Spotlight on foreign media coverage of Bangkok's crisis

[thailiketoo]

Much of the Western media likes to do a quick take on their own perceived interests first. Morsi was democratically elected but pursued a tyranny of the majority who happened to like the idea of Islamist anti-Western government. Similarly the democratically government in Ukraine is bad because it is cosying up to Putin's neo-Stalinist Russian Empire.

Absent any clear Western interests to the contrary, they take the view that the Shinawatras and their red shirted paid bully boys are champions of democracy. I wonder what Jonathan Head and Thomas Fuller would say about a similar type of government in their own countries that was hell bent on bankrupting the country through corruption and changed laws to suit their personal interests.

As for the doped up fake freelance photojournalists who wind up in Thailand as hippy backpackers and get their political views from uneducated bar girls in Nana Plaza, maybe time to start investigating their work permits and who they are really working for.

Who are the doped up fake freelance photojournalists? Or did you just make that up?

[SICHONSTEVE]

Stop being so childish with those schoolboy comments of yours!!

Thanks mackie for enlightening me on the 'sins' of Thaksin - too numerous to list. A brilliant and forthright article if I must say so.

If only the uneducated lot up North could be told the truth about Thaksin (they would have to be told as many of them probably can't read Thai).

It puts a completely different complexion on my take of just how bad Thaksin is, it is just staggering that anyone could be so corrupt and in thinking they are above the law. As for his treatment of the Malay's down South, that is simply unforgivable.

I would be more than happy if a bolt of lightning struck him down as he is as despicable as they come and so ruthless with it!!

You wrote, " Stop being so childish with those schoolboy comments of yours!!" Then you wrote, "they would have to be told as many of them probably can't read Thai and I would be more than happy if a bolt of lightning struck him down."

I would think you could probably apply the first statement to the second and third. How can you expect people to try and carry on an intelligent discourse with you?

I will no longer respond to your posts and I would suggest others do likewise as you are not civil enough to be published on a reputable forum.

Hit a raw nerve did I!!!.

You are even acting like Thaksin - do as I say!!

You are not going to tell your headmaster about me, are you??

Don't forget, you are not corresponding with me so no retorts please!!

Edited December 22, 2013 by SICHONSTEVE

[Dogmatix]

Much of the Western media likes to do a quick take on their own perceived interests first. Morsi was democratically elected but pursued a tyranny of the majority who happened to like the idea of Islamist anti-Western government. Similarly the democratically government in Ukraine is bad because it is cosying up to Putin's neo-Stalinist Russian Empire.

Absent any clear Western interests to the contrary, they take the view that the Shinawatras and their red shirted paid bully boys are champions of democracy. I wonder what Jonathan Head and Thomas Fuller would say about a similar type of government in their own countries that was hell bent on bankrupting the country through corruption and changed laws to suit their personal interests.

As for the doped up fake freelance photojournalists who wind up in Thailand as hippy backpackers and get their political views from uneducated bar girls in Nana Plaza, maybe time to start investigating their work permits and who they are really working for.

Who are the doped up fake freelance photojournalists? Or did you just make that up?

I am not going to name and shame anyone but you could try googling around with words like photojournalist Patpong nightlife etc and see if you get lucky and bag some.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Dogmatix

[Dogmatix]

Yon and Cartalucci may be many things, but they can never be called journalists. They are bloggers and opinionators, whose views may or may not have have validity - but neither has any intellectual or journalistic credibility, The last time I read Yon, he was calling for armrd revolt against Obama over the issue of gun control, so he certainly speaks for a certain fringe minority in the US.

Bottom line is that if these two are the only "pundits" supporting the disloyal opposition, ir is safe to say the opposition has lost the war for international hearts and minds. This can only come as a surprise to the intellectual lightweights at The Nation, who seem oblivious to the fact that 40 + nations have expressed support for the democratic process in Thailand, as has the UN Secretary General. Are there any countries in the world who have expressed any sympathy for the opposition in Thailand? Are there any prominent figures anywhere in the world who have expressed support??

I seriously doubt it.

By the way, comparing the position of Abhisit to Aun Sang Syu Ki of Burma insults the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, who actually won the Burmese election in 1988 with an estimated wide majority before the aemy stepped in. If anything, Mr. Abhisit's irresponsible actions are making the democratically elected PM Yingluck

Good to see Cartalucci getting some exposure. He is a rare bird in that he reports facts without allowing emotion to cloud his judgement, which combined with his long term familiarity with Thailand makes his articles well worth reading. All too often these international reporters, some clearly looking like disheveled junkies, seek short term relationships with workers in the "entertainment" industries, straight after arriving in country from other less hospitable places, and read way too much into the drunken pillow talk they hear.

We're talking about the same Tony Cartalucci right? This is conspiracy theorist Tony Cartalucci that writes for Alex Jones' Infowars? Does he report the 'facts' in the same way that Alex Jones does?

Yes, the very same.Still it's interesting that he is getting much exposure on the Thai political crisis, and is widely quoted - even though a quick survey of his views (on non Thai matters) demonstrates he is nuts.He is for example a passionate Assad supporter and believes 9/11 was an inside job etc etc.I know nothing about his background but it is curiously akin to the mindset of some Indian/Pakistani commentators - where zany conspiracy theory is a way of life.

The trouble is the Democrat/Suthep people have a conflicted view of foreign press coverage.They hate to have their darker side scrutinised by outsiders and yet at the same time crave foreign approval.Unfortunately every serious foreign news source, academic, think tank, ambassador tends to identify the obvious - namely the deeply undemocratic nature of the anti government opposition.This means that their few foreign supporters are given great prominence, not only the laughable Cartalucci but also the equally absurd American, Michael Yon.Personally I find Michael Yon more absurd than Cartalucci, because at least the latter has some command of the material.Yon is just plain ignorant.Yet both have huge support across the social media from the actiivist urban middle class - and shamefully for educated men, Abhisit and Korn have taken up Michael Yon as a credible source.

Finally, since invoking oddities like Cartalucci/Yon etc is ultimately self defeating we will inevitably hear more on the lines that Thailand is utterly inexplicable to foreigners, follows unique rules unknown to other countries and that you have to be a Thai (in practice often descendants of Southern Chinese coolies) to appreciate "Thainess".

Funny how Thailand is inexplicable to the Western media, while Egypt and the Ukraine are crystal clear, i.e. it's OK for democratically elected leaders who abuse their power and don't favour Western interests to be deposed through protests without bleading hearted cries from the BBC, CNN et al.

[JoeLing]

Verapat said he told Fuller his quote in the NYT article may have been too short and may cause Thais to misunderstand.

Just wonder, how many Thais are actually reading the New York Times?

[thailiketoo]

Who are the doped up fake freelance photojournalists? Or did you just make that up?

I am not going to name and shame anyone but you could try googling around with words like photojournalist Patpong nightlife etc and see if you get lucky and bag some.

Nothing there you made it up.

[Dogmatix]

Who are the doped up fake freelance photojournalists? Or did you just make that up?

I am not going to name and shame anyone but you could try googling around with words like photojournalist Patpong nightlife etc and see if you get lucky and bag some.

Nothing there you made it up.

Look again and switch on your brain cells this time.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Dogmatix

[thailiketoo]

Who are the doped up fake freelance photojournalists? Or did you just make that up?

I am not going to name and shame anyone but you could try googling around with words like photojournalist Patpong nightlife etc and see if you get lucky and bag some.

Nothing there you made it up.

Look again.

As much as I agree with your point of view there is no excuse for damning someone and not be willing to produce the evidence for your slam.

[Thai at Heart]

Foreign media obviously rubbish in comparison with the studious and independent thai one?

In thailand, when all.else fails the test of logic, follow the money.

Do you really think that any of these actors are doing this for the good of the country or principle?

Edited December 22, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[thailiketoo]

Foreign media obviously rubbish in comparison with the studious and independent thai one?

In thailand, when all.else fails the test of logic, follow the money.

Do you really think that any of these actors are doing this for the good of the country or principle?

True enough. So why are the people posting such vile remarks at the obvious truths that the BBC and NYT are publishing. Thai media can't tell the truth. One may not like the UK or US media but it is worlds ahead in truth and veracity and professionalism than Thai media. Both factions in Thailand are well funded and both have economic reasons for their behavior. Is this news to anyone?

[SICHONSTEVE]

Foreign media obviously rubbish in comparison with the studious and independent thai one?

In thailand, when all.else fails the test of logic, follow the money.

Do you really think that any of these actors are doing this for the good of the country or principle?

'Foreign media obviously rubbish in comparison with the studious and independent thai one'?

My dear boy. I think you've finally got it!!

[Thai at Heart]

As usual outsiders don't understand Thainess so if you don't completly support one side you must be supporting the other.

.

Obectivity isn't a strong trait here and we can see from the events of 2006 and especially 2010 on just how intransigent Thais can be so even a neutral type of report will be criticised as it doesn't show support.

They aren't big on investigating possible truths because no one really wants to the truth to pop out.

No real.investigative journalism means that most of it is opinion.

[Mosha]

Part of the lack of understanding about Vietnam during the early phases of that war in the US media was because many, if not most, foreign correspondents collected their stories from the safety and ease of a barstool in Saigon's Hotel Continental. I doubt if too much has changed for these Time, Newsweek, BBC, and NY Times types, except that they jet in and out of places like Bangkok even faster than their old contemporaries, who at least were stationed for years in the countries they covered 50 years ago.

Jonathan Head of the BBC has been based in Bangkok for many years and in the region even longer, at least 15 years, except when he was sent on "sabbatical" (shall we say) to Istanbul for a couple of years after being charged with lese majeste in Thailand. I don't see any barstools in his TV reports.

When I see any SE Asia correspondent from the Beeb, I cringe. I'm just thankful I no longer need a licence to watch them.

[SICHONSTEVE]

Part of the lack of understanding about Vietnam during the early phases of that war in the US media was because many, if not most, foreign correspondents collected their stories from the safety and ease of a barstool in Saigon's Hotel Continental. I doubt if too much has changed for these Time, Newsweek, BBC, and NY Times types, except that they jet in and out of places like Bangkok even faster than their old contemporaries, who at least were stationed for years in the countries they covered 50 years ago.

Jonathan Head of the BBC has been based in Bangkok for many years and in the region even longer, at least 15 years, except when he was sent on "sabbatical" (shall we say) to Istanbul for a couple of years after being charged with lese majeste in Thailand. I don't see any barstools in his TV reports.

When I see any SE Asia correspondent from the Beeb, I cringe. I'm just thankful I no longer need a licence to watch them.

I am surprised that the Beeb has got it so wrong - they should stick to the domestic news as once it spreads outside these shores it seems to go down hill rapidly regards the accuracy of events.

Did Jonathon Head ever work for the Beano or Dandy??

[zydeco]

The press used to be overtly partisan in the US and UK (maybe it still is in parts of the UK press). But what we have now in the US is a "professional" press corps that masquerades as an impartial medium for truth. And all the while they purposefully de-legitimize people, political parties and ideas that fail to conform to their limited J-school universe. They lecture us on the virtues of sobriety, while ginning up hysteria, of freedom of thought while demonizing relative unknowns for daring to step over the line of ideological purity required in their craft beer serving salons. So, yes, perhaps it is better to have partisan Thai press and media battling it out, because somewhere in that mix we are more likely to see the unseemly brought to daylight than in the mushroom world of the American press, where everything is kept in the dark and fed a steady diet of sh-t.

Edited December 22, 2013 by zydeco

[thailiketoo]

The press used to be overtly partisan in the US and UK (maybe it still is in parts of the UK press). But what we have now in the US is a "professional" press corps that masquerades as an impartial medium for truth. And all the while they purposefully de-legitimize people, political parties and ideas that fail to conform to their limited J-school universe. They lecture us on the virtues of sobriety, while ginning up hysteria, of freedom of thought while demonizing relative unknowns for daring to step over the line of ideological purity required in their craft beer serving salons. So, yes, perhaps it is better to have partisan Thai press and media battling it out, because somewhere in that mix we are more likely to see the unseemly brought to daylight than in the mushroom world of the American press, where everything is kept in the dark and fed a steady diet of sh-t.

I think you said American media does not like Bud and that makes them inaccurate at reporting about anti democratic protestors in Thailand. Wow. Isn't that more Zen than Zydeco?

[slipperylobster]

Part of the lack of understanding about Vietnam during the early phases of that war in the US media was because many, if not most, foreign correspondents collected their stories from the safety and ease of a barstool in Saigon's Hotel Continental. I doubt if too much has changed for these Time, Newsweek, BBC, and NY Times types, except that they jet in and out of places like Bangkok even faster than their old contemporaries, who at least were stationed for years in the countries they covered 50 years ago.

No, the exposure of some of the greatest lies in the history of warfare came from the journalists who were at the front line and made a mockery of the complete BS coming from Henry Cabot Lodge, Macnamara, Westmoreland and their ilk. Many of those journalists did not survive the war.

From "some" journalists, notably people like David Halberstam, who blew the lid off the coverage of the war in the mid 60s. But most, certainly not all, bought the official story, hook, line, and sinker. I have a collection of CBS news war coverage where they report like parrots throughout most of the early part of the war.

Plenty of video footage from the vietnam era showing journalists up close and personal....very much involved. Fairly accurate reporting, I would say. So much so that the United States pretty much succumbed to the anti-war sentiment. I am curious what makes people believe the journalism here in Asia more so than in the west....

[northernjohn]

Good to see Cartalucci getting some exposure. He is a rare bird in that he reports facts without allowing emotion to cloud his judgement, which combined with his long term familiarity with Thailand makes his articles well worth reading. All too often these international reporters, some clearly looking like disheveled junkies, seek short term relationships with workers in the "entertainment" industries, straight after arriving in country from other less hospitable places, and read way too much into the drunken pillow talk they hear.

I see what you mean. Here's a snippet from todays unbiased, unemotional article from Cartalucci's blog

December 21, 2013 (Tony Cartalucci) - The regime of Thaksin Shinawatra built itself upon a foundation of corruption, deceit, fear, intimidation, bigotry, violence, and mass murder. Its followers, the "red shirts," are notorious thugs, having barricaded schools threatening teachers and parents, slapping university lecturers, and even going as far as hacking their opponents to pieces, committing massive city-wide arson, and armed insurrection. Though they only represent at most 7% of the population, with a mere 35% of all eligible voters having cast their ballots for the current regime, the silent majority fears them. http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/

I kid you not

I would have to say that basically what he is saying is right. How ever he is blowing much of it out of proportion. With the exception of mass murder. Much of what has been happening in the deep south can be attributed to him.

He is just another sensationalist journalist. Distribution is more important than facts to his type. He would do well with The Nation.

Much as I dislike the man for what he has done to Thailand and is continually doing he did have some good projects when he was physically in the Prime Minister's office. Yes some of them were to cover up thefts in another area.

[DGIE]

The media needed to find analysts to analyse situations, and often only learnt a source's stance or views when interviewing them. And the pool of sources here was actually relatively small

for sure when foreign media want to interview people on the street, the people prefer to be silent

[DocN]

I guess, the foreign media fully understands!

It fully understands, that without change in at least 2 laws of this country, it is simply too dangerous to report the "truth"!

[Thai at Heart]

Part of the lack of understanding about Vietnam during the early phases of that war in the US media was because many, if not most, foreign correspondents collected their stories from the safety and ease of a barstool in Saigon's Hotel Continental. I doubt if too much has changed for these Time, Newsweek, BBC, and NY Times types, except that they jet in and out of places like Bangkok even faster than their old contemporaries, who at least were stationed for years in the countries they covered 50 years ago.

Jonathan Head of the BBC has been based in Bangkok for many years and in the region even longer, at least 15 years, except when he was sent on "sabbatical" (shall we say) to Istanbul for a couple of years after being charged with lese majeste in Thailand. I don't see any barstools in his TV reports.

When I see any SE Asia correspondent from the Beeb, I cringe. I'm just thankful I no longer need a licence to watch them.

If they really really did their job properly, they would be out of the country in a moment, or shot.

How can you make political comment in a country where you would be sued for defamation at the drop off a hat let alone lese majeste.

They are forced to pedal a softly softly approach by law and also possibly politics from the GB Embassy. The embassy knows this has never been about democracy and don't want to cut off their ability to talk to the winners.

Just look how quickly they pushed Thaksin out of the uk the moment the junta started talking about tescos share structure.

[Emptyset]

What's amazing is the amount of reasonable,liberal red shirts suddenly supposedly "appearing", ready to listen to the other's point of view and accept criticism and opposing comments. Would this be the same group that intimidates judges who rule against their government? The group that supports a government that not so longer ago severely threatened free speech - remember the police threats about social media, or daring to press "like" buttons on any comments against PTP? Remember the defamation suits? Remember the use of Tarit to threaten and intimidate critics?

Just on this - there has always been both an extremist reactionary wing (Rak Chiang Mai 51 for instance) and a liberal wing of the red shirts e.g. Sombat and the young mostly urban people that support various liberal/radical academics who might be considered 'red'. They tend to be educated and read liberal online publications like Prachatai. They're skeptical of Thaksin and much of what the government has done but strongly want to see parliamentary democracy succeed. This group haven't just appeared but it might be getting larger. But most reds will fall somewhere in between the two groups.

Let's not conflate the government with the reds though. That would be like conflating the current protesters with the Democrat leadership. They weren't exactly pushing media freedom when they were in power either - and they were also not shy of using Tarit in a similar way to PTP. But I agree with you. More needs to be done to challenge authoritarianism of all stripes.

There are liberals who initially joined the anti-amnesty protest and strongly want the 'Thaksin regime' to go. But I believe some have been put off as the protest has taken on a more anti-democratic, often nationalist tinge*. It's a shame because often these people would find a lot to agree on with the liberal red shirts. It's the extremists on both sides that are causing the problem. Like I was saying yesterday to Bluespunk I think it was, liberal red shirts didn't do enough to challenge PTP and the same goes for liberal Democrat supporters wrt to the relationship with their party. Shame they can't just withdraw support from both parties and form a genuinely liberal/progressive party really. Something that offers a change to both the capitalists and the old order.

*It's not clear how many of the current protesters support this. The Asia Survey found that about half the PDRC protesters they interviewed would support a 'strong' unelected ruler, whilst half believed the leader must be democratically elected. This compares to 90% of the red shirts who believed the leader must be democratically elected. So there's a mixture of believes within the PDRC. From what I've read of the protesters online, many seem strongly royalist and nationalist. The problem with online comments is it tends to bring out the extremists though. So I won't make too much of that. Like I say, ordinary people like my partner supported the PDRC initially but would never agree with a lot of the right-wing stuff that some of the groups leaders and supporters come out with.

[FiftyTwo]

Thailand is on the brink of civil war as two equally corrupt and violent political parties led by two criminal fascist dictators prepare to fight it out.

What's hard to understand?

[thailiketoo]

Thailand is on the brink of civil war as two equally corrupt and violent political parties led by two criminal fascist dictators prepare to fight it out.

What's hard to understand?

Thaksin is behind Thaksin. Who is behind Suthep?

[Emptyset]

Much of the Western media likes to do a quick take on their own perceived interests first. Morsi was democratically elected but pursued a tyranny of the majority who happened to like the idea of Islamist anti-Western government. Similarly the democratically government in Ukraine is bad because it is cosying up to Putin's neo-Stalinist Russian Empire.

So who are these reporters who've claimed that the red shirts are 'champions of democracy'? Jonathan Head and Thomas Fuller, you say? Can you share specific pieces that you think assert this view so we can judge for ourselves? Just because they're skeptical of the current protests - and rightly so - doesn't mean they don't see the flaws of the government or the red shirts.

Those familiar with Morsi or even Erdogan in Turkey would no doubt find it absurd to compare this Yingluck government to the likes of them. And the Western media I read was far from uncritical of the Egyptian anti-Morsi protesters and coup too (that worked out well btw, didn't it?).

Maybe if you compared the Thaksin govt of 2002 - 2005, you'd have a point. But this Yingluck govt is being accused of authoritarianism because it broke a couple of minor parliamentary procedures and pushed through a constitutional amendment in the middle of the night despite the fact that the opposition wanted it postponed until the morning - something which the Democrats also did back in 2011. The amendment was for a fully elected senate. Try telling an outsider familiar with real autocratic regimes about this act of dictatorship... would be interesting to note the response.

Then we have the amnesty bill. Needless to say it was disgraceful and a huge mistake whichever way you look at it. But it was withdrawn when it became clear how dissatisfied many people were. The protesters won.

Then they dissolved house to try to satisfy the protesters. But that's not good enough, is it? It's an unelected council or nothing.

Absent any clear Western interests to the contrary, they take the view that the Shinawatras and their red shirted paid bully boys are champions of democracy. I wonder what Jonathan Head and Thomas Fuller would say about a similar type of government in their own countries that was hell bent on bankrupting the country through corruption and changed laws to suit their personal interests.

Do you think Fuller and Head would support a protest in the UK or US which wanted to overthrow the elected government and install a council choosen by the protest leaders with free reign to do whatever they like? Why should they support it or otherwise anyway? They should be getting views from both sides and making sure they're represented accurately. And Head and Fuller have accurately represented the anti-govt protesters as wanting to - temporarily at least - suspend democracy. They didn't make this up. It's true.

So how are they supposed to present the current government as authoritarian and the protesters as pro-democracy when the facts don't fit the bill. Do you want them just to make things up?

In the UK we had Blair going to war despite millions on the street and the US suffered 8 years of Bush's incompetence - economic and otherwise - and warmongering. And he wasn't even properly elected. There was no question of even dissolving the house to satisfy those discontented, nevermind about installing an unelected council. As Jonathan Head said to Tony Cartalucci 'get real'.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Emptyset

[Briggsy]

I really can't see why Jonathan Head is getting so much abuse on here. I find his reports very carefully and accurately worded to provide a concise report without glaring omissions or bias for the international viewer. In summary, the work of a competent and professional correspondent for a major news organisation.

Some of the comments here are just hysterical and many lack supporting details, information or examples.

[thailiketoo]

I really can't see why Jonathan Head is getting so much abuse on here. I find his reports very carefully and accurately worded to provide a concise report without glaring omissions or bias for the international viewer. In summary, the work of a competent and professional correspondent for a major news organisation.

Some of the comments here are just hysterical and many lack supporting details, information or examples.

I just watched a BBC report with Head and the protestors around him were blowing their whistles into his mike and shouting get out, get out, so he could hardly be heard. (They need a bit of a PR lesson)

Edited December 22, 2013 by thailiketoo

[Robby nz]

Perhaps this could go some way to explaining why journalists are reluctant (for want of a better word) to go to deeply into things that may upset the powers that be

Thai navy sues Phuketwan.com website over Rohingya report: editor

If you haven't read it have a look on page 2.

[fasteddie]

I hope the mods don't see this as off topic but sometimes reporting can be influenced or at least an attempt at by the reporters' own embassies.

I say this because about 17 years ago in Manila I met two German reporters working for a business related publication who were there to report on a conference of Pacific Rim nations. They had received a great orientation briefing at the German embassy which was soured by a request / warning not to write what they saw around Manila of a negative nature.

The diplomat who spoke said something along the lines of if they publish something negative etc. it was the embassy that had to pick up the pieces and take the flak from the Phillipine's Foreign Ministry.

I'm not saying that the BBC are influenced by the embassy here but diplomats do not like problems.

Should we all bring up stories about 20 or 30 years ago about Germans in the Philippines? And ...

And what ? ust pointing on that things go on behind the scenes and news reports can be tailored to suit rather than being as direct as they might be.

Too complicated ?

No too off topic. 17 years ago in Manilla? Aw come on now. The mod already said stay away from Vietnam comparisons. This is today in Bangkok. You have a debate between a poster on a blog run by Russia being compared to BBC and NYT. A Russian blog and the New York Times or the British Broadcasting Corp. Who ya gonna trust?

"Who ya gonna trust?"

Certainly not the beeb, and I don't pay any attention to Americans, given their most popular news channel is fox!

[Mosha]

Part of the lack of understanding about Vietnam during the early phases of that war in the US media was because many, if not most, foreign correspondents collected their stories from the safety and ease of a barstool in Saigon's Hotel Continental. I doubt if too much has changed for these Time, Newsweek, BBC, and NY Times types, except that they jet in and out of places like Bangkok even faster than their old contemporaries, who at least were stationed for years in the countries they covered 50 years ago.

Jonathan Head of the BBC has been based in Bangkok for many years and in the region even longer, at least 15 years, except when he was sent on "sabbatical" (shall we say) to Istanbul for a couple of years after being charged with lese majeste in Thailand. I don't see any barstools in his TV reports.

When I see any SE Asia correspondent from the Beeb, I cringe. I'm just thankful I no longer need a licence to watch them.

If they really really did their job properly, they would be out of the country in a moment, or shot.

How can you make political comment in a country where you would be sued for defamation at the drop off a hat let alone lese majeste.

They are forced to pedal a softly softly approach by law and also possibly politics from the GB Embassy. The embassy knows this has never been about democracy and don't want to cut off their ability to talk to the winners.

Just look how quickly they pushed Thaksin out of the uk the moment the junta started talking about tescos share structure.

In that case why bother? Notice how Thailand dropped of the radar when Mandala died until his funeral?