State of Emergency in Bangkok: Foreign media voice different opinions

[chrisrazz]

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.

Nice work 'Old Son'.

[samjaidee]

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?

Remember, trying to be clever and being clever are not the same.

[celso]

 

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

The Economist is British. Do your research before getting butt-hurt.

[chadintheusa]

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

What does it matter which side they support, shouldn't the media be objective? A virtual one party election, with no chance of forming a parliament under the constitution, who wouldn't think that was a super idea? Of course the media would support that, it's like a train wreck that you can predict, I'm sure you can sell lots of papers and fill some airtime. A botched election that will result in a power vacuum and red protests and possible violent conflict bringing Thailand to the verge of a civil war. Yes I can see why media outlets would love to see that. But what is in the interest of media vultures may not be in the best interest of the common Thai citizen. Why elect YS to a new term with the rice scheme looming over her, it's much worse than a cooking show, so once the courts finish with her she won't be caretaker PM she'll be former PM.

What is the best case scenario if the election goes ahead? Maybe YS and the other PT party members will avoid being banned. Maybe special by elections can be held so that 95% of seats get filled and parliament can open. Maybe the farmers will get paid. None of that will fundamentally change the current situation. None of that will satisfy the protesters. The PT will be no more interested in reform than they were for the past couple of years. What will this election, if it isn't nullified, solve?

[unanimosity]

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

"What if......................."

[celso]

 

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

What does it matter which side they support, shouldn't the media be objective? A virtual one party election, with no chance of forming a parliament under the constitution, who wouldn't think that was a super idea? Of course the media would support that, it's like a train wreck that you can predict, I'm sure you can sell lots of papers and fill some airtime. A botched election that will result in a power vacuum and red protests and possible violent conflict bringing Thailand to the verge of a civil war. Yes I can see why media outlets would love to see that. But what is in the interest of media vultures may not be in the best interest of the common Thai citizen. Why elect YS to a new term with the rice scheme looming over her, it's much worse than a cooking show, so once the courts finish with her she won't be caretaker PM she'll be former PM.

What is the best case scenario if the election goes ahead? Maybe YS and the other PT party members will avoid being banned. Maybe special by elections can be held so that 95% of seats get filled and parliament can open. Maybe the farmers will get paid. None of that will fundamentally change the current situation. None of that will satisfy the protesters. The PT will be no more interested in reform than they were for the past couple of years. What will this election, if it isn't nullified, solve?

Pretty much, yes. Elections, a coup, neither will solve the fundamental problem of the North/South divide. You can remove Thaskin, Suthep, all of them, and you will still come back to the same place: populist parties winning elections thanks to the North, and a central/southern middle class who refuses to tolerate them.

[american12bthai]

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 !!!

thaksin is popular because he give the poor tooooons of money to have a voice. the rice deal is never meant to pay them but to squeezzze money from the government. if the farmers were to be paid, they would have done so...3-6 months ago. they have no intention of paying. now its come down to "want your money? Vote for me" lol

[Patje]

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?

Main demand ? Do you mean these couple of thousand that are payed to keep up the obstruction of Bkk ? And FYI, she did step down, you will have a change on 2nd Feb if Mr Suthep is willing to let you vote ....

[smedly]

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 think you will find that everyone including the protestors support an election going forward, it's the timing that may be different and what needs to take place first

I challenge you to tell me that something doesn't need fixing first - PTP have proved that beyond any doubt with their abuse and corruption

[Baerboxer]

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

In you opinion. They must have forgotten about a US President named Nixon. Don't think he was allowed to serve his full term and then voted out.

Being elected does not put governments and their members above the law, legitimize their corruption, or make their lies acceptable and ethical.

The WSJ has really got this one wrong, IMO.

[Scamper]

These reports do differ - significantly. Some understand the situation well. Some have a dismal understanding of it. TIME magazine comes out on top, while The Wall Street Journal generously confirms suspicions of just being a fizzle. Indeed, the Internal Security Act - in effect since last August - under the presumption that anyone actually noticed - failed to do what it set out to do, as it was implemented ( coincidentally ) with the amnesty bill process beginning in parliament. ( Long before the release of the " Thaksin clause " of October 13 before that was rammed through at 4 in the morning ). So that quote has it right. The emergency decree really only accomplishes two things - it attempts to frame a narrative of an administration that is still under control. And two, it grants a long lost dream Chalerm has had since the age of three of experiencing the thrill - albeit only for a brief period - of what it's like to run a news station. Outside of that, it accomplishes nothing. Except of course to make it to the Guinness Book of World Records as the only caretaker administration in the history of the free world to invoke an emergency decree on the eve on an election. Robert Mugabe must be envious.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Scamper

[Dogmatix]

Readers of the Australian pro-red pseudo academic website, New Mandala, have been lamenting the disappearance of

German photojournalist Nick Nostitz's acclaimedly unbiased reports on the protests since his bruising disagreement with PDRC guards. I wonder where he has gone? Could it be that he has been snapped up by Der Spiegel for an assignment covering the civil war in Syria, protests in Ukraine or some other trouble spot where his skills and studiously non-partisan approach might come in handy?

Or is he preparing a mega millions defamation case against Blue Sky Channel TV and a pseudonymous letter writer to the Bangkok Post, as urged by his New Mandala fans.

[Thai at Heart]

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?

This had potential until the "R" word.

Criticising the magazines for being I'll informed and then dropping the R word into a discussion in thailand is a little weird to say the least.

[hansnl]

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.

From what I see in US media, and read above, the US people think that once voted for, an administration should be able to end it's term, whatever.

I think government is there to do it's job for ALL the people, and if said government looses the support of said people it should recognise the power of the people and stand down, not hold on to power!

Democracy means for and by the people.

At all times, not only during election time.

[diceq]

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.

And Suthep is not corrupt? Hypocrite.

[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.

From what I see in US media, and read above, the US people think that once voted for, an administration should be able to end it's term, whatever.

I think government is there to do it's job for ALL the people, and if said government looses the support of said people it should recognise the power of the people and stand down, not hold on to power!

Democracy means for and by the people.

At all times, not only during election time.

Well in the USA there is a facility to remove the president from office. There is one in thailand too.

Of course, the fine fellows who wrote the original usa constitution and any subsequent changes did so with a good amount of care and consideration.

Whenever someone quotes the thai constitution there is a loophole big enough to get an elephant through. However, as a rule I would say that it is.desirable to have a parliament run its duration. Any other way doesn't do much for reliability and decision making.

Very naive to think that a government acts for all people all the time. Governments on average act for their supporters in accordance with a manifesto. Thailand hasnt reached that level of sophistication yet.

First things first, they need a media to hold them accountable and some laws to get around the immunity for politicians.

Edited January 24, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[diceq]

Pretty much, yes. Elections, a coup, neither will solve the fundamental problem of the North/South divide. You can remove Thaskin, Suthep, all of them, and you will still come back to the same place: populist parties winning elections thanks to the North, and a central/southern middle class who refuses to tolerate them.

You mean who refuse to accept the democratic decision of the people.

[moonao]

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".

This analysis is correct. There is really no other option that will be domestically or internationally accepted. It's this or another 10 years of headaches for the military.

[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.

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.

If the offence of doing something seriously wrong, was not to pay his tax, then 70% of the business owners in Thailand don't pass that test.

The chinese don't want to get too dragged into any discussion about their politicians and corruption I fear.

[3NUMBAS]

the BBC shows little interest in sutheps thugs stories too minor for them

[Publicus]

These reports do differ - significantly. Some understand the situation well. Some have a dismal understanding of it. TIME magazine comes out on top, while The Wall Street Journal generously confirms suspicions of just being a fizzle. Indeed, the Internal Security Act - in effect since last August - under the presumption that anyone actually noticed - failed to do what it set out to do, as it was implemented ( coincidentally ) with the amnesty bill process beginning in parliament. ( Long before the release of the " Thaksin clause " of October 13 before that was rammed through at 4 in the morning ). So that quote has it right. The emergency decree really only accomplishes two things - it attempts to frame a narrative of an administration that is still under control. And two, it grants a long lost dream Chalerm has had since the age of three of experiencing the thrill - albeit only for a brief period - of what it's like to run a news station. Outside of that, it accomplishes nothing. Except of course to make it to the Guinness Book of World Records as the only caretaker administration in the history of the free world to invoke an emergency decree on the eve on an election. Robert Mugabe must be envious.

Mugabe? Envious of Thailand corruption and sleazebag maneuverings? Wasn't it Mugabe's National Counter Corruption Commission that announced a couple of weeks BEFORE an election that it definitely was going to prosecute the top party list MP opponent AFTER the election?

Or was it Vladimir Putin that said that?

Or was it Sudan where that happened recently?

All three anyway have such a record of press freedom and electoral democracy that would make the Thai elites envious!

[whybother]

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?

Main demand ? Do you mean these couple of thousand that are payed to keep up the obstruction of Bkk ? And FYI, she did step down, you will have a change on 2nd Feb if Mr Suthep is willing to let you vote ....

ONCE AGAIN. If she stepped down, she wouldn't be care-taker PM. What she did was dissolve parliament.

[whybother]

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.

And Suthep is not corrupt? Hypocrite.

How about everyone reject Suthep AND Thaksin (incl. Yingluck) because they are both corrupt. Don't support Thaksin because Suthep is also corrupt.

Edited January 24, 2014 by whybother

[EricBerg]

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.

From what I see in US media, and read above, the US people think that once voted for, an administration should be able to end it's term, whatever.

I think government is there to do it's job for ALL the people, and if said government looses the support of said people it should recognise the power of the people and stand down, not hold on to power!

Democracy means for and by the people.

At all times, not only during election time.

They impeached Nixon though. I do know quite a few Americans. Some friends are passionately anti Obama and some the contrary. Both sides would love to have their way before the end of the term. And republicans in congress are fighting a fierce battle to block the healthcare plans and to turn back what already was passed. Recent short shutdown of the government in the US doesn't underline your point of view about what you think you see there. They try to block anything the government comes up with.