Democrats Say Thai Govt Forced Broadcast Of Party General Meeting Off The Air

[webfact]

Democrats say govt forced broadcast of party general meeting off the air

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Democrat Party yesterday threatened to take action against the government for "censoring" the broadcast of its party caucus on state-run Modernine TV.

Democrat spokesman Chavanond Intarakomalyasut said the station did not leave the party enough time to lease airtime on other TV channels after refusing to air the recorded proceedings of the party's general meeting.

"It seemed they intended to cause this blunder because they informed us of the cancellation only one hour before the airing," he said.

The Democrats wanted to show the proceedings of Saturday's general assembly from 10-11am on Sunday and was willing to pay for the airtime.

The party had complied with the requirement of MCOT Plc, which operates Modernine TV, to submit the tape to the station before 6pm on Saturday for checking, he said.

MCOT said the tape did not pass its screening but failed to mention which part was not approved, he said.

Bangkok MP Natthapol Teepsuwan said the cancellation was likely ordered by politicians supervising the TV station.

Democrat MP Boonyod Suk-thinthai urged Chakkraphan Yomchinda, MCOT's acting president, to explain whether the pulling of the show was interference in the work of a media outlet or not.

The Democrats would ask the House committee on development of politics, mass media and public participation to investigate, party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva said.

-- The Nation 2012-04-02

[Buchholz]

A further censoring by the government which is branching out from the internet to television

[Siam Simon]

What, exactly, were the Democrat Party buying? One hour seems like an awfully long advert to me. Is the buying of large chunks of primetime tv by political parties normal practice? Which parties have paid for how much airtime, and how much have they paid?

[whybother]

What, exactly, were the Democrat Party buying? One hour seems like an awfully long advert to me. Is the buying of large chunks of primetime tv by political parties normal practice? Which parties have paid for how much airtime, and how much have they paid?

Given that the slot was cancelled only an hour prior to airing, it seems like it is normal practice for parties at have access to air time.

Since when is 10-11am on a Sunday morning "prime time tv"?

[OzMick]

What, exactly, were the Democrat Party buying? One hour seems like an awfully long advert to me. Is the buying of large chunks of primetime tv by political parties normal practice? Which parties have paid for how much airtime, and how much have they paid?

The question is why was the airing cancelled at such short notice? If the answer may be embarrassing, ask different, irrelevant questions.

[sparebox2]

The Democrats was willing to pay ..............

the tape did not pass its screening .............

Have money does not been you can air anything to want.

On the fall back, Dems have their own Channel don't they? Not sure what name; something sky sky?

Not sure, but could be same sky book, or something sound like that. Does anyone know?

[phiphidon]

The Democrats was willing to pay ..............

the tape did not pass its screening .............

Have money does not been you can air anything to want.

On the fall back, Dems have their own Channel don't they? Not sure what name; something sky sky?

Not sure, but could be same sky book, or something sound like that. Does anyone know?

Blue Sky - it's the one whose 3 democrat party "hosts" are currently being sued for defamation for their gross comments about the PM - but the station in no way was funded by Suthep or affiliated to the democrat party otherwise that would be against article 48 of the constitution.

You would have thought that would be the first place they would air their programmes though.

[bigbamboo]

What, exactly, were the Democrat Party buying? One hour seems like an awfully long advert to me. Is the buying of large chunks of primetime tv by political parties normal practice? Which parties have paid for how much airtime, and how much have they paid?

The question is why was the airing cancelled at such short notice? If the answer may be embarrassing, ask different, irrelevant questions.

Ask Yingluck. She will answer anybody's question at any time.

[animatic]

The part that didn't pass screening was the part where ;

The Democrats sounded thoughtful, focus on the peoples welfare,

and actually have coherent ideas articulated for all to hear.

Obviously this would be a slight to the government if used in comparison,

and must be supressed at all costs.

Edited April 2, 2012 by animatic

[rubl]

The Democrats was willing to pay ..............

the tape did not pass its screening .............

Have money does not been you can air anything to want.

On the fall back, Dems have their own Channel don't they? Not sure what name; something sky sky?

Not sure, but could be same sky book, or something sound like that. Does anyone know?

Blue Sky - it's the one whose 3 democrat party "hosts" are currently being sued for defamation for their gross comments about the PM - but the station in no way was funded by Suthep or affiliated to the democrat party otherwise that would be against article 48 of the constitution.

You would have thought that would be the first place they would air their programmes though.

After this short excursion let's return to the topic of "democrats-say-thai-govt-forced-broadcast-of-party-general-meeting-off-the-air".

"The Democrats wanted to show the proceedings of Saturday's general assembly from 10-11am on Sunday and was willing to pay for the airtime.

The party had complied with the requirement of MCOT Plc, which operates Modernine TV, to submit the tape to the station before 6pm on Saturday for checking, he said.

MCOT said the tape did not pass its screening but failed to mention which part was not approved, he said."

I guess like me all posters here are anxiously awaiting a further explanation from MCOT as to why the tape didn't pass screening. I mean next time any of us likes to buy airtime we surely would like to comply to any of the rules to avoid being barred, now wouldn't we ?

[geriatrickid]

What, exactly, were the Democrat Party buying? One hour seems like an awfully long advert to me. Is the buying of large chunks of primetime tv by political parties normal practice? Which parties have paid for how much airtime, and how much have they paid?

The question is why was the airing cancelled at such short notice? If the answer may be embarrassing, ask different, irrelevant questions.

Ask Yingluck. She will answer anybody's question at any time.

Although a positive reflection of the beloved PM's accessibility, I don't think she would be able to answer as this does not concern her. She could give an opinion, perhaps along the lines of who cares.

In any case, I know I would have been watching the Nurse Naimsee rerun. (She's that Thai babe dressed in a fetish nurse outfit in fake black glasses with the kids toy stethoscope.) It causes me no end of hysterical laughter as it is just so inane.

[chuang]

The Democrat party is a pain in the ass..instead of helping the country to prosper and live in harmony...they are all out to bring the present government down by hook or by crook to satisfy their own selfish interest..even at the expense of bring thailand down...

[OzMick]

What, exactly, were the Democrat Party buying? One hour seems like an awfully long advert to me. Is the buying of large chunks of primetime tv by political parties normal practice? Which parties have paid for how much airtime, and how much have they paid?

The question is why was the airing cancelled at such short notice? If the answer may be embarrassing, ask different, irrelevant questions.

Ask Yingluck. She will answer anybody's question at any time.

Although a positive reflection of the beloved PM's accessibility, I don't think she would be able to answer as this does not concern her. She could give an opinion, perhaps along the lines of who cares.

In any case, I know I would have been watching the Nurse Naimsee rerun. (She's that Thai babe dressed in a fetish nurse outfit in fake black glasses with the kids toy stethoscope.) It causes me no end of hysterical laughter as it is just so inane.

Her answer today is "I wasn't informed so it didn't happen." Perhaps she could make herself more accessible to parliament - I'm sure there are quite a few questions that MPs would like to ask her.

[ginjag]

P.Ms thinking is--avoidance as much as possible, then I wont look as though I dont know how to run things, re-naming her home "DENIAL"

[bigbamboo]

What, exactly, were the Democrat Party buying? One hour seems like an awfully long advert to me. Is the buying of large chunks of primetime tv by political parties normal practice? Which parties have paid for how much airtime, and how much have they paid?

The question is why was the airing cancelled at such short notice? If the answer may be embarrassing, ask different, irrelevant questions.

Ask Yingluck. She will answer anybody's question at any time.

Although a positive reflection of the beloved PM's accessibility, I don't think she would be able to answer as this does not concern her. She could give an opinion, perhaps along the lines of who cares.

In any case, I know I would have been watching the Nurse Naimsee rerun. (She's that Thai babe dressed in a fetish nurse outfit in fake black glasses with the kids toy stethoscope.) It causes me no end of hysterical laughter as it is just so inane.

So now we know the Geriatrickid loves Yingluck and inane humour!

Well, OK, so most of us knew that already.

[phiphidon]

The Democrats was willing to pay ..............

the tape did not pass its screening .............

Have money does not been you can air anything to want.

On the fall back, Dems have their own Channel don't they? Not sure what name; something sky sky?

Not sure, but could be same sky book, or something sound like that. Does anyone know?

Blue Sky - it's the one whose 3 democrat party "hosts" are currently being sued for defamation for their gross comments about the PM - but the station in no way was funded by Suthep or affiliated to the democrat party otherwise that would be against article 48 of the constitution.

You would have thought that would be the first place they would air their programmes though.

After this short excursion let's return to the topic of "democrats-say-thai-govt-forced-broadcast-of-party-general-meeting-off-the-air".

"The Democrats wanted to show the proceedings of Saturday's general assembly from 10-11am on Sunday and was willing to pay for the airtime.

The party had complied with the requirement of MCOT Plc, which operates Modernine TV, to submit the tape to the station before 6pm on Saturday for checking, he said.

MCOT said the tape did not pass its screening but failed to mention which part was not approved, he said."

I guess like me all posters here are anxiously awaiting a further explanation from MCOT as to why the tape didn't pass screening. I mean next time any of us likes to buy airtime we surely would like to comply to any of the rules to avoid being barred, now wouldn't we ?

Now that you've got us back on the straight and narrow can you tell me why you think all posters "are anxiously awaiting a further explanation from MCOT as to why the tape didn't pass screening" and then pose a purely hypothetical question to back up why you are seemingly so interested in modernines broadcast policies?

My mentioning of blue sky and its disgraced hosts is totally relevant seeing that an Abhisit TV show was its very first broadcast and is widely seen as leaning towards the democrat party. I would have thought that they would have been the first port of call - surely they didn't turn down abhisit as well.

[pimay11]

The Democrat party is a pain in the ass..instead of helping the country to prosper and live in harmony...they are all out to bring the present government down by hook or by crook to satisfy their own selfish interest..even at the expense of bring thailand down...

Compared to the PTP's goal of helping the country to prosper and live in harmony and not satisfy their own self interest.

[bigbamboo]

The Democrat party is a pain in the ass..instead of helping the country to prosper and live in harmony...they are all out to bring the present government down by hook or by crook to satisfy their own selfish interest..even at the expense of bring thailand down...

Haha!........right on cue we have some of that inane humour GK says he loves so much!

[rubl]

Blue Sky - it's the one whose 3 democrat party "hosts" are currently being sued for defamation for their gross comments about the PM - but the station in no way was funded by Suthep or affiliated to the democrat party otherwise that would be against article 48 of the constitution.

You would have thought that would be the first place they would air their programmes though.

After this short excursion let's return to the topic of "democrats-say-thai-govt-forced-broadcast-of-party-general-meeting-off-the-air".

"The Democrats wanted to show the proceedings of Saturday's general assembly from 10-11am on Sunday and was willing to pay for the airtime.

The party had complied with the requirement of MCOT Plc, which operates Modernine TV, to submit the tape to the station before 6pm on Saturday for checking, he said.

MCOT said the tape did not pass its screening but failed to mention which part was not approved, he said."

I guess like me all posters here are anxiously awaiting a further explanation from MCOT as to why the tape didn't pass screening. I mean next time any of us likes to buy airtime we surely would like to comply to any of the rules to avoid being barred, now wouldn't we ?

Now that you've got us back on the straight and narrow can you tell me why you think all posters "are anxiously awaiting a further explanation from MCOT as to why the tape didn't pass screening" and then pose a purely hypothetical question to back up why you are seemingly so interested in modernines broadcast policies?

My mentioning of blue sky and its disgraced hosts is totally relevant seeing that an Abhisit TV show was its very first broadcast and is widely seen as leaning towards the democrat party. I would have thought that they would have been the first port of call - surely they didn't turn down abhisit as well.

MCOT turned the Dem's down with 'tape didn't pass screening'. In my innocence and because I was brought up with the concept of asking questions when an issue is not understood, I'm just looking forward to a further explanation of the 'didn't pass screening'.

To mention that there is at least one station which seems leaning towards the Dem's and therefore more likely to broadcast any they ask, is somewhat irrelevant. The Dem's asked and paid for an hour on ModernineTV and were turned down. With Pheu Thai MPs declaring 'the Dem's hinder reconciliation', one gets curious as to the reason MCOT turned down the Dem's tape. Maybe it was of similar quality as some of the more infamous PTV shoutcasts ?

Edited April 2, 2012 by rubl

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed.

[geriatrickid]

So now we know the Geriatrickid loves Yingluck and inane humour!

Well, OK, so most of us knew that already.

I don't "love' the PM, but I respect her.

Have you seen the Nursie show? I don't think it's meant to be humourous,but rather is intended to be "sexy". It's just that sexy + Thai television is such a poor mix. it's like the television shows being referenced where all the alleged newscasters do is nod and go Kahh, Kahh, or Dah, Dah. These are not news reporters, but are more like product spokespeople.

[phiphidon]

MCOT turned the Dem's down with 'tape didn't pass screening'. In my innocence and because I was brought up with the concept of asking questions when an issue is not understood, I'm just looking forward to a further explanation of the 'didn't pass screening'.

To mention that there is at least one station which seems leaning towards the Dem's and therefore more likely to broadcast any they ask, is somewhat irrelevant. The Dem's asked and paid for an hour on ModernineTV and were turned down. With Pheu Thai MPs declaring 'the Dem's hinder reconciliation', one gets curious as to the reason MCOT turned down the Dem's tape. Maybe it was of similar quality as some of the more infamous PTV shoutcasts ?

For one that was brought up on asking questions you seem to have a lot of faith in "sources". You also have a skewed conception of irrelevant (anything you don't like to hear I guess).

Please tell me the relevance of the "Pheu Thai MPs declaring "the Dem's hinder reconciliation" statement? Your excuse for that smacks of a desperate attempt to bring up something "bad" about the UDD like the allegedly "infamous PTV shoutcasts".

If the Red Shirts had asked modernine to broadcast these "infamous PTV shoutcasts" and were turned down then maybe, just maybe, you might have a sound reason to mention them. They didn't, You don't.

[rubl]

MCOT turned the Dem's down with 'tape didn't pass screening'. In my innocence and because I was brought up with the concept of asking questions when an issue is not understood, I'm just looking forward to a further explanation of the 'didn't pass screening'.

To mention that there is at least one station which seems leaning towards the Dem's and therefore more likely to broadcast any they ask, is somewhat irrelevant. The Dem's asked and paid for an hour on ModernineTV and were turned down. With Pheu Thai MPs declaring 'the Dem's hinder reconciliation', one gets curious as to the reason MCOT turned down the Dem's tape. Maybe it was of similar quality as some of the more infamous PTV shoutcasts ?

For one that was brought up on asking questions you seem to have a lot of faith in "sources". You also have a skewed conception of irrelevant (anything you don't like to hear I guess).

Please tell me the relevance of the "Pheu Thai MPs declaring "the Dem's hinder reconciliation" statement? Your excuse for that smacks of a desperate attempt to bring up something "bad" about the UDD like the allegedly "infamous PTV shoutcasts".

If the Red Shirts had asked modernine to broadcast these "infamous PTV shoutcasts" and were turned down then maybe, just maybe, you might have a sound reason to mention them. They didn't, You don't.

Asking for 'more info' indicates I question rather than put full faith in 'sources'. I'm questioning why the Dem's tape was deemed unacceptable, that is assuming the Dem's were turned down which seems fairly certain with all the comments so far.

May I even throw in my seven cents? Without further details I see two possible reasons why the Dem's were turned down:

-1: 'clearly and obviously' the Dem's were provoking with this request of an hour on TV.

-2: the Dem's had the affront to ask for a fully specified bill including VAT and such details.

As for bringing up something bad about the UDD, please explain to me why I should bother? They seem to be able to do a proper job there without my help.

[phiphidon]

MCOT turned the Dem's down with 'tape didn't pass screening'. In my innocence and because I was brought up with the concept of asking questions when an issue is not understood, I'm just looking forward to a further explanation of the 'didn't pass screening'.

To mention that there is at least one station which seems leaning towards the Dem's and therefore more likely to broadcast any they ask, is somewhat irrelevant. The Dem's asked and paid for an hour on ModernineTV and were turned down. With Pheu Thai MPs declaring 'the Dem's hinder reconciliation', one gets curious as to the reason MCOT turned down the Dem's tape. Maybe it was of similar quality as some of the more infamous PTV shoutcasts ?

For one that was brought up on asking questions you seem to have a lot of faith in "sources". You also have a skewed conception of irrelevant (anything you don't like to hear I guess).

Please tell me the relevance of the "Pheu Thai MPs declaring "the Dem's hinder reconciliation" statement? Your excuse for that smacks of a desperate attempt to bring up something "bad" about the UDD like the allegedly "infamous PTV shoutcasts".

If the Red Shirts had asked modernine to broadcast these "infamous PTV shoutcasts" and were turned down then maybe, just maybe, you might have a sound reason to mention them. They didn't, You don't.

Asking for 'more info' indicates I question rather than put full faith in 'sources'. I'm questioning why the Dem's tape was deemed unacceptable, that is assuming the Dem's were turned down which seems fairly certain with all the comments so far.

May I even throw in my seven cents? Without further details I see two possible reasons why the Dem's were turned down:

-1: 'clearly and obviously' the Dem's were provoking with this request of an hour on TV.

-2: the Dem's had the affront to ask for a fully specified bill including VAT and such details.

As for bringing up something bad about the UDD, please explain to me why I should bother? They seem to be able to do a proper job there without my help.

So why the "infamous PTV shoutcast" comment? You bothered enough to slot that in with no possible reason for it. It doesn't add to the debate. Definitely a NNN.

[rubl]

MCOT turned the Dem's down with 'tape didn't pass screening'. In my innocence and because I was brought up with the concept of asking questions when an issue is not understood, I'm just looking forward to a further explanation of the 'didn't pass screening'.

To mention that there is at least one station which seems leaning towards the Dem's and therefore more likely to broadcast any they ask, is somewhat irrelevant. The Dem's asked and paid for an hour on ModernineTV and were turned down. With Pheu Thai MPs declaring 'the Dem's hinder reconciliation', one gets curious as to the reason MCOT turned down the Dem's tape. Maybe it was of similar quality as some of the more infamous PTV shoutcasts ?

For one that was brought up on asking questions you seem to have a lot of faith in "sources". You also have a skewed conception of irrelevant (anything you don't like to hear I guess).

Please tell me the relevance of the "Pheu Thai MPs declaring "the Dem's hinder reconciliation" statement? Your excuse for that smacks of a desperate attempt to bring up something "bad" about the UDD like the allegedly "infamous PTV shoutcasts".

If the Red Shirts had asked modernine to broadcast these "infamous PTV shoutcasts" and were turned down then maybe, just maybe, you might have a sound reason to mention them. They didn't, You don't.

Asking for 'more info' indicates I question rather than put full faith in 'sources'. I'm questioning why the Dem's tape was deemed unacceptable, that is assuming the Dem's were turned down which seems fairly certain with all the comments so far.

May I even throw in my seven cents? Without further details I see two possible reasons why the Dem's were turned down:

-1: 'clearly and obviously' the Dem's were provoking with this request of an hour on TV.

-2: the Dem's had the affront to ask for a fully specified bill including VAT and such details.

As for bringing up something bad about the UDD, please explain to me why I should bother? They seem to be able to do a proper job there without my help.

So why the "infamous PTV shoutcast" comment? You bothered enough to slot that in with no possible reason for it. It doesn't add to the debate. Definitely a NNN.

In the spur of a moment I couldn't think of other broadcasts in Thailand which might be refused as non-complying. If you feel like helping me and point out some other non-complying broadcasts in Thailand which have or should have been rejected, please do so. As far as you feel that would be appropriate, on topic and so.

[Siam Simon]

What, exactly, were the Democrat Party buying? One hour seems like an awfully long advert to me. Is the buying of large chunks of primetime tv by political parties normal practice? Which parties have paid for how much airtime, and how much have they paid?

The question is why was the airing cancelled at such short notice? If the answer may be embarrassing, ask different, irrelevant questions.

And, as a question, it may well have legs. One thing's for sure: Even if it doesn't, it will be done to death on here by posters such as yourself. I was just surprised to learn that political parties can buy large chunks of mainstream TV time to broadcast propaganda. I wasn't taking a party political line (am I right in assuming that all political parties with money do this?). I was just flagging up my surprise.

[anterian]

When the Dems while in power closed many Red radio and TV stations, everyone accepted this as a normal political move, so what's the problem? One could ask why are we not allowed to copy and paste comments from the rival newspaper, is it a politically motivated ban or a commercial one? Most media outlets earn their primary income from advertisers, if the main advertisers to a TV station are PT supporters they might have brought pressure to reject the Dem broadcast. If such was the case was it a political or economic decision?

[animatic]

When the Dems while in power closed many Red radio and TV stations, everyone accepted this as a normal political move, so what's the problem? One could ask why are we not allowed to copy and paste comments from the rival newspaper, is it a politically motivated ban or a commercial one? Most media outlets earn their primary income from advertisers, if the main advertisers to a TV station are PT supporters they might have brought pressure to reject the Dem broadcast. If such was the case was it a political or economic decision?

Well the difference is, the Red Propaganda Stations are/were not on a par with a legitimate political party such as Dems or PTP.

This is stifling the voice of the oldest legitimate Thailand political party, not a political movement that is not a legitimate party, even if they have members in Parliament through a legitimate party, PTP appointing them into PTP.

It is just not the same thing.

[anterian]

When the Dems while in power closed many Red radio and TV stations, everyone accepted this as a normal political move, so what's the problem? One could ask why are we not allowed to copy and paste comments from the rival newspaper, is it a politically motivated ban or a commercial one? Most media outlets earn their primary income from advertisers, if the main advertisers to a TV station are PT supporters they might have brought pressure to reject the Dem broadcast. If such was the case was it a political or economic decision?

Well the difference is, the Red Propaganda Stations are/were not on a par with a legitimate political party such as Dems or PTP.

This is stifling the voice of the oldest legitimate Thailand political party, not a political movement that is not a legitimate party, even if they have members in Parliament through a legitimate party, PTP appointing them into PTP.

It is just not the same thing.

"It is just not the same thing." All a question of viewpoint, even the word "legitimate" is questionable in a Thai context. Your political stance is both clear and fixated, as such it weakens many of your comments.

[whybother]

When the Dems while in power closed many Red radio and TV stations, everyone accepted this as a normal political move, so what's the problem? One could ask why are we not allowed to copy and paste comments from the rival newspaper, is it a politically motivated ban or a commercial one? Most media outlets earn their primary income from advertisers, if the main advertisers to a TV station are PT supporters they might have brought pressure to reject the Dem broadcast. If such was the case was it a political or economic decision?

I didn't realise that there was currently an SOE in force that the government are using to stop incitement videos being shown, or that the Democrats were asking to broadcast on an illegal channel.

Why would you think that the Bangkok Post stopping links / quotes in TV would be a politically motivated bad? What would the Bangkok Post have against TVs political views?

Isn't the channel that they want to broadcast on a government run channel? Wouldn't it be bad form for a government run channel to restrict political broadcasts because of advertiser pressure?

(FYI: It's BP that doesn't allow quotes/links on TV.)