Thailand: Everything is broken

[Hugh Geen]

It would seem division among TV posters could be compared to division in Thailand. I wonder if they could run the country any better?

[Morch]

It would seem division among TV posters could be compared to division in Thailand. I wonder if they could run the country any better?

Quite a few people here play rough on the forum, but won't poke an eye over a couple of beers.

At least that's my experience with meeting some.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Morch

[Thai at Heart]

And while I think of it in a recent Twitter cat fight between Michael Yon and Andrew "nothing relevant except the succession and if anybody questions me he is an idiot" Marshall, Michael easily got the measure of Marshall - not least through some hilarious photos.

I also had something of a "soft spot" for Yon, despite myself, until I saw his campaign yesterday to get someone fired from his job for some words exchanged in a bar. Whatever the guy said, it didn't need to go further than that. Yet Yon used his followers (most of whom he knew would follow him blindly) to attack the guy and approach his school. I wouldn't say I respected him before, I saw him more as a Rob Ford type comic figure. Of course, I was well aware he was little more than a huckster trying to make a few bob from the credulous* and delusional but I didn't dislike him. But from what I saw yesterday, there's something not right there. Anyone who wants someone to lose their job because of a political disagreement and carries out an online campaign to that effect... well, clearly they're an alphabet short of a letter, at best.

*Incidentally, I have a good Thai friend who is a moderate supporter of the PDRC, yet is still astonished that more people can't see Yon for what he is. Especially after he posted asking for donations for an 18,000 dollar computer to update his FB. He was sickened by Yon's posts yesterday and I don't think that response is untypical. It might not bode well for Yon. Certainly it's got more people, people who would've tolerated him before, interested in his legal status. Not all attention is welcome.

I dared to engage in a discussion that on his Facebook page, and his assembled supporters told me to p*** off and he promptly blocked me.

His page is absolutely propaganda and incredibly fawning from its supporters.

[plachon]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

I was wondering if the Economist was rueing the earlier free (?) space it gave him (or rather his PR company) in talking him up as some kind of democratic hero four or so years back. Thought it's bias extremely unwise at the time and history has proved me right. At least it opened my eyes to their unashamed bias towards promoting supposed neo-liberal icons in developing countries at the expense of more objective journalism. That's not to condemn all of its articles as biased, but like any journal or magazine, it has its preferred ideology and occasionally backs losers, despots and scoundrels.

Edited May 11, 2014 by plachon

[jayboy]

And while I think of it in a recent Twitter cat fight between Michael Yon and Andrew "nothing relevant except the succession and if anybody questions me he is an idiot" Marshall, Michael easily got the measure of Marshall - not least through some hilarious photos.

I also had something of a "soft spot" for Yon, despite myself, until I saw his campaign yesterday to get someone fired from his job for some words exchanged in a bar. Whatever the guy said, it didn't need to go further than that. Yet Yon used his followers (most of whom he knew would follow him blindly) to attack the guy and approach his school. I wouldn't say I respected him before, I saw him more as a Rob Ford type comic figure. Of course, I was well aware he was little more than a huckster trying to make a few bob from the credulous* and delusional but I didn't dislike him. But from what I saw yesterday, there's something not right there. Anyone who wants someone to lose their job because of a political disagreement and carries out an online campaign to that effect... well, clearly they're an alphabet short of a letter, at best.

*Incidentally, I have a good Thai friend who is a moderate supporter of the PDRC, yet is still astonished that more people can't see Yon for what he is. Especially after he posted asking for donations for an 18,000 dollar computer to update his FB. He was sickened by Yon's posts yesterday and I don't think that response is untypical. It might not bode well for Yon. Certainly it's got more people, people who would've tolerated him before, interested in his legal status. Not all attention is welcome.

Have now seen that stuff you refer to.I agree pretty disgusting and I'm afraid I was too indulgent.

Incidentally doesn't he need a work permit given his find canvassing effort ?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Thai at Heart]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

I was wondering if the Economist was rueing the earlier free (?) space it gave him (or rather his PR company) in talking him up as some kind of democratic hero four or so years back. Thought it's bias extremely unwise at the time and history has proved me right. At least it opened my eyes to their unashamed bias towards promoting supposed neo-liberal icons in developing countries at the expense of more objective journalism. That's not to condemn all of its articles as biased, but like any journal or magazine, it has its preferred ideology and occasionally backs losers, despots and scoundrels.

Please feel free to provide a link to this apparently paid undeclared publicity. I have never heard of the Economist providing paid for editorial.

Never.

[Thai at Heart]

And while I think of it in a recent Twitter cat fight between Michael Yon and Andrew "nothing relevant except the succession and if anybody questions me he is an idiot" Marshall, Michael easily got the measure of Marshall - not least through some hilarious photos.

I also had something of a "soft spot" for Yon, despite myself, until I saw his campaign yesterday to get someone fired from his job for some words exchanged in a bar. Whatever the guy said, it didn't need to go further than that. Yet Yon used his followers (most of whom he knew would follow him blindly) to attack the guy and approach his school. I wouldn't say I respected him before, I saw him more as a Rob Ford type comic figure. Of course, I was well aware he was little more than a huckster trying to make a few bob from the credulous* and delusional but I didn't dislike him. But from what I saw yesterday, there's something not right there. Anyone who wants someone to lose their job because of a political disagreement and carries out an online campaign to that effect... well, clearly they're an alphabet short of a letter, at best.

*Incidentally, I have a good Thai friend who is a moderate supporter of the PDRC, yet is still astonished that more people can't see Yon for what he is. Especially after he posted asking for donations for an 18,000 dollar computer to update his FB. He was sickened by Yon's posts yesterday and I don't think that response is untypical. It might not bode well for Yon. Certainly it's got more people, people who would've tolerated him before, interested in his legal status. Not all attention is welcome.

Have now seen that stuff you refer to.I agree pretty disgusting and I'm afraid I was too indulgent.

Incidentally doesn't he need a work permit given his find canvassing effort ?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

As a journalist,I don't think so, and he's more than welcome.

That said, considering the hammering the Nick Nostitz takes on here, on comparison Yon is horrendous. This hatchet job on this so called "red shirt" teacher is ridiculous.

[Stan7444]

A "highly centralised system of governance" is what many so called democracies still suffer from today. Most of the money tends to find it's way to the elite whilst the rest of the regions suffer from inequality on many levels as well as being underfunded due to relocation of funds that should have stayed and been used directly within the communites in the first place. Having a core set of values and governance consistent throughout the entire country is the best way to a brighter future and peace for all. Stripping regions of wealth and linning the pockets of the few who feel they are deserving is what is rapidly eroding societies around the globe..

Very accurate. Being from the US we have always been a "states right" country according to our Contitution. However, the Feds are slowly encringing our state's rights in education and many other issues.

[northernjohn]

Does The Economist allow a full reprint of its editorials? Just wondering for future reference, so I will know what is allowable.

The economist is not that good at reporting facts in Thailand. For instance they say

"But an election is no solution" No kidding.

There reason for that is that the courts are not on the side of the law breakers. That the people are royalist's. They have absolutely no idea of what is happening in Thailand. They get updates on their information from Thaksin.

But they proceed to ramble on with all kinds of reasons. The reason the elections will not bring union to the country is because the country is not ready for it. They desperately need a reformed government and police department to back it up.

As far as the economist is concerned the corruption is OK not a word about that. Not a word about the grass roots people starting the current situation with there honest wrath over the corruption and attempt to white wash Thaksin and 25,000 other crimes. They talk like Thaksin was a great leader doing all kinds of good for the poor. They forget to mention those people are still poor and getting poorer. they also neglect to mention in the first 5 years he had power the whole world was booming. In the last 9 years Thaksin has ruled for 6 of them. What has he done for them in that 6 years? Zip nothing. Yet they still think he is going to lead them to riches. He once told them give him 6 months and they would all be rich. They believed him. The reason they believed him was because not only this government but all governments have refused to educate them even today we have upwards of 2,000 schools with out electricity. In the last 14 years he has had control for 10 of them and look where we are.

Not naming names as we all know who they are but only an idiot would think elections in the currant situation would solve any thing. It Would just lead to a prime minister to sit around and watch Thailand tear it's self to pieces.

Thailand had a legally elected Prime Minister under Thailand's system The fact that 52% of the people didn't want her made no difference. The point is Thailand sank even farther into debt the cost of living went up family debt's are higher than they ever were. Rice farmers are being cheated out of the money that is due them on their rice. The government proceeded with a plan to further congest the roads and add to the pollution based on money they said they would give back and did not give back.

That is the result of an election. What makes any one in their rite mind think another election is all that is needed. Isn't Thailand in bad enough shape yet. How about reform and then an election. I don't give a damn who does it but do it.

Edited May 11, 2014 by northernjohn

[sumtingwong]

Is there a reason why The Economist does not show the name of the author of the article?

[Thai at Heart]

Is there a reason why The Economist does not show the name of the author of the article?

Its editorial.

Normally this type of article sets the tone for a more in depth analysis inside the magazine. There is another about wondering about the downfall of Yingluck.

Should read the online comments for this article though. Wow. I am amazed they haven't banned it yet.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[hawker9000]

A "highly centralised system of governance" is what many so called democracies still suffer from today. Most of the money tends to find it's way to the elite whilst the rest of the regions suffer from inequality on many levels as well as being underfunded due to relocation of funds that should have stayed and been used directly within the communites in the first place. Having a core set of values and governance consistent throughout the entire country is the best way to a brighter future and peace for all. Stripping regions of wealth and linning the pockets of the few who feel they are deserving is what is rapidly eroding societies around the globe..

Very accurate. Being from the US we have always been a "states right" country according to our Contitution. However, the Feds are slowly encringing our state's rights in education and many other issues.

Your point is going to be totally lost, even on many Americans who lack any real knowledge of the founding and are lost at sea when it comes to the balance of federal & state powers in the US. In their abject ignorance, they'll then simply launch themselves into a flail about its relevance. Even journalists, both foreign and domestic, who you'd THINK would trouble themselves with a little background, often don't have a clue.

[sumtingwong]

Is there a reason why The Economist does not show the name of the author of the article?

Its editorial.

Normally this type of article sets the tone for a more in depth analysis inside the magazine. There is another about wondering about the downfall of Yingluck.

Should read the online comments for this article though. Wow. I am amazed they haven't banned it yet.

I did read the comments posted on The Economist. They were better than the article. I still feel it is wrong not to publish the author.

[Emptyset]

Is there a reason why The Economist does not show the name of the author of the article?

Its editorial.

Normally this type of article sets the tone for a more in depth analysis inside the magazine. There is another about wondering about the downfall of Yingluck.

Should read the online comments for this article though. Wow. I am amazed they haven't banned it yet.

I did read the comments posted on The Economist. They were better than the article. I still feel it is wrong not to publish the author.

The Economist never publishes the author's name for any article. It's always been like that, as far as I know, at least.

[Emptyset]

And while I think of it in a recent Twitter cat fight between Michael Yon and Andrew "nothing relevant except the succession and if anybody questions me he is an idiot" Marshall, Michael easily got the measure of Marshall - not least through some hilarious photos.

I also had something of a "soft spot" for Yon, despite myself, until I saw his campaign yesterday to get someone fired from his job for some words exchanged in a bar. Whatever the guy said, it didn't need to go further than that. Yet Yon used his followers (most of whom he knew would follow him blindly) to attack the guy and approach his school. I wouldn't say I respected him before, I saw him more as a Rob Ford type comic figure. Of course, I was well aware he was little more than a huckster trying to make a few bob from the credulous* and delusional but I didn't dislike him. But from what I saw yesterday, there's something not right there. Anyone who wants someone to lose their job because of a political disagreement and carries out an online campaign to that effect... well, clearly they're an alphabet short of a letter, at best.

*Incidentally, I have a good Thai friend who is a moderate supporter of the PDRC, yet is still astonished that more people can't see Yon for what he is. Especially after he posted asking for donations for an 18,000 dollar computer to update his FB. He was sickened by Yon's posts yesterday and I don't think that response is untypical. It might not bode well for Yon. Certainly it's got more people, people who would've tolerated him before, interested in his legal status. Not all attention is welcome.

Have now seen that stuff you refer to.I agree pretty disgusting and I'm afraid I was too indulgent.

Incidentally doesn't he need a work permit given his find canvassing effort ?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I have no idea. There's a thread about it here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/687945-work-permit-for-freelance-journalist/ but maybe Yon doesn't class as a freelance journalist as he's not receiving funds from any publications. Anyway, I'm all for freedom of speech, but Yon went way too far with that stuff about the teacher. And if he's going to play it this way and try to harass others out of a job, I wouldn't be surprised if people try to hit back at him, so he better have his visa etc in proper order.

What goes around comes around... hopefully.

[KarenBravo]

Not a single article in The Economist has an attributed author. Only the editorial, or, a guest writer. It's been like that for decades.

Actually, I thought the article was spot-on.

Edited May 11, 2014 by KarenBravo

[sumtingwong]

Is there a reason why The Economist does not show the name of the author of the article?

Its editorial.

Normally this type of article sets the tone for a more in depth analysis inside the magazine. There is another about wondering about the downfall of Yingluck.

Should read the online comments for this article though. Wow. I am amazed they haven't banned it yet.

So this is why. I found it.

[Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle.]

http://www.economist.com/help/about-us

[Thai at Heart]

Is there a reason why The Economist does not show the name of the author of the article?

Its editorial.

Normally this type of article sets the tone for a more in depth analysis inside the magazine. There is another about wondering about the downfall of Yingluck.

Should read the online comments for this article though. Wow. I am amazed they haven't banned it yet.

I did read the comments posted on The Economist. They were better than the article. I still feel it is wrong not to publish the author.

Editorial at the beginning isn't named.

I presume it is officially penned by whoever is the editor for that edition.

http://www.economist.com/mediadirectory/john-micklethwait

Edited May 11, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[Thai at Heart]

And while I think of it in a recent Twitter cat fight between Michael Yon and Andrew "nothing relevant except the succession and if anybody questions me he is an idiot" Marshall, Michael easily got the measure of Marshall - not least through some hilarious photos.

I also had something of a "soft spot" for Yon, despite myself, until I saw his campaign yesterday to get someone fired from his job for some words exchanged in a bar. Whatever the guy said, it didn't need to go further than that. Yet Yon used his followers (most of whom he knew would follow him blindly) to attack the guy and approach his school. I wouldn't say I respected him before, I saw him more as a Rob Ford type comic figure. Of course, I was well aware he was little more than a huckster trying to make a few bob from the credulous* and delusional but I didn't dislike him. But from what I saw yesterday, there's something not right there. Anyone who wants someone to lose their job because of a political disagreement and carries out an online campaign to that effect... well, clearly they're an alphabet short of a letter, at best.

*Incidentally, I have a good Thai friend who is a moderate supporter of the PDRC, yet is still astonished that more people can't see Yon for what he is. Especially after he posted asking for donations for an 18,000 dollar computer to update his FB. He was sickened by Yon's posts yesterday and I don't think that response is untypical. It might not bode well for Yon. Certainly it's got more people, people who would've tolerated him before, interested in his legal status. Not all attention is welcome.

Have now seen that stuff you refer to.I agree pretty disgusting and I'm afraid I was too indulgent.

Incidentally doesn't he need a work permit given his find canvassing effort ?

Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

I have no idea. There's a thread about it here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/687945-work-permit-for-freelance-journalist/ but maybe Yon doesn't class as a freelance journalist as he's not receiving funds from any publications. Anyway, I'm all for freedom of speech, but Yon went way too far with that stuff about the teacher. And if he's going to play it this way and try to harass others out of a job, I wouldn't be surprised if people try to hit back at him, so he better have his visa etc in proper order.

What goes around comes around... hopefully.

He runs around and labels everyone. Its childish. Everyone gets an instant colour and he puts words in their mouths. His page is heavily controlled to prevent debate. It is pure propaganda.

This story about the teacher is so absurd. And then read the reactions from his"supporters".

After a few comments the rabid Thais were labeling the teacher a lese majeste anti monarchist. Mr Yon is playing with fire. He might well get burnt eventually.

[plachon]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

I was wondering if the Economist was rueing the earlier free (?) space it gave him (or rather his PR company) in talking him up as some kind of democratic hero four or so years back. Thought it's bias extremely unwise at the time and history has proved me right. At least it opened my eyes to their unashamed bias towards promoting supposed neo-liberal icons in developing countries at the expense of more objective journalism. That's not to condemn all of its articles as biased, but like any journal or magazine, it has its preferred ideology and occasionally backs losers, despots and scoundrels.

Please feel free to provide a link to this apparently paid undeclared publicity. I have never heard of the Economist providing paid for editorial.

Never.

Cast your mind back to 2008 and the sterling work done on Thaksin's PR interests by one Sam Moon. Regular buddies with Thaksin apparently, and they hit it off so well, that Moon once likened Thaksin to Clinton. Thaksin, more modestly you'll recall, preferred to liken his statesmanship with Nelson Mandela. Here's a profile on Moonie from The Nation:

2. *Sam Moon, The Economist ties

(The Nation Nov 19 2008)

-Sam Moon has lived in and worked across Asia for the past 23 years working for The Economist, Dow Jones and his own company in partnership with BusinessWeek. Based mainly in Hong Kong, Sam spearheaded the effort of two global media companies, namely The Economist Group and Dow Jones, in transforming their respective conference activities into an actual growth-oriented and profitable business units. While in The Economist Group, Sam was also made responsible for The Economist Group’s conference business for the United States and Latin America, with the aim of facilitating a similar business turnaround for The Economist brand. Mr. Moon first met Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra 16 years ago and has remained in contact with him over the years. Sam holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Tennessee, United States.

[IMA_FARANG]

The Economist is a conservative (small c not large C there) right wing magazine with it's own political agenda.

That's fine with me, if that's what they want to print they can go right ahead an print it.

I however reserve the right to disagree with them when I feel like it, and I will express my opinion of what they (or any other magazine) prints when I think they are wrong.

And this time I think they are wrong on some points.

So that's what I said on my other post.

And, incidentally, for that American poster who said that the U.S. Constitution was a "states rights" document, I disagree.

The truth is that the U.S. Constitution was a cobbled together compromise which could not have ever been ratified without compromises .... mainly about the issue of Slavery and the division of the powers of the states and the Federal Government by the then Southern states.

The "states right" part was decisively decided by the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice John Marshall in which the ruling went against the state of Pennsylvania in the so-called "Whiskey Tax" case. That case set the precedent that the Federal Governments right to tax interstate commerce overrode the individual states right to control such interstate commerce.

But that's a Historian talking, and not relevant to the topic of these forum posts anyhow.

[Thai at Heart]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

I was wondering if the Economist was rueing the earlier free (?) space it gave him (or rather his PR company) in talking him up as some kind of democratic hero four or so years back. Thought it's bias extremely unwise at the time and history has proved me right. At least it opened my eyes to their unashamed bias towards promoting supposed neo-liberal icons in developing countries at the expense of more objective journalism. That's not to condemn all of its articles as biased, but like any journal or magazine, it has its preferred ideology and occasionally backs losers, despots and scoundrels.

Please feel free to provide a link to this apparently paid undeclared publicity. I have never heard of the Economist providing paid for editorial.

Never.

Cast your mind back to 2008 and the sterling work done on Thaksin's PR interests by one Sam Moon. Regular buddies with Thaksin apparently, and they hit it off so well, that Moon once likened Thaksin to Clinton. Thaksin, more modestly you'll recall, preferred to liken his statesmanship with Nelson Mandela. Here's a profile on Moonie from The Nation:

2. *Sam Moon, The Economist ties

(The Nation Nov 19 2008)

-Sam Moon has lived in and worked across Asia for the past 23 years working for The Economist, Dow Jones and his own company in partnership with BusinessWeek. Based mainly in Hong Kong, Sam spearheaded the effort of two global media companies, namely The Economist Group and Dow Jones, in transforming their respective conference activities into an actual growth-oriented and profitable business units. While in The Economist Group, Sam was also made responsible for The Economist Groups conference business for the United States and Latin America, with the aim of facilitating a similar business turnaround for The Economist brand. Mr. Moon first met Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra 16 years ago and has remained in contact with him over the years. Sam holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Tennessee, United States.

And?

Thanon in the Nation prints this in 2008, and that means Thaksin can get paid for editorial in the Economist in 2012?

Okayyyyyyyy........ This guy Moon runs conferences.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Thai at Heart

[plachon]

I was wondering if the Economist was rueing the earlier free (?) space it gave him (or rather his PR company) in talking him up as some kind of democratic hero four or so years back. Thought it's bias extremely unwise at the time and history has proved me right. At least it opened my eyes to their unashamed bias towards promoting supposed neo-liberal icons in developing countries at the expense of more objective journalism. That's not to condemn all of its articles as biased, but like any journal or magazine, it has its preferred ideology and occasionally backs losers, despots and scoundrels.

Please feel free to provide a link to this apparently paid undeclared publicity. I have never heard of the Economist providing paid for editorial.

Never.

Cast your mind back to 2008 and the sterling work done on Thaksin's PR interests by one Sam Moon. Regular buddies with Thaksin apparently, and they hit it off so well, that Moon once likened Thaksin to Clinton. Thaksin, more modestly you'll recall, preferred to liken his statesmanship with Nelson Mandela. Here's a profile on Moonie from The Nation:

2. *Sam Moon, The Economist ties

(The Nation Nov 19 2008)

-Sam Moon has lived in and worked across Asia for the past 23 years working for The Economist, Dow Jones and his own company in partnership with BusinessWeek. Based mainly in Hong Kong, Sam spearheaded the effort of two global media companies, namely The Economist Group and Dow Jones, in transforming their respective conference activities into an actual growth-oriented and profitable business units. While in The Economist Group, Sam was also made responsible for The Economist Groups conference business for the United States and Latin America, with the aim of facilitating a similar business turnaround for The Economist brand. Mr. Moon first met Dr. Thaksin Shinawatra 16 years ago and has remained in contact with him over the years. Sam holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Tennessee, United States.

And?

Thanon in the Nation prints this in 2008, and that means Thaksin can get paid for editorial in the Economist in 2012?

Okayyyyyyyy........ This guy Moon runs conferences.

Whoever mentioned anything about 2012. I was referring to planted pieces in the Economist giving a positive spin on Thaksin's misdeeds in 2008, apparently by this Moon character, and suggesting that The Economist may not be as neutral and objective in its analysis and political alliances, as some might have imagined. That is all. You say "Moon runs conferences" (as if that exonerates him), but you don't confirm or deny whether he had any links with The Economist Group, or the mention allegation that he was a friend or associate of Thaksin's for 16 years. Moon seems like just the sort of company that Thaksin would keep and the sort of person who might try to ensure that his friend received good press in The Economist, whether he wrote it or not. As the pieces are anonymous, I guess we shall never know, but clearly there is a strong finger of suspicion pointing at Moon as "the fixer" in the deal.

[daboyz1]

exile...i thought he was a fugitive on the run with more outstanding charges awaiting his return...but an amnesty bill at 4am would have sorted that little chestnut out wouldnt it..am i wrong..

I'm not sure why that large detail is always omitted. Yingluck and PTP had been in office for well over a year with no protests that I can recall. It wasn't until they tried to sneak through an amnesty bill for the man in Dubai that brought out the protesters.

[northernjohn]

Is there a reason why The Economist does not show the name of the author of the article?

If you wrote an obviously biased article like that for the whole world to read would you want them to know you did it?

[northernjohn]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

I was wondering if the Economist was rueing the earlier free (?) space it gave him (or rather his PR company) in talking him up as some kind of democratic hero four or so years back. Thought it's bias extremely unwise at the time and history has proved me right. At least it opened my eyes to their unashamed bias towards promoting supposed neo-liberal icons in developing countries at the expense of more objective journalism. That's not to condemn all of its articles as biased, but like any journal or magazine, it has its preferred ideology and occasionally backs losers, despots and scoundrels.

Please feel free to provide a link to this apparently paid undeclared publicity. I have never heard of the Economist providing paid for editorial.

Never.

.Nor have I but as we can all see they have given some pretty stupid half story ones.

Why do they not print the other half

[Munger]

Well written and to the point, where and who is the messiah for Thailand ?

The USA got a messiah with "NObama"

[KarenBravo]

Well written and to the point, where and who is the messiah for Thailand ?

The USA got a messiah with "NObama"

Is that your best attempt at humour? Lame. Very lame.

[heybruce]

No one claiming that Thaksin has bought the exonomist ?

Well. That's novel.

I was wondering if the Economist was rueing the earlier free (?) space it gave him (or rather his PR company) in talking him up as some kind of democratic hero four or so years back. Thought it's bias extremely unwise at the time and history has proved me right. At least it opened my eyes to their unashamed bias towards promoting supposed neo-liberal icons in developing countries at the expense of more objective journalism. That's not to condemn all of its articles as biased, but like any journal or magazine, it has its preferred ideology and occasionally backs losers, despots and scoundrels.

Please feel free to provide a link to this apparently paid undeclared publicity. I have never heard of the Economist providing paid for editorial.

Never.

.Nor have I but as we can all see they have given some pretty stupid half story ones.

Why do they not print the other half

I've read the Economist for years because I think they give a good, objective summary of world news. They aren't perfect and I don't agree with their editors on everything, but I've never seen anything I would describe as a "stupid half story". Perhaps you could provide some examples.

Regarding plachon's claim that the Economist presented Thaksin as "some kind of democratic hero four or so years ago", I couldn't find anything. In their September 21, 2006 issue, the first after the coup, they wrote in "Thailand's Dangerous Coup":

"Thailand was certainly no paragon of democracy before Tuesday night. Its prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, was accused of many sins, from corruption and nepotism to gross incompetence in his prosecution of the fight against Muslim insurgents. He was lambasted for his dominance of the airwaves through his communications group, Shin Corp—and then attacked for hugely enriching himself by selling it to Singapore."

They really put him on a pedestal, didn't they?

The article, http://www.economist.com/node/7942244, also stated:

"The generals' error is to assume that a coup will solve anything. Whenever an election is held, Mr Thaksin's rural, populist Thai Rak Thai party will surely do well, whether or not he is allowed back into the country to lead it. And the principle of changing governments by street protest and military putsch has been re-established, undoing all the progress of the past decade, which had seen Thailand slowly emerge from the shadow of the barracks and the royal palace. More instability, not less, is the likely outcome. Nor is turmoil likely to help clean up political life. Corruption flourished under a succession of military-favoured prime ministers and was bad, too, under the opposition Democrats in the late 1990s."

They were way off the mark with that prediction, weren't they?