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

[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?

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" I am aware of this, it does not answer the question why!

"Wouldn't it be bad form for a government run channel to restrict political broadcasts because of advertiser pressure?" Yes, but nonetheless it is a common practice everywhere, the BBC, CNN, Fox news, all have a clear political bias. What is strange is that the Dems even tried, to me it seems like deliberate provocation when other networks were easily available.

[whybother]

" It's BP that doesn't allow quotes/links on TV" I am aware of this, it does not answer the question why!

Maybe the question "What would the Bangkok Post have against TVs political views?" gives a good idea why. IMO, it's a commercial decision on the part of BP, since by quoting BP, people aren't going to their website to see ads.

"Wouldn't it be bad form for a government run channel to restrict political broadcasts because of advertiser pressure?" Yes, but nonetheless it is a common practice everywhere, the BBC, CNN, Fox news, all have a clear political bias. What is strange is that the Dems even tried, to me it seems like deliberate provocation when other networks were easily available.

How is having their party general meeting broadcast deliberately provocative? Wouldn't it be "provocative" to go to any channel in that case?

[anterian]

Most party political broadcasts anywhere are provocative, when viewed from their opponent's viewpoint.

" It's BP that doesn't allow quotes/links on TV" I am aware of this, it does not answer the question why!

Maybe the question "What would the Bangkok Post have against TVs political views?" gives a good idea why. IMO, it's a commercial decision on the part of BP, since by quoting BP, people aren't going to their website to see ads.

"Wouldn't it be bad form for a government run channel to restrict political broadcasts because of advertiser pressure?" Yes, but nonetheless it is a common practice everywhere, the BBC, CNN, Fox news, all have a clear political bias. What is strange is that the Dems even tried, to me it seems like deliberate provocation when other networks were easily available.

How is having their party general meeting broadcast deliberately provocative? Wouldn't it be "provocative" to go to any channel in that case?

Any "Party political broadcast" is provocative in the eyes of their opponents. Even more so when attempted to be broadcast in a media outlet friendly to those opponents.This is why I wrote "deliberately" provocative.

[Curt1591]

Next thing you know, they'll start shutting down opposing Radio and TV stations altogether!

[Ricardo]

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 recall that the same thing happened several years ago, when then-PM Thaksin was trying to crush dissent published by Sondhi.

At one point it became so bad that the early weekly-rallies by the PAD, which were attempting to blow-the-whistle on government/TRT-supporter corruption, had to resort to selling VCDs of their speeches, and even those were attempted to be suppressed by the government.

I myself can nowadays view both ASTV and Red TV-channels, that's actually an improvement in free-speech, just so long as nobody uses them to call for violent protest or armed-revolution.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Ricardo

[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?

I recall that the same thing happened several years ago, when then-PM Thaksin was trying to crush dissent published by Sondhi.

At one point it became so bad that the early weekly-rallies by the PAD, which were attempting to blow-the-whistle on government/TRT-supporter corruption, had to resort to selling VCDs of their speeches, and even those were attempted to be suppressed by the government.

I myself can nowadays view both ASTV and Red TV-channels, that's actually an improvement in free-speech, just so long as nobody uses them to call for violent protest or armed-revolution.

I agree, freedom of choice is a step in the direction of freedom of speech. It is a bit like religion, there are many satellite religious channels, but I don't have to watch them. I don't think a Moslem watching such a channel would be persuaded to become a christian.

[yoshiwara]

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 recall that the same thing happened several years ago, when then-PM Thaksin was trying to crush dissent published by Sondhi.

At one point it became so bad that the early weekly-rallies by the PAD, which were attempting to blow-the-whistle on government/TRT-supporter corruption, had to resort to selling VCDs of their speeches, and even those were attempted to be suppressed by the government.

I myself can nowadays view both ASTV and Red TV-channels, that's actually an improvement in free-speech, just so long as nobody uses them to call for violent protest or armed-revolution.

Thaksin has form. Just a small dress rehearsal.

[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.

"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.

There is a difference between propaganda mechanism and broadcasting a party caucus publicly.

Legitimate means a properly registered with the EC political party.

There are many, but Red Shirts are not one of them.

Wildcat radio is not legitimate, but we are talking a fully broadcast commission registered TV station.

ASTV and Red-TV fit in this category not the wildcat stations.

If PAD was running wildcat radio stations,

I would also have no issues about their illegal stations being shut down.

My political stance is;

I don't like watching Thaksins political machine manipulate the poor to grease his obsession driven path to power, and making a huge profit at the expense of the poor and all others not on his gravy train. The poor deserve a break from being manipulated and trampled by liege-lords and war-lords. That is more of a social position, but of necessity it has to take some political stance.

Edited April 3, 2012 by animatic

[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.

There is a difference between propaganda mechanism and broadcasting a party caucus publicly.

Legitimate means a properly registered with the EC political party.

There are many, but Red Shirts are not one of them.

Wildcat radio is not legitimate, but we are talking a fully broadcast commission registered TV station.

ASTV and Red-TV fit in this category not the wildcat stations.

If PAD was running wildcat radio stations,

I would also have no issues about their illegal stations being shut down.

My political stance is;

I don't like watching Thaksins political machine manipulate the poor to grease his obsession driven path to power, and making a huge profit at the expense of the poor and all others not on his gravy train. The poor deserve a break from being manipulated and trampled by liege-lords and war-lords. That is more of a social position, but of necessity it has to take some political stance.

"The poor deserve a break from being manipulated and trampled by liege-lords and war-lords. " Now in this I am in total agreement, where we disagree is you regard Thaksin as the paramount warlord, in fact this is not so, if he had truly been so he could never have been deposed. There are liege-lords and war-lords in Thailand who are so much better at manipulating the people than Thaksin that they stay invisible and unmentionable. Thailand pays lip service to democracy, in reality it is a feudal society controlled by robber barons. Thaksin was a big baron, but he upset too many other barons, some bigger than him, so he had to go.

[animatic]

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.

There is a difference between propaganda mechanism and broadcasting a party caucus publicly.

Legitimate means a properly registered with the EC political party.

There are many, but Red Shirts are not one of them.

Wildcat radio is not legitimate, but we are talking a fully broadcast commission registered TV station.

ASTV and Red-TV fit in this category not the wildcat stations.

If PAD was running wildcat radio stations,

I would also have no issues about their illegal stations being shut down.

My political stance is;

I don't like watching Thaksins political machine manipulate the poor to grease his obsession driven path to power, and making a huge profit at the expense of the poor and all others not on his gravy train. The poor deserve a break from being manipulated and trampled by liege-lords and war-lords. That is more of a social position, but of necessity it has to take some political stance.

"The poor deserve a break from being manipulated and trampled by liege-lords and war-lords. " Now in this I am in total agreement, where we disagree is you regard Thaksin as the paramount warlord, in fact this is not so, if he had truly been so he could never have been deposed. There are liege-lords and war-lords in Thailand who are so much better at manipulating the people than Thaksin that they stay invisible and unmentionable. Thailand pays lip service to democracy, in reality it is a feudal society controlled by robber barons. Thaksin was a big baron, but he upset too many other barons, some bigger than him, so he had to go.

Go back to Sarit's 'hagiographising for unity' if you will, but it's not the same thing.

I don't think Thaksin is a good warlord, thank the lord, but a liege-lord arch type.

He has small scale war-lords under him. If he was a real warlord he'd already be on top.

What's troubling is his building a counter legend around himself, that can't help but end very, very badly for Thailand and it's poor, as all such 'civil disputes' do. He, or his heirs in waiting, will lose control and then it's gonna be random chance how we all make out. I fear that many will suffer from this build up to disorderly change.

[timewilltell]

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...

Ha ha and the current lot aren't looking after their self interest at the expense of the country I suppose. Both parties ate equally selfish and unfit

[TAWP]

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?

The police or other responsible authorities closing down radio stations that are illegally occupying segments of the broadcast-space isn't a bad thing - it is about making sure no legal radio-stations license is infringed upon by other, illegal, station broadcasting over therefor interfering with their signal.

[Siam Simon]

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?

The police or other responsible authorities closing down radio stations that are illegally occupying segments of the broadcast-space isn't a bad thing - it is about making sure no legal radio-stations license is infringed upon by other, illegal, station broadcasting over therefor interfering with their signal.

More massaging of the facts. Thailand has several thousand illegal radio stations, but the army action being discussed only targeted a handful (was it eight?) of these radio stations - all of them Red Shirt stations. It was a political act, no question, and trying to present it as a normal legal procedure to protect legally operating radio stations is pure bs. I stated on the forum at the time of the closures that I awaited the closing of many other illegal community radio stations following the closure of the Red Shirt ones under the pretext of them operating illegally. It never happened, of course.

[JAG]

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.

In your somewhat partisan opinion!

[OzMick]

Most party political broadcasts anywhere are provocative, when viewed from their opponent's viewpoint.

" It's BP that doesn't allow quotes/links on TV" I am aware of this, it does not answer the question why!

Maybe the question "What would the Bangkok Post have against TVs political views?" gives a good idea why. IMO, it's a commercial decision on the part of BP, since by quoting BP, people aren't going to their website to see ads.

"Wouldn't it be bad form for a government run channel to restrict political broadcasts because of advertiser pressure?" Yes, but nonetheless it is a common practice everywhere, the BBC, CNN, Fox news, all have a clear political bias. What is strange is that the Dems even tried, to me it seems like deliberate provocation when other networks were easily available.

How is having their party general meeting broadcast deliberately provocative? Wouldn't it be "provocative" to go to any channel in that case?

Any "Party political broadcast" is provocative in the eyes of their opponents. Even more so when attempted to be broadcast in a media outlet friendly to those opponents.This is why I wrote "deliberately" provocative.

They do have the option of not watching it.

In relation to an earlier comment, shouldn't the cost of airtime reflect any loss of advertising revenue? Are there NO advertisers willing to support such a program? And why wait until the broadcast was imminent to notify - even if a ban was being considered they could have let their customer know that a ban was possible?

[anterian]

Too many quotes! so to Animatic: "What's troubling is his building a counter legend around himself"

You might disagree, in fact probably will, but I see Yingluck as the "wild card" in your scenario. At first she was clearly Thaksin's puppet, but increasingly she is showing signs of independence, and an independence which is not self seeking but trying to do the right thing. Thais are a male centric, chauvanistic culture, the assumption is that big brother calls the tune. I think we are increasingly seeing signs that she has a mind of her own but is playing it cool because she is surrounded by cohorts of the old brigade. Early days yet, time will tell.

[geriatrickid]

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?

The police or other responsible authorities closing down radio stations that are illegally occupying segments of the broadcast-space isn't a bad thing - it is about making sure no legal radio-stations license is infringed upon by other, illegal, station broadcasting over therefor interfering with their signal.

Fair enough, but many of the radio stations were not on competing frequencies, They just couldn't get licenses. If a government refuses to grant a license to a political group it opposes, I suppose the smart ones will show some ingenuity and go pirate,

[geriatrickid]

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.

The democrats are indeed one of the oldest parties, so what? When a mafioso ages does it mean that all of his sins disappear and he is any less a mafioso?

The PPP was one of the largest and most popular parties and yet it was legally butchered when it could not be defeated at the polls. The UDD was a result of that dismemberment. As suchm the UDD was a legitimate representative of those members of the electorate that saw the loss of their elected representatives through politically motivated intervention.

[whybother]

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.

The democrats are indeed one of the oldest parties, so what? When a mafioso ages does it mean that all of his sins disappear and he is any less a mafioso?

The PPP was one of the largest and most popular parties and yet it was legally butchered when it could not be defeated at the polls. The UDD was a result of that dismemberment. As suchm the UDD was a legitimate representative of those members of the electorate that saw the loss of their elected representatives through politically motivated intervention.

And there I was thinking that the UDD was a result of the military coup.