Foreign media voice different opinions
Takayuki Kanaboshi
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Since Bangkok and its outskirts were put under the state of emergency, the foreign media has been covering the issue widely, though their analyses have been quite different.

While The Economist reported that the emergency decree was "a long time coming", Anthony Davis, Bangkok-based analyst for defence-and-security-intelligence firm IHS Jane's, wondered if such measures were necessary.

"The government already has the necessary tools to crush the protests," he told Time magazine, referring to the Internal Security Act in place since late November. "This is not a prelude to a crackdown, but they are trying to dispel the notion that they are losing control of the situation before the elections."

While it is agreed among many foreign media outlets that the military is now the decisive factor, The Economist says: "The generals seem to have learned that it is the politicians who must somehow start the process of putting back together Thailand's broken political system."

On the other hand, The Wall Street Journal said it might be better to have the military stand by the government because "it would set a valuable precedent that elected leaders should serve out their term, even when they are unpopular with large portions of the population". According to the newspaper, this would set a firm commitment to the voting system as "the only legitimate way to change governments". Otherwise Thailand will continue to "lurch from one crisis to the next".

Under such conditions, however, Bloomberg suggests that "a victory at the polls would leave a new Pheu Thai government with a dangerously weak mandate, increasing the likelihood of intervention by the Army or the King."

According to The Economist: "Negotiations will have to take place at some point, if the political and legal limbo is ever to be broken." Bloomberg, meanwhile, suggests that for the opposition to continue rejecting compromises implies what many are suspecting - "that its main goal is to regain power for the Thai elite, who have lost their electoral majority to poorer rural citizens from the populous North".

The situation seems to be as The Wall Street Journal concludes: "The state of emergency in Bangkok could still go either way."


-- The Nation 2014-01-24

Don't normally agree with the Wall Street Journal but they're spot on here.

Maybe the foreign media has a different view because they are not censored like the Thai media.

I wonder what non US based news organisations are saying? Seriously missing in this puff piece.

Bloomberg, meanwhile, suggests that for the opposition to continue rejecting compromises implies what many are suspecting - "that its main goal is to regain power for the Thai elite, who have lost their electoral majority to poorer rural citizens from the populous North".

Spot on !!!

The Economist, Time and The Wall Street Journal. Three leading US newspapers. There's much more to foreign media than these three. And none of the three are quoted that the government is led by a criminal abroad. Then there's something missing very much.

Spoke to my daughter in Scotland last night on Skype, yes I know I had hoped it was someone else calling.

She said the Kwanchai shooting was only covered by the BBC's webpage. She saw a brief report from BBC World TV on BBC 4 but the main national news hasn't been covering Thailand at all.

The Economist, Time and The Wall Street Journal. Three leading US newspapers. There's much more to foreign media than these three. And none of the three are quoted that the government is led by a criminal abroad. Then there's something missing very much.

Most news couldn't give two hoots that thais have this apparent inability to get their s**t together and organise a country. Lest we forget it was the thai legal system that key a billionaire convict go to the Olympics. Oh dear, they are really a laughing stock and a curiosity these days.

Maybe a little colonialism would be beneficial to get them started???

They are still working out what democracy is and that running countries by committee or military intervention isn't a very good way forward.

I hear there are excellent materials on websites for 8 to 10 year old explaining the benefits of democracy over dictatorship.

Edited January 24, 201412 yr by Thai at Heart

The Economist, Time and The Wall Street Journal. Three leading US newspapers. There's much more to foreign media than these three. And none of the three are quoted that the government is led by a criminal abroad. Then there's something missing very much.

The criminal abroad is being tacitly supported by the American government, the global torch bearer of their version of democracy. Clever old Uncle Sam, who of course controls the American media, is perched on the fence ready to fall off on whichever side they think will benefit them. Naively the White House believes they can jump off quicker than the Chinese. ....... Lol

Foreign media voice different opinions

Little bit misleading as a headline as all support the election process

I challenge anyone to find one media outlet that dosnt support the election outside of Thailand

Bloomberg, meanwhile, suggests that for the opposition to continue rejecting compromises implies what many are suspecting - "that its main goal is to regain power for the Thai elite, who have lost their electoral majority to poorer rural citizens from the populous North".

Spot on !!!

When the main demand is for Yingluck to step down, either she does or she doesn't. How can there be a compromise?

Foreign media voice different opinions

Little bit misleading as a headline as all support the election process

I challenge anyone to find one media outlet that dosnt support the election outside of Thailand

I haven't seen anyone supporting the election outside of Thailand.

Why would they have the election outside of Thailand?

Don't normally agree with the Wall Street Journal but they're spot on here.

WSJ and Bloomberg both seem to have a part of it.

Bloomberg, meanwhile, suggests that for the opposition to continue rejecting compromises implies what many are suspecting - "that its main goal is to regain power for the Thai elite, who have lost their electoral majority to poorer rural citizens from the populous North".

Spot on !!!

When the main demand is for Yingluck to step down, either she does or she doesn't. How can there be a compromise?

She did step down and called for a democratic election. The PDRC has rejected that and any compromise or negotiation in a face to face meeting. The PDRC's main demand remains the appointment of a "people's council" selected by their people.

Spoke to my daughter in Scotland last night on Skype, yes I know I had hoped it was someone else calling.

She said the Kwanchai shooting was only covered by the BBC's webpage. She saw a brief report from BBC World TV on BBC 4 but the main national news hasn't been covering Thailand at all.

Maybe because coups and political unrest is so common in Thailand that it is not even considered news worthy anymore. Thailand has these demos every couple of years.

Bloomberg, meanwhile, suggests that for the opposition to continue rejecting compromises implies what many are suspecting - "that its main goal is to regain power for the Thai elite, who have lost their electoral majority to poorer rural citizens from the populous North".

Spot on !!!

When the main demand is for Yingluck to step down, either she does or she doesn't. How can there be a compromise?

She did step down and called for a democratic election. The PDRC has rejected that and any compromise or negotiation in a face to face meeting. The PDRC's main demand remains the appointment of a "people's council" selected by their people.

No. She dissolved parliament. If she had stepped down, she would not be care-taker PM.

Last news item on Thailand was reported on ....... Thailand blast - ABC News

www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-19/thailand-blastjpg/5207436

Edited January 24, 201412 yr by waza

It seems the foreign press knows more about this than the Thais. No surprise here. Thailand the Fourth Reich

Foreign media voice different opinions

Little bit misleading as a headline as all support the election process

I challenge anyone to find one media outlet that dosnt support the election outside of Thailand

I haven't seen anyone supporting the election outside of Thailand.

Why would they have the election outside of Thailand?

ooo we are playing word spin again eh ?

Ok ill make it even clearer... I challenge you to find one foreign media outlet that supports the PRDC view or dosnt support the election process.

Happy with that one ?

It seems the foreign press knows more about this than the Thais. No surprise here. Thailand the Fourth Reich

Maybe they are able to say more than the local press. There is a lot not said.

Foreign media is rather more interested in what's happening in the Ukraine. http://rt.com/news/ukraine-riot-police-diplomats-013/

Ukraine is also an interesting contrast in what happens when the actual population is seriously split rather than just being pawns to elites. Yes, the two sides in the Ukraine are also being heavily financed but the people are also deeply involved.

Oh yeah, Russia Today has a small text link on its homepage to Thai news: http://rt.com/op-edge/thailand-occupy-bangkok-thaksin-080/

There you go - an anti-Thaksin piece!! Enjoy.

Reminds me of the Cold War rhetoric on SW radio.

PS. On reflection, the Nation appears to have missed a trick by not quoting Russia Today. However, in the forest of lies, the mainstream Thai media is as manipulative as its global equivalent and pointing the finger at the US-globalist backing of Thaksin is never done as those same people are also backing the Thai army.

Edited January 24, 201412 yr by focus27

The Economist has got it the most correct, short and to the point.

Bloomberg, meanwhile, suggests that for the opposition to continue rejecting compromises implies what many are suspecting - "that its main goal is to regain power for the Thai elite, who have lost their electoral majority to poorer rural citizens from the populous North".

Spot on !!!

When the main demand is for Yingluck to step down, either she does or she doesn't. How can there be a compromise?

She did step down and called for a democratic election. The PDRC has rejected that and any compromise or negotiation in a face to face meeting. The PDRC's main demand remains the appointment of a "people's council" selected by their people.

No. She dissolved parliament. If she had stepped down, she would not be care-taker PM.

If she didn't "step down" from PM to Caretaker PM, what do you call it? Step aside? Okay, fair enough, but for all intents and purposes, her stepping aside had the effect of her stepping down.

The Economist, Time and The Wall Street Journal. Three leading US newspapers. There's much more to foreign media than these three. And none of the three are quoted that the government is led by a criminal abroad. Then there's something missing very much.

The Economist is British.

So everybody is guessing and nobody has any idea what's going to happen.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Until foreign media points out in reports that a) the government is led by a convicted criminal fugitive the PM is a proxy c) that the current government policies are untenable d) that there is a suspicion of widespread corruption e) that previous violence in 2009 and 2010 were orchestrated by PTP supporters, then I really don't bother. And that's just for starters.

No. She dissolved parliament. If she had stepped down, she would not be care-taker PM.

If she didn't "step down" from PM to Caretaker PM, what do you call it? Step aside? Okay, fair enough, but for all intents and purposes, her stepping aside had the effect of her stepping down.

I call it "dissolving parliament".

For all intents and purposes, she is still in power. The protesters don't want her in power. They want her to "step down" so that she is no longer in power.

IMO, for this to move forward peacefully, she needs to resign, non-Shinawatra PTP MP needs to step in to be care-taker PM, and elections can then happen with all parties involved.

If she doesn't resign, the protests will continue. If there is a coup, or if PTP are kicked out in some other way, the red shirts will protest.

Bloomberg, meanwhile, suggests that for the opposition to continue rejecting compromises implies what many are suspecting - "that its main goal is to regain power for the Thai elite, who have lost their electoral majority to poorer rural citizens from the populous North".

Spot on !!!

Oh wake up, Phuea Thai *are* the elite, it's run by a billionaire for christs sake.

It's just a different bit of "the elite".

Foreign media is rather more interested in what's happening in the Ukraine. http://rt.com/news/ukraine-riot-police-diplomats-013/

Ukraine is also an interesting contrast in what happens when the actual population is seriously split rather than just being pawns to elites. Yes, the two sides in the Ukraine are also being heavily financed but the people are also deeply involved.

Oh yeah, Russia Today has a small text link on its homepage to Thai news: http://rt.com/op-edge/thailand-occupy-bangkok-thaksin-080/

There you go - an anti-Thaksin piece!! Enjoy.

Reminds me of the Cold War rhetoric on SW radio.

PS. On reflection, the Nation appears to have missed a trick by not quoting Russia Today. However, in the forest of lies, the mainstream Thai media is as manipulative as its global equivalent and pointing the finger at the US-globalist backing of Thaksin is never done as those same people are also backing the Thai army.

Yes that is true. Not sure if it is what you meant but in Thailand the Current government and its supporters are merely pawns to elite billionaire fugitives. The pro-billionaire group all had money flowing inwards, in other words they received cash to protest. On the other hand, the anti-government side clearly shows cash flowing in the opposite direction, where these middle class Thais are supporting a grass-roots cause to lead the country to a true republic (if you don't know the difference between a republic and democracy, Google is your friend, as is YouTube). In the overall scheme of things I have been repulsed by the inaccurate reporting by The Economist. My main argument not being cognitive dissonance as most will claim but plain old lack of good journalism. Is either side going to Bangkok or provinces to talk with the people and actually investigating what they are reporting?

Edited January 24, 201412 yr by pattayaorganic

The Economist, Time and The Wall Street Journal. Three leading US newspapers. There's much more to foreign media than these three. And none of the three are quoted that the government is led by a criminal abroad. Then there's something missing very much.

Print media faces a difficult financial time. As a result, the journalists writing for the 3 publications cited often have their stories reprinted elsewhere. The same applies for TV news, with a handful of journalists providing the on air content for a diverse range of news broadcasts.

Yes there are other media sources. Let's have a look then;

China Daily, the largest news portal in China has walked a line down the middle of the road, but favouring the government. It's description of the events from its backgrounder on the emergency decree is fairly consistent with the western reports. However, I note the narrative given to explain the Thaksin departure;

The turmoil is the latest chapter in an eight-year conflict pitting the Bangkok-based middle class and royalist establishment against the mostly poorer, rural supporters of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and her brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, a former prime minister ousted by the military in 2006.

The facts are presented, but there are slight slaps against Suthep if you can call them that. Usually, when China backs someone, it refrains from attaching a "negative" statement which can influence a reader's perception. For example; a reference to Suthep is given;

Suthep, at that time a deputy prime minister, sent in troops to end mass protests by pro-Thaksin supporters. More than 90 people died in the 2010 unrest The context in which it is given, can cause confusion, and encourage a connection between the deaths and Suthep.

The Times of India, one of India's largest newspapers, reflects the Indian government position. In its special article on Indians in Thailand, it relied on the Indian government's position; The government said on Tuesday that it was closely following the situation in Thailand which has been rocked by protests against the democratically elected government. The foreign ministry said in a statement that India is supportive of all measures and efforts to address the situation through consultations in order to "uphold the rule of law, preserve democracy and restore normalcy".

The article announcing the emergency decree is interesting though, as the anti corruption sentiment is evident. The facts are presented in such a way as to support democracy and even the former PM Thaksin's position as a PM by again emphasizing a military coup. BUT and it's an important but, the Times leaves no doubt as to the allegations of corruption. The kingdom has been periodically rocked by political bloodshed since former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Yingluck's older brother, was overthrown by royalist generals in a coup seven years ago. The latest protests were triggered by a failed amnesty bill that could have allowed Thaksin to return without going to jail for a past corruption conviction. The demonstrators accuse the billionaire telecoms tycoon-turned-politician of controlling his sister's government from his base in Dubai. Thaksin has strong electoral support in northern Thailand, but he is reviled by many southerners, Bangkok's middle class and members of the royalist establishment.

Do you see the difference between the Chinese approach and the Indian? China leaves one with the impression that Thaksin was deposed by a cou and didn't do anything seriously "wrong". . India too emphasizes the coup inserting the adjective "royalist".(If one knows Indian history and the hatred of the Raj system, one will see this as a red flag.) However, it provides a more balanced description as to the sins of Thaksin.

Russian news has been somewhat supportive of the current government and the national newspapers of general western countries l seem to support the legally elected government view, while pointing out the corruption allegations. In some papers, stories give the impression that this is a fight over democracy.

Overall, I believe that the 3 western sources cited, provide a fairly good indication of what other media sources are doing, when they even bother running a story. While this is big news in Thailand, it doesn't make the news in Latin America or most of Africa. It certainly isn't a big story in Brazil, another of the world's most populous nations.