paranoic ideas.The man is deranged.If you really want my views on his Thailand ideas, can we do it by pm please.

Then how about answering my question about the funding of Prachathai? Look at all the funding it has had: http://www.prachatai...nglish/aboutus. What do you think is the motivation behind such funding?

Edited September 8, 2011 by hyperdimension

[Thai at Heart]

As to Prachatai there's rather less here than meets the eye.The important thing is to be honest and straightforward about funding sources.I remember decades ago the British left leaning intellectual magazine Encounter was revealed to be funded by the CIA.

So what do you think is the motivation behind The National Endowment for Democracy, a US entity, to fund Prachathai? Do you think they are merely being charitable? I think it's not too different from Thaksin paying Amsterdam. Usually whenever payment is involved, some kind of return is expected.

Sorry I'm not going to dignify Cartalucci with a discussion of his absurd and paranoic ideas.The man is deranged.If you really want my views on his Thailand ideas, can we do it by pm please.

Then how about answering my question about the funding of Prachathai? Look at all the funding it has had: http://www.prachatai...nglish/aboutus. What do you think is the motivation behind such funding?

Link doesn't work.

But anyway, if the reason is to free up the press and to push free speech, I think we have had enough debates about lese majeste on here, to know that whilst it probably was a waste of money, giving a bit of cash to prachatai would appear to be supporting free speech. I don't think Giles would have to hard a time explaining to anyone how hard he feels he has been treated. Selling prachatai to a western supporter wouldn't be that hard to do considering the amount of censorship and lese majeste cases flying around in the last few years.

[Thaddeus]

Link doesn't work.

Just click on the button that says "About Us" then.

Or this.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/aboutus

[Thai at Heart]

Link doesn't work.

Just click on the button that says "About Us" then.

Or this.

http://www.prachatai.com/english/aboutus

As I said, up above. Considering that the editor is up for lese majeste because of quotes on their chatroom or something like that, I can understand why western organisations claiming to support free speech might donate.