CENSORSHIP?
Govt denies 'killing' TV interview
The Sunday Nation

BANGKOK: -- Government Spokesperson Teerat Ratanasevi yesterday denied that the Yingluck Shinawatra administration was responsible for pulling the plug on a television interview with a leader of the anti-Mae Wong Dam movement.

The programme Kon Khon Kon "People Search People") on television Channel 9 was scheduled to broadcast a taped interview with environmentalist Sasin Chalermlarp, who is also the secretary-general of the Sueb Nakhasathien Foundation.

The programme was scheduled to be aired at 8pm yesterday, but was replaced by a different episode leading to widespread speculation on social media sites.

However, a source at "Kon Khon Kon" programme revealed later yesterday that they would upload the 60-minute episode on YouTube at 8pm yesterday in order to let society see what the content was really about. The normal airtime of the episode on TV was 40 minutes.

Teerat posted on his Twitter account that the decision not to air the episode was solely that of the television station because it was seen as providing one-sided information.

Teerat added that the producer was asked to make the episode more balanced, and the matter had nothing to do with the Yingluck administration. He said the government was not even aware that Sasin would be featured in the programme this week.

Wanchai Tantiwithayapitak, a deputy director at Thai PBS television, said on his Facebook account that he was doubtful if the episode will ever be aired despite the claim that the producer was asked to make it more balanced.

Sasin confirmed he was interviewed by the programme producer although he doesn't know why the programme was not aired as scheduled. He refused to conclude that it had to do with his anti-dam activity and added that the interview was mostly about his life and work in general.

Sasin said he had no doubts about the producer of the programme, Burapha TV, and would leave the matter to the producer to handle.

On social media, the incident has rekindled anger at the government and the censorship of the episode.

-- The Nation 2013-09-29

The TV company decided not to air the programme because it was too one sided but this information comes from the government spokesman not the company. He alsosaid the producer was asked to make the episode more balanced but by whom ?

It was natural he would claim this issue had nothing to do with the government which may well be true but equally it would certain be in keeping with how they do things if they had interfered and the ' persuasion ' used can only be speculated at.

"Teerat added that the producer was asked to make the episode more balanced,"

No interfering ???....these people just talk crap.....contradicting themselves all the time..!!

Censorship should be banned.

Thai democracy in action.

TV is already a dead media, some might say it has been for a few decades, and it is because of things like this OP that most people go to the internet for their news and interviews first. TV was always easy to control because TV programmes are seen as products being sold to customers and so the supplier (and the people giving orders above them) can easily cancel and block any products deemed 'defective'. The internet is different, it is largely not product-based, it is user-based and information-oriented, and if you pay your ISP bills and have a computer you have the right to access that information. Also and more importantly, if/when a govt pulls the plug on the internet it would cause that government to become history overnight. It is too late to put the web genie back in the bottle, but I'm sure that most governments wish they could.

Keep in mind that the producer of this program is the same man that got into hot water over accusations against certain rice millers regarding contamination.

He publicly apologized to them, so was not sued.

I am guessing P'Check is firmly on the regime's radar.

Government owns the media,therefore such actions are to be expected. This is not really a news item but more an indictment on Thai political culture.

TV is already a dead media, some might say it has been for a few decades, and it is because of things like this OP that most people go to the internet for their news and interviews first. TV was always easy to control because TV programmes are seen as products being sold to customers and so the supplier (and the people giving orders above them) can easily cancel and block any products deemed 'defective'. The internet is different, it is largely not product-based, it is user-based and information-oriented, and if you pay your ISP bills and have a computer you have the right to access that information. Also and more importantly, if/when a govt pulls the plug on the internet it would cause that government to become history overnight. It is too late to put the web genie back in the bottle, but I'm sure that most governments wish they could.

Is this really the case here in LOS though? Where government ministries monitor content? Where the police are threatening to arrest people for merely 'liking' social media posts inconvenient to the current regime?

TV is already a dead media, some might say it has been for a few decades, and it is because of things like this OP that most people go to the internet for their news and interviews first. TV was always easy to control because TV programmes are seen as products being sold to customers and so the supplier (and the people giving orders above them) can easily cancel and block any products deemed 'defective'. The internet is different, it is largely not product-based, it is user-based and information-oriented, and if you pay your ISP bills and have a computer you have the right to access that information. Also and more importantly, if/when a govt pulls the plug on the internet it would cause that government to become history overnight. It is too late to put the web genie back in the bottle, but I'm sure that most governments wish they could.

Doesn't stop them trying with draconian laws for policing the internet and B500million 'war rooms' to monitor opinions that they don't like.

Most of those of course enacted by the Democrats as something more sinister than Thaksin's strongarm approaches to silencing any critics however sad to see that it is being continued by the PTP despite pre-election comments to the contrary.

All geared towards silencing opinions, critics and opponents of an inevitable unpopular and potentially disruptive change in Thailand.

Is this really the case here in LOS though? Where government ministries monitor content? Where the police are threatening to arrest people for merely 'liking' social media posts inconvenient to the current regime?

Yes you are totally right, we have censorship and control and monitoring here, and in the US etc. they also have monitoring and unless I read it wrong Obama has a web kill-switch too. But there is a fundamental problem with them (or Thailand) cutting the web entirely or restricting too many sites, which is that the web is used for business, educational and social reasons, and you can't cut the web entirely without seriously recieving a backlash from all the millions of people who use it for those things. And the problem that governments have with restricting say educational information on the web, is that it is fact-based and universally accepted as being for the good health of society. That is where the problem lies for those who managed to control radio and TV, and seek to do the same on the web, radio and TV were always about selling products which contained very brief and selective information, and were entirely optional products too. The web simply displays bulk-information and in such an enormous and easily duplicated way, that it is impossible to actually restrict the bulk of information, short of power-off the web entirely which would lead to disaster for the politicians responsible. The web is uniquely poised in that it carries business, and is beneficial to the economy of nations, while at the same time the system by its very nature allows for the transit of data. I think if governments knew what the web would become they would have stopped it decades ago, but now it is mainframe to the business and educational systems of nations, it is too late.

Freedom of expression and voicing controversial opinions was given steadily more room up until 2000. When the first Thaksin government came into power this was drastically changed. From about 2002 onwards, any "dissenting" commentary or criticism was forcefully silenced.

The Dems merely continued this trend and has been gradually gotten worse. Criticism of the government's policies and actions are considered incendiary and stirring public unrest and subsequently hit hard.

In one of Thaksin's speeches, he said that the government does only what is best for the people, even if they do not understand this at the time.

Big brother is watching

Living in a police state

No freedom of the press and no freedom to express and opinion

"yes sir ... no sire ... two bags full sir"

"May I please go to the toilet?"

...the truth is obvious.....

TV is already a dead media, some might say it has been for a few decades, and it is because of things like this OP that most people go to the internet for their news and interviews first. TV was always easy to control because TV programmes are seen as products being sold to customers and so the supplier (and the people giving orders above them) can easily cancel and block any products deemed 'defective'. The internet is different, it is largely not product-based, it is user-based and information-oriented, and if you pay your ISP bills and have a computer you have the right to access that information. Also and more importantly, if/when a govt pulls the plug on the internet it would cause that government to become history overnight. It is too late to put the web genie back in the bottle, but I'm sure that most governments wish they could.

Unless you live in China of course.. which Thailand loves to style itself on so much!!

TV is already a dead media, some might say it has been for a few decades, and it is because of things like this OP that most people go to the internet for their news and interviews first. TV was always easy to control because TV programmes are seen as products being sold to customers and so the supplier (and the people giving orders above them) can easily cancel and block any products deemed 'defective'. The internet is different, it is largely not product-based, it is user-based and information-oriented, and if you pay your ISP bills and have a computer you have the right to access that information. Also and more importantly, if/when a govt pulls the plug on the internet it would cause that government to become history overnight. It is too late to put the web genie back in the bottle, but I'm sure that most governments wish they could.

You are right to a certain extent about broadcast television, but you are dead wrong to think that the internet is not subject to very similar controls and for very similar reasons.

There are of course blog sites that many believe are completely free of control, but in reality they are not. The Thai government has internet censorship available to it already - everything coming into or out of the country must go via web servers at the various portals - these are under government control - think about things like porn sites that are regularly blocked - there is absolutely nothing to stop the government from adding the URL or IP address of some site that posted anti-government material to the block list - done - shut down.

It's easy to stop broadcast television from airing material of course, but it is not impossible to apply exactly that same censorship to the web - don't kid yourself that its under the peoples control...

Is this really the case here in LOS though? Where government ministries monitor content? Where the police are threatening to arrest people for merely 'liking' social media posts inconvenient to the current regime?

Yes you are totally right, we have censorship and control and monitoring here, and in the US etc. they also have monitoring and unless I read it wrong Obama has a web kill-switch too. But there is a fundamental problem with them (or Thailand) cutting the web entirely or restricting too many sites, which is that the web is used for business, educational and social reasons, and you can't cut the web entirely without seriously recieving a backlash from all the millions of people who use it for those things. And the problem that governments have with restricting say educational information on the web, is that it is fact-based and universally accepted as being for the good health of society. That is where the problem lies for those who managed to control radio and TV, and seek to do the same on the web, radio and TV were always about selling products which contained very brief and selective information, and were entirely optional products too. The web simply displays bulk-information and in such an enormous and easily duplicated way, that it is impossible to actually restrict the bulk of information, short of power-off the web entirely which would lead to disaster for the politicians responsible. The web is uniquely poised in that it carries business, and is beneficial to the economy of nations, while at the same time the system by its very nature allows for the transit of data. I think if governments knew what the web would become they would have stopped it decades ago, but now it is mainframe to the business and educational systems of nations, it is too late.

Absolutely right - you can't - and wouldn't need to - shut down the web.

But content control is relatively easy - every time information goes from place to place, it passes through one or usually many, web servers at various locations - all that is needed is to scan data that passes these points and drop anything you (or the government) doesn't like.

Recent revelations about the major search and email providers such as Google, Yahoo, and many others, being in total cooperation with several major international government "intelligence" agencies, and the agencies themselves being involved in the development of high end software to crack encryption at the highest level, mean that your data is NOT safe, is NOT secure, and is NOT private.

The internet, social media, email, search engines and their history lists, are a blessing to government agencies.

CENSORSHIP
Censored tape is on YouTube now
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- TV Burapa, the producer of Khon Khon Khon, has posted its censored interview tape on YouTube - .

The taped interview with environmentalist Sasin Chalermlarp, who is also the secretary-general of the Sueb Nakhasathien Foundation and a leader of the anti-Mae Wong Dam movement, was scheduled to air on Saturday September 28. It was censored.

On its Facebook page, TV Burapa said that ahead of the broadcasting date, Channel 9 asked for additional interviews for a balance. The company was also urged to cut some parts considered provocative. It said the tape was amended accordingly, but in the way that it did not tarnish the company’s standpoint. However, the edited tape could not win the approval.

The company thus posted the tape on YouTube, urging viewers to judge if the tape was biased.

TV Burapa also said that it has no intention to cause division or launch an unfair attack against any party. The episode was meant to urge society to come up with peaceful and fair solutions, it said.

-- The Nation 2013-09-29

YouTube Link????

Couldn't find it with the following searches "TV Burapa" " TV Burapha" "Sasin Chalermlarp", "Channel 9" (sorted by date) or the Thai equivalents. Lots of clips of other channels talking about the censorship though.

Info on the interviewee Here.

Edited September 29, 201312 yr by wolf5370

Government owns the media,therefore such actions are to be expected. This is not really a news item but more an indictment on Thai political culture.

Which is exactly why it IS a news item.

The TV company decided not to air the programme because it was too one sided but this information comes from the government spokesman not the company. He alsosaid the producer was asked to make the episode more balanced but by whom ?

It was natural he would claim this issue had nothing to do with the government which may well be true but equally it would certain be in keeping with how they do things if they had interfered and the ' persuasion ' used can only be speculated at.

But how does that work?

Every line we hear from the PTP is just about as biased (one-sided) as you can get, so how come that's good for the government, but not allowed for anyone opposing them...?!

http://youtu.be/LyvvrnSwRj8

The TV company decided not to air the programme because it was too one sided but this information comes from the government spokesman not the company. He alsosaid the producer was asked to make the episode more balanced but by whom ?

It was natural he would claim this issue had nothing to do with the government which may well be true but equally it would certain be in keeping with how they do things if they had interfered and the ' persuasion ' used can only be speculated at.

'but equally it would certain be in keeping with how they do things if they had interfered and the ' persuasion ' used can only be speculated at. How true.

He who presents speculation as fact is a liar.

The TV company decided not to air the programme because it was too one sided but this information comes from the government spokesman not the company. He alsosaid the producer was asked to make the episode more balanced but by whom ?

It was natural he would claim this issue had nothing to do with the government which may well be true but equally it would certain be in keeping with how they do things if they had interfered and the ' persuasion ' used can only be speculated at.

But how does that work?

Every line we hear from the PTP is just about as biased (one-sided) as you can get, so how come that's good for the government, but not allowed for anyone opposing them...?!

But how does that work?

How? Well that's how media organisations (world wide) structure the management of programme content.

Sorry,nothing to do with the Government.

Edited September 29, 201312 yr by Calimotty

But this type of censorship works fine in North Korea so it should be just fine here.

Edited September 30, 201312 yr by metisdead
Large font reset to normal.

"Teerat posted on his Twitter account that the decision not to air the episode was solely that of the television station because it was seen as providing one-sided information."

and

"Deputy Prime Minister Plodprasop Suraswadi told a national audience on the "Prime Minister Yingluck Government Meets the People" TV show"

supplies a two sided view. Teerat should consider politics he has the ability to say meaningless things with no concern for hurting any body.

This very site is subject to numerous draconian laws that make site administration responsible for whatever is posted on the forums. This is why it has such thorough moderation.

Edited September 29, 201312 yr by BudRight

TV is already a dead media, some might say it has been for a few decades, and it is because of things like this OP that most people go to the internet for their news and interviews first. TV was always easy to control because TV programmes are seen as products being sold to customers and so the supplier (and the people giving orders above them) can easily cancel and block any products deemed 'defective'. The internet is different, it is largely not product-based, it is user-based and information-oriented, and if you pay your ISP bills and have a computer you have the right to access that information. Also and more importantly, if/when a govt pulls the plug on the internet it would cause that government to become history overnight. It is too late to put the web genie back in the bottle, but I'm sure that most governments wish they could.

Beg to differ with you. the internet is the most unreliable source of information in the history of mankind. It is free there by allowing any thing to be put on it.

Every crackpot in the world can use it to expose their point of view. Never mind the fact they are posting it from a hospital for the Mentally challenged unbalanced people.

You can find proof positive for any thing you want to believe if you are internet savey (which I am not) but even I can find a lot of opposing opinions on the same subject try to find that on Television or main stream news papers..

I will give you an example. I am diabetic and I was trying to find out if honey was OK for me. I found several answers for yes and several answers for no. Even with a watermelon I found several different answers.

With the internet the bottom line is what do you want to believe the information is there no matter how crack pot the idea is.

TV is already a dead media, some might say it has been for a few decades, and it is because of things like this OP that most people go to the internet for their news and interviews first. TV was always easy to control because TV programmes are seen as products being sold to customers and so the supplier (and the people giving orders above them) can easily cancel and block any products deemed 'defective'. The internet is different, it is largely not product-based, it is user-based and information-oriented, and if you pay your ISP bills and have a computer you have the right to access that information. Also and more importantly, if/when a govt pulls the plug on the internet it would cause that government to become history overnight. It is too late to put the web genie back in the bottle, but I'm sure that most governments wish they could.

Beg to differ with you. the internet is the most unreliable source of information in the history of mankind. It is free there by allowing any thing to be put on it.

Every crackpot in the world can use it to expose their point of view. Never mind the fact they are posting it from a hospital for the Mentally challenged unbalanced people.

You can find proof positive for any thing you want to believe if you are internet savey (which I am not) but even I can find a lot of opposing opinions on the same subject try to find that on Television or main stream news papers..

I will give you an example. I am diabetic and I was trying to find out if honey was OK for me. I found several answers for yes and several answers for no. Even with a watermelon I found several different answers.

With the internet the bottom line is what do you want to believe the information is there no matter how crack pot the idea is.

For that very reason, I think that the Internet is fantastic.

You are right to a certain extent about broadcast television, but you are dead wrong to think that the internet is not subject to very similar controls and for very similar reasons.

There are of course blog sites that many believe are completely free of control, but in reality they are not. The Thai government has internet censorship available to it already - everything coming into or out of the country must go via web servers at the various portals - these are under government control - think about things like porn sites that are regularly blocked - there is absolutely nothing to stop the government from adding the URL or IP address of some site that posted anti-government material to the block list - done - shut down.

It's easy to stop broadcast television from airing material of course, but it is not impossible to apply exactly that same censorship to the web - don't kid yourself that its under the peoples control...

Yes I'm aware of government agencies monitoring the web, and Google/CIA etc. and wikileaks being a spook limited-hangout etc.etc. I recieve warnings all the time here for being a nonsense conspiracy theorist, so I would just say to you, yes I know the web is monitored.

My original point was a comparison between TV and the internet. Not a comparison between the internet and a Utopian Heaven of Total Freedom.

My points stand. Re; information data on the web versus the information provided by television/radio of the last 100 years. I was not talking about "porn" as you mentioned, and not talking about paedophile or terrorist data. I was talking about the distribution of facts and educational data on the web. Which are billions of times higher information-density than what we have recieved from TV and radio. And how all the govt agencies in the world can't actually stop the flow of information. They can watch keywords etc. But the problem for them is that a lot of historical facts which were hard to find in libraries, I studied in the 80s and back then it was all library cross-referencing, it was hard work to learn about the world back then. But now its extremely easy for anyone to get that information. And a lot of knowledge gets past the tyrannical regimes too, they are blocking sensitive political topics, but they can not block entire memes of knowledge. People in china etc. are learning about the wider world for the first time. Even if certain topics are off-limits, knowledge is not. And as recently as the 1980s, if you wanted to learn stuff, even in the UK, it meant library card, and HUNDREDS of hours cross-referencing books, just to make a few basic connections. This same task takes 30 seconds now. That gives people a huge wealth of knowledge, and knowledge really is power which is why the govts are regretting allowing this genie out in the first place.