Pheu Thai And Red Shirts Do Nothing To Help Their Own

[nicknostitz]

I've already told you it's taboo amongst Thai people. I'm sure you're well aware that farangs are considered outsiders by most Thai people especially where the rural areas are concerned. You're just another tool to be used in their propaganda spin machine, if anything farangs are probably easier to fool than other Thais when it comes to their mindset. Why do you think it's so easy to rip tourists off? Thai people know how to think like Thai people, if you think you know a Thai person very well, think again. My relatives once told me, if you run a business here in Thailand like you did in America, you're going to fail. You need to be quick and witty, gullibility will be the end of you. Trust me when I said us Thais don't openly bring up the subject about Red shirts unless we're certain none are around, gossip spreads really fast and it's part of fear.

Allow me to briefly bring up a comparison, a racist one even. Why are people often afraid to walk through a black neighborhood in America? Statistics show that a lot of crimes happen in those areas. I'm not saying ALL black people are dangerous and I'm not saying ALL of their neighborhoods are. It's this presumption we get by looking at the statistics based on past events, that we come to an assumption that black neighborhoods are usually dangerous. Just how a lot of people assume that middle easterners are terrorists or priests are child molesters. It's the negativity that has been built up for whatever group they belong to that people (however few or many) make these assumptions.

In relation to the Red shirts and Yellow Shirts, I would slightly compare them to the Bloods and Crips of the Americas. Wearing one particular could have a lot of things assumed about you, whether you like it or not. Whatever assumptions people have about the Red shirts, be prepared to carry the image that comes with the color. This is why I personally hate the idea of Red/Yellow shirts, even if the norm is not to conspicuously wear the colors. Again, the area in which you live in also affects the degree of presumptions, less in Bangkok and more in Udon Thani.

I applaud you Nick for taking such interest in Thailand and it's Red Shirt movement. I know that you know a lot more about them than I do but from where I'm sitting, it's a huge mess. People exploit the movement for their own benefit, hoping to gain more favor from the now government and "voicing" their opinion as a whole however ridiculous it may sound. If morality and sound reasoning does not apply to you, then the idea of "majority wins" can be applied. Meaning, if the majority thinks it's okay for corruption as long as they get something back or something unrealistic like a new 1500cc truck for all farmers. When I say "you" I meant, people in general, not you specifically Nick. The movement IMHO exploded too fast without a clear message other than to support Thaksin. It's leaders are just spouting nonsense and propaganda in their speeches without a real intellectual discussion of how to represent themselves. They're tired of the amart and elites? Be clear to give characteristics of their opponents because right now people make the assumption that "elites" are rich people.. when the very people they support are in fact elites. What else is on their plate?

Actually, i have not such a negative view or experience on Thais and Thailand - and i have lived here permanently now 18 1/2 years, after about 5 years of backpacking in Asia, and apart from 3 months in the Sukhumvit area i have always lived in Thai neighborhoods, mostly village or working class neighborhoods. People usually get ripped off that allow themselves to get ripped off. Most farang that ended being ripped to pieces here i have known have been also the ones that have left any sort of common sense at the customs desk at the airport when entering this place. As to rural places, well Thais not part of the clans are as much outsiders as farang. That is the way how things are in clan dominated societies. But that doesn't mean that there are no ways in - they are just not easy, and it means that one has to earn respect over time (which does not mean that one has to try to be "Thai", farang attempting this are usually just embarrassing themselves).

I live here like i always life - learn to accept the bad, and appreciate the good. And no - i am not getting fooled by the Red Shirt "propaganda machine". You are mistaken if you think that i get my information solely from Red Shirts, and that i have forgotten the strict rules of corroborating information, which is integral aspect of my profession. Over the years i have a built huge network of sources in almost all camps (the only camp i can think of now where i have no direct sources is inside Nevin's camp, and i don't know anyone who has, even people that went to school with him are mystified by his moves, and in the palace - the people i know who have insides in the palace will never divulge details).

I also do not have the experience that people don't discuss the Red Shirts, or the Yellow Shirts. More often than not, when people learned that i am a journo, and present during last year's crackdown and most previous events, they ask me what happened on the ground. Maybe it is just a language thing - i generally have these discussion in Thai, and not in English.

I think that comparing Reds and Yellows to Crips and Bloods is very wrong. I have no idea about Crips and Bloods other than several books i have read, and that while these gangs began as neighborhood gangs protecting the neighborhood against at the time prevalent white gangs, in the 80's with the massive influx of crack they turned into basically highly capitalist criminal enterprises, so that initiators such as Tookie Williams have turned against the gang life. You have neighborhood gangs here also in Bangkok, who often engage in criminal activities. Some of that world of course interlaces with Red and Yellow as this is simply part of Thai life, where this life does interlace with most aspects of society in this society of intrinsic patronage networks.

Red and Yellow Shirts are political groups with varied ideologies and not criminal enterprises.

I wonder why you say that their leaders "just sprout nonsense" and that there would be no "real intellectual discussion". Apart from rallies they hold countless symposiums that includes well known academics and intellectuals, there are on every level discussion groups which meet regularly. This makes for a very vibrant debate. If people here on Thaivisa would spend a fraction of time actually discussing issues with the huge variety of people that make up the Red Shirts, then maybe the discussion here on this forum would be a bit more informed, realistic and intellectually challenging.

As it is, i regularly wonder if me and many of the posters here on Thaivisa actually life in the same country.

[scorecard]

Now I'm convinced that Nick is biased. He is also not realistic in thinking that when he asks people a question that they will give him an honest answer. Red villages, cool stickers and people saying lets burn Bangkok. Just for fun, doesn't mean anything.

I gave you a brief summary of an interview.

I have posted what they said.

Lacking reports of them having refused to help non-Red Shirts, i will not speculate that they lied solely based on this sticker as this would not just be highly biased but also libelous.

And thank you, i have learned just a lesson here, digesting most of the comments i have to read here i understand now why rags such as The Sun are so successful: spew hatred, and people will love to read it, and the occasional libel conviction will not make a dent in your balance.

Very interesting.

And what evidence (seeing nick loves evidence) is there that nick conducted the said interview, or any interviews, or are his of journalist / interview claims just a convenient vehicle to look professional?

Edited November 3, 2011 by scorecard

[serenitynow]

Now I'm convinced that Nick is biased. He is also not realistic in thinking that when he asks people a question that they will give him an honest answer. Red villages, cool stickers and people saying lets burn Bangkok. Just for fun, doesn't mean anything.

I gave you a brief summary of an interview.

I have posted what they said.

Lacking reports of them having refused to help non-Red Shirts, i will not speculate that they lied solely based on this sticker as this would not just be highly biased but also libelous.

And thank you, i have learned just a lesson here, digesting most of the comments i have to read here i understand now why rags such as The Sun are so successful: spew hatred, and people will love to read it, and the occasional libel conviction will not make a dent in your balance.

Very interesting.

And what evidence (seeing nick loves evidence) is there that nick conducted the said interview, or any interviews, or are his of journalist / interview just a convenient vehicle to look professional?

I'm sure Nick's got evidence and if he doesn't I still believe him that the interview took place just as he said. That's never been my qualm with Nick. My qualm is that he felt the need to spin, color, defend a view, that the reader should be left to interperate for themselves given the facts he reported.

Edited November 3, 2011 by serenitynow

[nicknostitz]

Lacking reports of them having refused to help non-Red Shirts

Why would you expect that any non-Red Shirt that read the sign saying For Red Shirts Only to seek help from them in the first place? Nevermind, complaining about being refused.

The aforementioned For Whites Only signs were in place for years and years and uniformly complied with by those the signs targeted. It took a long time before black Americans finally started to rebel against the signs and refuse to comply with the the message.

I expect we won't be hearing reports of non-Red Shirts being refused help, because likely most wouldn't seek help from the boats from the git go.

That hesitancy would be entirely understandable given ThaiOats very well written explanation as to why so many Thais are justifiably apprehensive of the Red Shirts.

.

The comparison with "for whites only" signs is intellectual bankruptcy. The Red/Yellow conflict is not an ethnic based conflict, but an ideological conflict. While the racial discrimination in the US was (still at times is) a daily reality, this particular group of Red Shirts with these two boats were adamant in not only that they will help all regardless of politically associated color (as they said - they announce that publicly when they go to flood affected areas), but that they have also went in many affected Yellow or pro-Democrat areas.

Again, give me a reliable report that indeed they refused to help non-Red Shirts, and i will take this into account. I will not consider hate based and unsubstantiated speculation by anonymous posters on a web forum.

[nicknostitz]

And what evidence (seeing nick loves evidence) is there that nick conducted the said interview, or any interviews, or are his of journalist / interview claims just a convenient vehicle to look professional?

Quite simple - go and ask them if i spoke with them or not.

You can assume though that as i post here under my real name, and that i am not a complete idiot, that i will not risk my reputation just to win an anal argument on Thaivisa.

[h90]

Rather than attempt to justify your claim with your old rehashed attempts to spin and exonerate Thaksin of his human rights crimes, perhaps you should try the other angle to it and explain how "Suchinda's crimes were much greather than Thaksin's."

You haven't mentioned him since the initial hyperbolic claim, although you have managed to bring Ahbisit into your posts during both attempts. Instead, let's hear about the higher numbers attributed to Suchinda that surpass Thaksin's thousands.

Thaksin's still pending prosecution on his economic crimes, that are stalled by his fugitive status, involve billions and billions, with a B, of baht. No other PM in history comes close to his total figures.

I'm sorry but not surprised that you have avoided responding to the issues.

I would have thought my post made it clear that Thaksin cannot be exonerated of human rights abuses.

One proceeds on the basis that members are able to discuss events in a grown up way.Nevertheless you think that it somehow a debating point won that more people were killed in the illegal drugs war than Suchinda murdered on the streets of Bangkok.In that way you might equally argue that Dubya Bush was a greater criminal than the Boston Strangler.Silly internet forum chatter but unrelated to the question of political violence and the murder of protesters.Thaksin on the latter front has a good record:Abhisit has a shocking one.I'm sorry you object to Khun Abhisit's abuses being scrutinised.Don't worry however since I doubt whether they will ever be properly investigated, just as Suchinda after a short time was welcomed back to the bosom of Thailand's unelected elites.

I'm sorry but you haven't made the case on Thaksin's economic crimes apart from more playground talk - "billions and billions" etc.I appreciate business matters may not be your forte but it really is incumbent on you if you wish to comment to satisfy yourself on some basic facts.There is general consensus that the charges against Thaksin were relatively trivial and politically motivated.You actually avoid the most potent charge against Thaksin which was that he changed the operating rules to suit his business interests.I think this was disgraceful and he should be held to account for it

Thaksin killed 3000 people in his war against drugs.

[nicknostitz]

I'm sure Nick's got evidence and if he doesn't I still believe him that the interview took place just as he said. That's never been my qualm with Nick. My qualm is that he felt the need to spin, color, defend a view, that the reader should be left to interperate for themselves given the facts he reported.

As long as nobody here can give me a reliable report that this particular group has indeed refused to help non-Red Shirts, all accusations here in fact are biased speculation based not on fact but hatred.

Give me such a report, and i will follow this up. I will not consider though what some posters here.... "interpret"...

[serenitynow]

Lacking reports of them having refused to help non-Red Shirts

Why would you expect that any non-Red Shirt that read the sign saying For Red Shirts Only to seek help from them in the first place? Nevermind, complaining about being refused.

The aforementioned For Whites Only signs were in place for years and years and uniformly complied with by those the signs targeted. It took a long time before black Americans finally started to rebel against the signs and refuse to comply with the the message.

I expect we won't be hearing reports of non-Red Shirts being refused help, because likely most wouldn't seek help from the boats from the git go.

That hesitancy would be entirely understandable given ThaiOats very well written explanation as to why so many Thais are justifiably apprehensive of the Red Shirts.

.

The comparison with "for whites only" signs is intellectual bankruptcy. The Red/Yellow conflict is not an ethnic based conflict, but an ideological conflict. While the racial discrimination in the US was (still at times is) a daily reality, this particular group of Red Shirts with these two boats were adamant in not only that they will help all regardless of politically associated color (as they said - they announce that publicly when they go to flood affected areas), but that they have also went in many affected Yellow or pro-Democrat areas.

Again, give me a reliable report that indeed they refused to help non-Red Shirts, and i will take this into account. I will not consider hate based and unsubstantiated speculation by anonymous posters on a web forum.

This is why some people doubt your objectivity Nick. No one is drawing a comparison to the red shirts and white separatists. The point being made is what is the takeaway of the person reading the sign? You're making a specious argument because you find it easier to misdirect the debate than defend the action. It makes you look like a pundit or political hack and not an objective journalist.

Speaking for myself Nick, I think you have the capability of really shining a light on this movement and educating people about all the moving pieces, good and bad, inside it. Your lack of objectivity though has many regarding you as a cheerleader and apologist. That's a shame, because I think you're throwing away a grand opportunity here.

[Buchholz]

Lacking reports of them having refused to help non-Red Shirts

Why would you expect that any non-Red Shirt that read the sign saying For Red Shirts Only to seek help from them in the first place? Nevermind, complaining about being refused.

The aforementioned For Whites Only signs were in place for years and years and uniformly complied with by those the signs targeted. It took a long time before black Americans finally started to rebel against the signs and refuse to comply with the the message.

I expect we won't be hearing reports of non-Red Shirts being refused help, because likely most wouldn't seek help from the boats from the git go.

That hesitancy would be entirely understandable given ThaiOats very well written explanation as to why so many Thais are justifiably apprehensive of the Red Shirts.

The comparison with "for whites only" signs is intellectual bankruptcy. The Red/Yellow conflict is not an ethnic based conflict, but an ideological conflict. While the racial discrimination in the US was (still at times is) a daily reality, this particular group of Red Shirts with these two boats were adamant in not only that they will help all regardless of politically associated color (as they said - they announce that publicly when they go to flood affected areas), but that they have also went in many affected Yellow or pro-Democrat areas.

Again, give me a reliable report that indeed they refused to help non-Red Shirts, and i will take this into account. I will not consider hate based and unsubstantiated speculation by anonymous posters on a web forum.

If they were so "adamant" in their willingness to help all, including non-Red Shirts, they would have never put the signs on in the first place and secondly would not have left them on after it was specifically brought to their attention.

Exclusionary signs are exclusionary, whether it's For Whites Only, For Red Shirts Only, For Members Only, For Staff Only, etc. irregardless of the basis or reasons for those separate signs.

There's a reason for all of these types of signs. It's to exclude others. Going against these messages have varying consequences, but they all have repercussions.

There's a reason why non-Red Shirts wouldn't ask for help from them from the beginning. The exclusionary sign tells them they are the others.

.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Buchholz

[serenitynow]

I'm sure Nick's got evidence and if he doesn't I still believe him that the interview took place just as he said. That's never been my qualm with Nick. My qualm is that he felt the need to spin, color, defend a view, that the reader should be left to interperate for themselves given the facts he reported.

As long as nobody here can give me a reliable report that this particular group has indeed refused to help non-Red Shirts, all accusations here in fact are biased speculation based not on fact but hatred.

Give me such a report, and i will follow this up. I will not consider though what some posters here.... "interpret"...

The accusation is that they advertise their rescue services are for red shirts only. That's not speculation, that's a proven fact. YOU proved it Nick. What is unproven and is based on hearsay is that despite their written assertions that their services are for red shirts only, they will help anyone. The onus on the journalist who wishes to corroborate that, is to find those others they have been helped. I don't mean to sound uncharitable Nick, but maybe this lack of simple logic/reasoning ability is one of the reasons the mainstream press isn't knocking on your door as of yet.

Edited November 3, 2011 by serenitynow

[nicknostitz]

This is why some people doubt your objectivity Nick. No one is drawing a comparison to the red shirts and white separatists. The point being made is what is the takeaway of the person reading the sign? You're making a specious argument because you find it easier to misdirect the debate than defend the action. It makes you look like a pundit or political hack and not an objective journalist.

Speaking for myself Nick, I think you have the capability of really shining a light on this movement and educating people about all the moving pieces, good and bad, inside it. Your lack of objectivity though has many regarding you as a cheerleader and apologist. That's a shame, because I think you're throwing away a grand opportunity here.

If you go through my posts here on this subject from yesterday - i have clearly stated that in my view to put that sticker up was not the smartest thing to do, and that i have also said that to the group - explicitly so. Their reaction was that they may have been quite thoughtless about it. But i have to take into account that they clearly stated that they have helped people of all political colors, and do announce that in the areas they go and help.

Excuse me that i give more weight to their actions than to the placement of a stupid sticker in my analyses of this issue. Again, give me a reliable report that their actions were not what they said they were, and i take this into account, naturally. I can only go with evidence, and not with speculation.

Some people will always doubt my objectivity, and attack my credibility, which is natural in such a conflict in which for some strange reason evokes even more emotional responses under foreigners living here than under most Thais. Even the Yellow Shirts i have met helping out in the floods have said to me that as long as the flood lasts they will work together with Red Shirts, and reported no conflicts beyond the normal human conflicts while working on the ground now.

[nicknostitz]

If they were so "adamant" in their willingness to help all, including non-Red Shirts, they would have never put the signs on in the first place and secondly would not have left them on after it was specifically brought to their attention.

Exclusionary signs are exclusionary, whether it's For Whites Only, For Red Shirts Only, For Members Only, For Staff Only, etc. irregardless of the basis or reasons for those separate signs.

There's a reason for all of these types of signs. It's to exclude others. Going against these messages have varying consequences, but they all have repercussions.

There's a reason why non-Red Shirts wouldn't ask for help from them from the beginning. The exclusionary sign tells them they are the others.

.

Pure armchair speculation.

Substantiate your speculation with clear evidence, and i will take this into account.

No "if they were...", please.

[hanuman1]

Thanks for your valuable work in the field and the reports you provide, Nick. It is as interesting for its content as it is for the responses it elicits.

I hope you continue to shed light here on what's happening on the ground as it adds an important dimension to the articles we are fed here every day.

[nicknostitz]

The accusation is that they advertise their rescue services are for red shirts only. That's not speculation, that's a proven fact. YOU proved it Nick. What is unproven and is based on hearsay is that despite their written assertions that their services are for red shirts only, they will help anyone. The onus on the journalist who wishes to corroborate that, is to find those others they have been helped. I don't mean to sound uncharitable Nick, but maybe this lack of simple logic/reasoning ability is one of the reasons the mainstream press isn't knocking on your door as of yet.

Excuse me, but for the past 18 years i have made a living from working for the mainstream press - mostly as a photographer, but in certain subjects such as the Red/Yellow conflict also as researcher and fixer (where i have refused more requests than accepted, especially from TV productions), and writing one or the other story. It is my choice that i do not want to make a living as a professional writer, even though on occasion i also write stories.

My books are my obsession, but that is not what i make a living from.

What i proved here is that indeed these stickers exist, and that this group stated to my probing that they were thoughtless, but that they help all that need help. I will hardly now retrace their steps over all provinces they worked in, just to maybe find somebody they refused to help (this is insane, i am sorry). The usual procedure is that somebody reports such an incident somewhere, and than one will follow this up, but not going on a wild goose chase searching for the needle in the haystack.

[nicknostitz]

As I said before "almost looks like a children's prank". Mind you the problem started with the unthoughfullness, asking for misinterpretation. So, sorry to say, but blame those who started this issue with 'cool looking stickers', don't blame those who saw and wondered

Haven't we all be unthoughtful at times?

I have seen much worse in disaster zones. I will never forget an incident during the tsunami where in fact a large western foreign governmental disaster relief organization has only helped their own nationals staying then in a 5 star Hotel that was affected, and have done nothing for the locals, even though they had much needed equipment.

ouch, that hurts.

I had a friend in Germany who organized donations for the tsunami from her circle of friends and colleagues - everybody helped out... from everywhere. And what did I know that my future sister-in-law and husband were in that tsunami (and survived). It still has a strong effect on her even today.

The tsunami was a prime example how large scale relief operations can go bad. India was very right with the decision not let any outside NGO's into the country at the time.

Edited November 3, 2011 by nicknostitz

[nicknostitz]

Thanks for your valuable work in the field and the reports you provide, Nick. It is as interesting for its content as it is for the responses it elicits.

I hope you continue to shed light here on what's happening on the ground as it adds an important dimension to the articles we are fed here every day.

Thank you as well.

The responses were somehow to be expected.

Edited November 3, 2011 by nicknostitz

[SpoliaOpima]

Lacking reports of them having refused to help non-Red Shirts

Why would you expect that any non-Red Shirt that read the sign saying For Red Shirts Only to seek help from them in the first place? Nevermind, complaining about being refused.

The aforementioned For Whites Only signs were in place for years and years and uniformly complied with by those the signs targeted. It took a long time before black Americans finally started to rebel against the signs and refuse to comply with the the message.

I expect we won't be hearing reports of non-Red Shirts being refused help, because likely most wouldn't seek help from the boats from the git go.

That hesitancy would be entirely understandable given ThaiOats very well written explanation as to why so many Thais are justifiably apprehensive of the Red Shirts.

.

Again, give me a reliable report that indeed they refused to help non-Red Shirts, and i will take this into account. I will not consider hate based and unsubstantiated speculation by anonymous posters on a web forum.

I have to agree with the member who posted above that the onus of proof is on you to demonstrate that a boat that advertises itself as 'for redshirts only' is in fact for anyone. There are plenty of instances in the Thaksin/redshirt/UDD history where aid or other government projects was given to districts that voted Red -- only. Why would this case be any different? If you believe those piloting that boat or any other boat carrying such a label did not deny help to non-Reds, show us the evidence.

[whybother]

...

Basically they are an independent team of the 102.75 "Wittayu Khon Thai Hua Jai Diaow Gan" community radio station. They emphasized that they are not under authority of either the UDD or the government.They have two boats with engines, which they bought themselves for 60 000 Baht each, financed by donations from listeners of the station, and helped out in the flood relief since about three months. They started helping in Phitsanulok, and then most other affected provinces. Their team consists of about 20 people.

...

With all these independent red shirt groups "emphasizing" that they not under the authority of the UDD, you would think that the UDD is just made up of a small group of "leaders" without any actual "red shirts" under them at all.

[ballpoint]

I'm sure Nick's got evidence and if he doesn't I still believe him that the interview took place just as he said. That's never been my qualm with Nick. My qualm is that he felt the need to spin, color, defend a view, that the reader should be left to interperate for themselves given the facts he reported.

As long as nobody here can give me a reliable report that this particular group has indeed refused to help non-Red Shirts, all accusations here in fact are biased speculation based not on fact but hatred.

Give me such a report, and i will follow this up. I will not consider though what some posters here.... "interpret"...

So, rather than do a bit of investigation into why the boat operators feel the need to put these rather self explanatory stickers on their boats, you'd prefer wait for the opportunity to do a sensationalist piece on "non reds kicked off rescue boats"? The Sun would be proud of you.

Serenitynow also makes a good point. These days the news disseminators, whether they be print, internet, radio, or, particularly, television, are increasingly trying to interpret the news for us, rather than report on the facts and leave us to form our own opinion. When the media's interpretation is "backed up" by selective use of images (including falsely juxtaposing scenes from one location onto a report made in a different one), interviews with agenda seeking "experts", and the out of hand dismissal of conflicting reports made by others in the area, then it goes from being merely annoying to downright manipulative.

[Buchholz]

If they were so "adamant" in their willingness to help all, including non-Red Shirts, they would have never put the signs on in the first place and secondly would not have left them on after it was specifically brought to their attention.

Exclusionary signs are exclusionary, whether it's For Whites Only, For Red Shirts Only, For Members Only, For Staff Only, etc. irregardless of the basis or reasons for those separate signs.

There's a reason for all of these types of signs. It's to exclude others. Going against these messages have varying consequences, but they all have repercussions.

There's a reason why non-Red Shirts wouldn't ask for help from them from the beginning. The exclusionary sign tells them they are the others.

Pure armchair speculation.

Substantiate your speculation with clear evidence, and i will take this into account.

No "if they were...", please.

It's not pure armchair speculation that those that have gone against the message contained in an exclusionary sign have suffered repercussions for those actions.

As serenitynow correctly suggests, you're supposed to be the journalist, go find non-Reds that were helped by this group and leave the specious argument that their exclusionary sign wasn't really exclusionary.

The Red Shirts involved clearly lack the genuineness of their claims to help all by the pure and simple evidence that their sign exists on their boats.

.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Buchholz

[serenitynow]

The accusation is that they advertise their rescue services are for red shirts only. That's not speculation, that's a proven fact. YOU proved it Nick. What is unproven and is based on hearsay is that despite their written assertions that their services are for red shirts only, they will help anyone. The onus on the journalist who wishes to corroborate that, is to find those others they have been helped. I don't mean to sound uncharitable Nick, but maybe this lack of simple logic/reasoning ability is one of the reasons the mainstream press isn't knocking on your door as of yet.

Excuse me, but for the past 18 years i have made a living from working for the mainstream press - mostly as a photographer, but in certain subjects such as the Red/Yellow conflict also as researcher and fixer (where i have refused more requests than accepted, especially from TV productions), and writing one or the other story. It is my choice that i do not want to make a living as a professional writer, even though on occasion i also write stories.

My books are my obsession, but that is not what i make a living from.

What i proved here is that indeed these stickers exist, and that this group stated to my probing that they were thoughtless, but that they help all that need help. I will hardly now retrace their steps over all provinces they worked in, just to maybe find somebody they refused to help (this is insane, i am sorry). The usual procedure is that somebody reports such an incident somewhere, and than one will follow this up, but not going on a wild goose chase searching for the needle in the haystack.

I've got absolutely nothing against you Nick and I'm really enthused that someone is covering this movement. Perhaps where some of the conflicts we have comes down to how you and others see your role. If it's as a journalist, then I think a lot of the criticisms are warranted. If it's as an analyst, then I would argue from what I have seen you have what is known as a "confirmation bias" (you're certainly not alone there Nick).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

OTOH if your role is more akin to the James Woods role in "Salvador" then you really ought to disclose that. It would still garner your work respect (certainly mine), but it would need to be weighed differently, taking into account the clear bias. Nothing wrong with bias, or advocacy, or even punditry in small doses, but it needs to ALWAYS be disclosed so that readers properly evaluate what they are reading.

[Gweiloman]

First off, I'll state that I sympathise with the Red Shirts, only because I feel that they are the underdogs, a bit downtrodden by the higher so's of Thai society and it is generally in my nature to help those less fortunate than myself.

The production and subsequent attachment of the stickers to the boats are very, very stupid and ill thought out. Possibly because the perpetrators do not have as broad a view of the world as we do and did not realise the implications and consequences of their actions.

However, unless this was done across the board (which I don't think, I believe it was merely an isolated instance by a small group of red shirts), why are we wasting so much time discussing the actions of one small group and conveniently for some, taking it to include the whole red shirt movement?

Finally, the subject of this thread is that Red shirts do nothing to help their own - at least the pictures in any case have disproved the subject title of this thread.

[nicknostitz]

I have to agree with the member who posted above that the onus of proof is on you to demonstrate that a boat that advertises itself as 'for redshirts only' is in fact for anyone. There are plenty of instances in the Thaksin/redshirt/UDD history where aid or other government projects was given to districts that voted Red -- only. Why would this case be any different? If you believe those piloting that boat or any other boat carrying such a label did not deny help to non-Reds, show us the evidence.

Without a report there is nothing i can do, or do you honestly expect me to question the about 2 million people affected by the flood?

I confronted this group with the accusations, and reported their reaction. They have invited people to visit them to find out for themselves. There is no more i can do, unless i get a report that counters their statements. If i have the time i may go out with them in the field one of those days, but of course that proves no more than i have already shown.

[Buchholz]

Thanks for your valuable work in the field and the reports you provide, Nick. It is as interesting for its content as it is for the responses it elicits.

I hope you continue to shed light here on what's happening on the ground as it adds an important dimension to the articles we are fed here every day.

IMHO, it's incumbent upon all participants of the discussion to add to that discussion by submitting articles of their own choosing to widen the dimension of discussion or to do so by contributing their own on-the-ground experiences.

It's a shame there's precious little of the former and only a smattering of the latter, which then leads to the expressions that we somehow should expect to be spoon fed by Admin the total sum of the information presented on the forum.

There's a wealth of information out there that's available, but not discussed because its not presented by anyone.

.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Buchholz

[nicknostitz]

I've got absolutely nothing against you Nick and I'm really enthused that someone is covering this movement. Perhaps where some of the conflicts we have comes down to how you and others see your role. If it's as a journalist, then I think a lot of the criticisms are warranted. If it's as an analyst, then I would argue from what I have seen you have what is known as a "confirmation bias" (you're certainly not alone there Nick).

http://en.wikipedia....nfirmation_bias

OTOH if your role is more akin to the James Woods role in "Salvador" then you really ought to disclose that. It would still garner your work respect (certainly mine), but it would need to be weighed differently, taking into account the clear bias. Nothing wrong with bias, or advocacy, or even punditry in small doses, but it needs to ALWAYS be disclosed so that readers properly evaluate what they are reading.

I have already stated that i have a wide network of sources in all camps, exactly to avoid what you imply here. Thank you, but i am well aware of these issues.

[nicknostitz]

Thanks for your valuable work in the field and the reports you provide, Nick. It is as interesting for its content as it is for the responses it elicits.

I hope you continue to shed light here on what's happening on the ground as it adds an important dimension to the articles we are fed here every day.

IMHO, it's incumbent upon all participants of the discussion to add to that discussion by submitting articles of their own choosing to widen the dimension of discussion or to do so by contributing their own on-the-ground experiences.

It's a shame there's precious little of the former and only a smattering of the latter, which then leads to the expressions that we somehow should expect to be spoon fed by Admin the total sum of the information presented on the forum.

There's a wealth of information out there that's available, but not discussed because its not presented by anyone.

.

Good point.

Why don't you start then with what you advise?

Any reliable report you can supply us with on this group of Red Shirts not helping non-Red Shirts, or do you expect me to solely spoon feed Thaivisa with information on this subject?

[Buchholz]

The accusation is that they advertise their rescue services are for red shirts only. That's not speculation, that's a proven fact. YOU proved it Nick. What is unproven and is based on hearsay is that despite their written assertions that their services are for red shirts only, they will help anyone. The onus on the journalist who wishes to corroborate that, is to find those others they have been helped. I don't mean to sound uncharitable Nick, but maybe this lack of simple logic/reasoning ability is one of the reasons the mainstream press isn't knocking on your door as of yet.

Excuse me, but for the past 18 years i have made a living from working for the mainstream press - mostly as a photographer, but in certain subjects such as the Red/Yellow conflict also as researcher and fixer (where i have refused more requests than accepted, especially from TV productions), and writing one or the other story. It is my choice that i do not want to make a living as a professional writer, even though on occasion i also write stories.

My books are my obsession, but that is not what i make a living from.

What i proved here is that indeed these stickers exist, and that this group stated to my probing that they were thoughtless, but that they help all that need help. I will hardly now retrace their steps over all provinces they worked in, just to maybe find somebody they refused to help (this is insane, i am sorry). The usual procedure is that somebody reports such an incident somewhere, and than one will follow this up, but not going on a wild goose chase searching for the needle in the haystack.

It could very well be a wild goose chase or like searching for a needle in a haystack to find what serenitynow asked for, a non-Red Shirt being helped.

.

[hanuman1]

The accusation is that they advertise their rescue services are for red shirts only. That's not speculation, that's a proven fact. YOU proved it Nick. What is unproven and is based on hearsay is that despite their written assertions that their services are for red shirts only, they will help anyone. The onus on the journalist who wishes to corroborate that, is to find those others they have been helped. I don't mean to sound uncharitable Nick, but maybe this lack of simple logic/reasoning ability is one of the reasons the mainstream press isn't knocking on your door as of yet.

Excuse me, but for the past 18 years i have made a living from working for the mainstream press - mostly as a photographer, but in certain subjects such as the Red/Yellow conflict also as researcher and fixer (where i have refused more requests than accepted, especially from TV productions), and writing one or the other story. It is my choice that i do not want to make a living as a professional writer, even though on occasion i also write stories.

My books are my obsession, but that is not what i make a living from.

What i proved here is that indeed these stickers exist, and that this group stated to my probing that they were thoughtless, but that they help all that need help. I will hardly now retrace their steps over all provinces they worked in, just to maybe find somebody they refused to help (this is insane, i am sorry). The usual procedure is that somebody reports such an incident somewhere, and than one will follow this up, but not going on a wild goose chase searching for the needle in the haystack.

I've got absolutely nothing against you Nick and I'm really enthused that someone is covering this movement. Perhaps where some of the conflicts we have comes down to how you and others see your role. If it's as a journalist, then I think a lot of the criticisms are warranted. If it's as an analyst, then I would argue from what I have seen you have what is known as a "confirmation bias" (you're certainly not alone there Nick).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

OTOH if your role is more akin to the James Woods role in "Salvador" then you really ought to disclose that. It would still garner your work respect (certainly mine), but it would need to be weighed differently, taking into account the clear bias. Nothing wrong with bias, or advocacy, or even punditry in small doses, but it needs to ALWAYS be disclosed so that readers properly evaluate what they are reading.

Nothing wrong with bias, or advocacy, or even punditry in small doses, but it needs to ALWAYS be disclosed so that readers properly evaluate what they are reading.

Do you think it would be a good idea to apply this to other reporting as well - like for example the Nation and TAN articles we are served up on this forum?

[nicknostitz]

First off, I'll state that I sympathise with the Red Shirts, only because I feel that they are the underdogs, a bit downtrodden by the higher so's of Thai society and it is generally in my nature to help those less fortunate than myself.

The production and subsequent attachment of the stickers to the boats are very, very stupid and ill thought out. Possibly because the perpetrators do not have as broad a view of the world as we do and did not realise the implications and consequences of their actions.

However, unless this was done across the board (which I don't think, I believe it was merely an isolated instance by a small group of red shirts), why are we wasting so much time discussing the actions of one small group and conveniently for some, taking it to include the whole red shirt movement?

Finally, the subject of this thread is that Red shirts do nothing to help their own - at least the pictures in any case have disproved the subject title of this thread.

That summarizes the issue very well.

[Buchholz]

Thanks for your valuable work in the field and the reports you provide, Nick. It is as interesting for its content as it is for the responses it elicits.

I hope you continue to shed light here on what's happening on the ground as it adds an important dimension to the articles we are fed here every day.

IMHO, it's incumbent upon all participants of the discussion to add to that discussion by submitting articles of their own choosing to widen the dimension of discussion or to do so by contributing their own on-the-ground experiences.

It's a shame there's precious little of the former and only a smattering of the latter, which then leads to the expressions that we somehow should expect to be spoon fed by Admin the total sum of the information presented on the forum.

There's a wealth of information out there that's available, but not discussed because its not presented by anyone.

.

Good point.

Why don't you start then with what you advise?

Any reliable report you can supply us with on this group of Red Shirts not helping non-Red Shirts, or do you expect me to solely spoon feed Thaivisa with information on this subject?

Despite the flak it generates, I probably do more of what I advise than any member on this forum.

Good luck with finding your own wild goose/needle.