International alarm mounts over Thai coup

[Emptyset]

Why because he says things you dont like ? a reporters job is to follow a story and report. That it may not be to some peoples liking is irrelevant thats what reporters are supposed to do, follow a story and peoples personal stories will always have a personal point of view. Clearly those people have.

Thats the beauty and point of freedom of the press. ( which of course Thailand dosnt have and the BBC does. They are supposed to watch the watchers and expose that story which challenges the status quo where and when they find it. mostly a report is a one side story when its a one on one, especially interviews. Take Michael Yon as an alternative if you like or others out there, for other sides there are plenty to choose from.

If it helps Mr Mugabe dosnt like the BBC either so your in good company there.

Its not a tale of two cities its a follow up report of a previous visit and video and how things have changed in 6 mths from the same area. Rather strikingly different id say.

I would suggest it's not because was he reports is not to his liking, but because it is not true. Thaksin had the chief editor of BKK Post fired for allowing stories that pout him in a bad light - true ones (otherwise he would have sued for libel instead - so by your logic, does that him a "Mugabe" too?

Actually it was the airport authorities which filed a lawsuit against the Post, prompting them to remove the editors responsible for the story. The Post was still defending their decision even under the junta in 2007 as they claimed that the reporters had made serious errors which were unacceptable. No doubt political pressure played a large part in it though. Anyway, I know of one Thai journalist who's already been fired for expressing opposition to the coup and I wouldn't be surprised if more follow. If it was wrong that journalists were fired for political reasons in 05, it's still wrong now.

And again, I don't see what was "not true" about Head's report. It really seems that people want those who oppose the coup silenced - their view apparently no longer counts. But they are just as Thai as those waving pro-military banners.

[brewsterbudgen]

Just seen Jonathan Head on BBC News

My god! What biased bullshit

Goes to Udon and is insinuating the Thais are crushed by Harsh Military Coup

Just WRONG, WRONG

I hope the army pull him in for damaging the country

Anyone else see the piece?

Worth a new thread.....

Are you saying that the people Head interviewed were lying?

Thank goodness that we still have access to uncensored media reports.

Lying or not is not always relevant. It is selective reporting. I am sure you can find a KKK member to tell you about the oppression of the whites in the USA and the evil control of the Jews and Blacks - would that make it true or news worthy? The Beeb should be ashamed of such biased unchecked reporting - they should have learned that lesson over events that cost the DG his job a few years back! If they put someone like Head on, they should counter with either commentary, questions or a report from the other stable.

What nonsense. The BBC have reported the 'other side' many times. For this one (short) report where Head travelled to Isaan to find out how the Reds were coping with the coup. All credit for them for doing so, as no one else is reporting it.

[wolf5370]

Historically coups have always been welcomed in Thailand with a sense of optimism by many Thais. They have been taught to think that autocratic leadership and a "quiet politics" is best. They believe Thailand is best thought of as a family, and that people should do what their parents say, as long as those parents are considered "good" people. However, if you don't think a large proportion of people think differently about this, you're mistaken. It's part of Head's job to seek out those people and allow them to be heard. It's interesting that it tends to be only the extremists who attack Jonathan Head (a minority of pro-red extremists have also attacked him for being a "fascist sympathiser" but the vast majority of attacks on him come from the pro-coup side)... one gets the feeling that these people will be unhappy whatever Head says, short of him filing a report where he blows a whistle for three minutes in celebration of the junta.

Now, it's obvious that some Thai people are very happy - particularly the PDRC supporters in the south and BKK - and some others will be adopting a wait and see attitude, pleased that things have calmed down. It's also pretty obvious that most red supporters will be resentful about what's happening. As I said above, coups tend to be initially welcomed by many, but then as Duncan McCargo says in his recent article for Foreign Policy magazine ("After the Putsch Come the Punches"):

"Thailand's 69 million people are some of the most politicized and polarized people on the planet. The notion that they are going to embrace peace and orderliness on the instructions of a few guys in uniform is a joke. Thais like the rhetoric of order and enjoy the idea of a strong leader, but the novelty wears off once they have had a few weeks of stiff military paternalism."

This is the typical honeymoon period historically enjoyed by Thai coup makers. The junta is also carrying out the social order campaign and crackdown on "dark influences" which is typical of Thai autocrats who became widely beloved and respected (and also hated in equal measure). Thaksin and Sarit are two good precedents. It's a smart move initially. But in four or five months I'd expect many people's attitudes to have shifted... if history is any guide, at any rate.

I think more and more people are feeling happy about this - the good honest people that is. As they see, top brass corrupt cops moved out of their control positions, guns and bombs being taken off the streets, terrorist plots stopped, outstanding rice debts paid to the poorest in society, dodgy rice millers put away a long time, taxi mafia dismantled in Phuket, moves to (re)introduce a hop-on-hop-off fixed fare transport system for the public in Phuket, assets being checked for those who suddenly have many more millions put away than they could have legally earned whilst in authority, crack down on gambling that is real and not just lip service to remove competition, continuing with ASEAN - including attending the SOM, rice stock checks, hitting the so called Amart like PTT when everyone said they wouldn't, investigating logistic routes/rice scheme/high speed train/flood defences, moving on with flood defences with careful checks against corruption continuing, removing freebies that was killing the national carrier, listening and thuis removing curfew in most tourist areas and moving them outside of the legal venue opening times, investigating and moves to remove loan shark debts, and so on....

So whom is unhappy? UDD leaders, gambling den owners, illegal loan sharks, corrupt officials, chief's of police that stopped their officers doing their job for profit and political reasons, fraudsters, taxi mafia ??? Yep, guess we can live with a few unhappy people!

I don't see any way of really accurately gauging happiness short of an election or referendum and we know those things are out of the question, so I'm suspcious of those who go on about "most Thai people being happy" (or unhappy for that matter). But as I pointed out regards what you say above, yes, many people like this style of leadership and it's how Thaksin, Sarit etc started off too. However, this is all largely about image at the moment. It's far too early to judge if there are real - lasting - positive effects of these measures or if it's just about replacing one set of "influences" with another. Gambling dens were also cracked down upon during the last coup. Is this really any sort of long-term solution? How about considering legalisation?

Also I think many were rightly worried when Thaksin carried out similar campaigns, fearing innocent people and those considered political opponents were being wrongly caught up in it. I don't see why similar caution isn't necessary here. BKK Post had a good report at the weekend on what's going on in Khon Kaen which offered a different picture. Of course, as it has published some mild criticism of the junta, many coup boosters have decided the Post is now a "red shirt" paper and have stopped reading it (ironic as many on the Post board of directors have ties to or are directly involved with the junta - Pridiyathorn etc). Perhaps you also feel that way. However, if not, the article is titled "Out of step with the junta". I think it's worth a read, anyway.

At no point did I say I knew what most Thais think - unlike you to try the old word twisting trick - I said "I THINK..." which is pretty obvious its both subjective and opinion. I also THINK its pretty obvious that people generally like good things to happen, and don't like bad things - try it, find two people: poke one in the eye with a stick and give the other 10k baht and then ask which is happy with their predicament, the blinded one or the wealthier one? Pretty obvious logical conclusion, no?

In 2006 the coup git a great welcome from the public (flowers in gun barrel etc) - but it was a honeymoon period. This coup has been different in that the General has made many moves that are hard to argue as not being in the general good - and seems adamant to continue doing so. This is not a lollipop inj the morning that is gone by evening, it is a continual feed of the good stuff.

There is already legislation against Gambling Dens - problem is until now the police commanders have been too corrupt to do anything about them. In a effort to remedy such things, many chief's overtly dodgy have been shifted (early on) to inactive positions and they and other are having their assets assessed. As I said before, lessons were learnt in 2006 - this time they were much slower to act, but once in, the opposite and know exactly what to target. They have done their homework this time. I think it is every political journalist's role to question/challenge the current establishment, as well as their opponents.

My view on this side of things is: It was a bad period in recent Thai history; the army once it made its move (the validity of which is another question I'll avoid for brevity) have little choice but to stop the hyperbole on all sides as well as blatant incitement in several cases. Many very biased reports, stretches of the truth and out right lies were circulating - this had to be quelled in order to stop continuance of violence. It is never nice to have rights removed - but sometimes it is necessary however distasteful. It has already been reduced (we have TV back - and even True is on now) and like the curfew it will whittle down to nothing given time. This seems to be the visible tend, so as yet I see no reason to state the opposite is likely.

It is likely that a review of laws into broadcasting etc will go ahead in the meantime - there are obviously dangers here with respect to free speech, but that is mitigated by the need to stop this continual and blatant rhetoric inciting violence and making false accusations and perpetuating myth and rumour as fact. On the otherside, libel laws are too easy to be used to silence or punish here - there must be better burden of proof for the accuser and once established as true, the case should be marked as frivolous and the charged to the litigator! Too many frivolous accusations and libel cases (even when true) - this limits freedom of the press and free speech more than any temporary censorship does.

There is little point in screaming that the sky is falling in, just because the possibility exists that it could - especially when the evidence to date suggests otherwise.

I am adamantly not Red or Yellow or any colour between - I try and be logical (and have posted and "liked" posts on both sides of the camp as [my] logic dictates). I do not often read the Post, but will look up that article (not because it is Red - which I agree is absurd - but because I am not a fan generally - although I was an avid reader some 15 years ago ).

[Mackie]

Let's cut the nonsense about the BBC being unbiased. They're as corrupted as anyone these days. Anything for the money.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-to-issue-global-apology-for-documentaries-that-broke-rules-6719997.html

When it comes to Thailand the BBC lost all credibility in 2010. Their reporting was a disgrace to professional journalism. Nothing changed. They're as biased as it gets.

[wolf5370]

Just seen Jonathan Head on BBC News

My god! What biased bullshit

Goes to Udon and is insinuating the Thais are crushed by Harsh Military Coup

Just WRONG, WRONG

I hope the army pull him in for damaging the country

Anyone else see the piece?

Worth a new thread.....

Are you saying that the people Head interviewed were lying?

Thank goodness that we still have access to uncensored media reports.

Lying or not is not always relevant. It is selective reporting. I am sure you can find a KKK member to tell you about the oppression of the whites in the USA and the evil control of the Jews and Blacks - would that make it true or news worthy? The Beeb should be ashamed of such biased unchecked reporting - they should have learned that lesson over events that cost the DG his job a few years back! If they put someone like Head on, they should counter with either commentary, questions or a report from the other stable.

What nonsense. The BBC have reported the 'other side' many times. For this one (short) report where Head travelled to Isaan to find out how the Reds were coping with the coup. All credit for them for doing so, as no one else is reporting it.

The question was "Are you saying that the people Head interviewed were lying?" - my response was a direct answer to that question. It matters not a jot if they air the other side or not, they should still not air overtly biased or selective reports as if they are fact and without commentary to the fact, or challenge. You are emotive because of your ideology - but if the opposite had been done, someone interviewing PDRC members at home about the last government, and thus a very biased report was aired against your position, without challenge, would that still be OK?

Me, I would argue against both - people believe what they are shown on the box - especially the news and even more so it being Auntie. A news channel is not the place for soapboxing or propaganda being disseminated as news; biased reports are fine AS LONG as they are challenged - then the people can chose whom to believe.

//Edit: Keyboard hates me

Edited June 10, 2014 by wolf5370

[brewsterbudgen]

Just seen Jonathan Head on BBC News

My god! What biased bullshit

Goes to Udon and is insinuating the Thais are crushed by Harsh Military Coup

Just WRONG, WRONG

I hope the army pull him in for damaging the country

Anyone else see the piece?

Worth a new thread.....

Are you saying that the people Head interviewed were lying?

Thank goodness that we still have access to uncensored media reports.

Lying or not is not always relevant. It is selective reporting. I am sure you can find a KKK member to tell you about the oppression of the whites in the USA and the evil control of the Jews and Blacks - would that make it true or news worthy? The Beeb should be ashamed of such biased unchecked reporting - they should have learned that lesson over events that cost the DG his job a few years back! If they put someone like Head on, they should counter with either commentary, questions or a report from the other stable.

What nonsense. The BBC have reported the 'other side' many times. For this one (short) report where Head travelled to Isaan to find out how the Reds were coping with the coup. All credit for them for doing so, as no one else is reporting it.

The question was "Are you saying that the people Head interviewed were lying?" - my response was a direct answer to that question. It matters not a jot if they air the other side or not, they should still not air overtly biased or selective reports as if they are fact and without commentary to the fact, or challenge. You are emotive because of your ideology - but if the opposite had been done, someone interviewing PDRC members at home about the last government, and thus a very biased report was aired against your position, without challenge, would that still be OK?

Me, I would argue against both - people believe what they are shown on the box - especially the news and even more so it being Auntie. A news channel is not the place for soapboxing or propaganda being disseminated as news; biased reports are fine AS LONG as they are challenged - then the people can chose whom to believe.

//Edit: Keyboard hates me

I have no ideology as far as Thai politics are concerned. I just think it's good journalism to seek out some Isaan folk to find out their views about the coup. No other news organisation seems to be doing this.

Sent from my GT-S7270L using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Emptyset]

At no point did I say I knew what most Thais think - unlike you to try the old word twisting trick - I said "I THINK..." which is pretty obvious its both subjective and opinion. I also THINK its pretty obvious that people generally like good things to happen, and don't like bad things - try it, find two people: poke one in the eye with a stick and give the other 10k baht and then ask which is happy with their predicament, the blinded one or the wealthier one? Pretty obvious logical conclusion, no?

In 2006 the coup git a great welcome from the public (flowers in gun barrel etc) - but it was a honeymoon period. This coup has been different in that the General has made many moves that are hard to argue as not being in the general good - and seems adamant to continue doing so. This is not a lollipop inj the morning that is gone by evening, it is a continual feed of the good stuff.

There is already legislation against Gambling Dens - problem is until now the police commanders have been too corrupt to do anything about them. In a effort to remedy such things, many chief's overtly dodgy have been shifted (early on) to inactive positions and they and other are having their assets assessed. As I said before, lessons were learnt in 2006 - this time they were much slower to act, but once in, the opposite and know exactly what to target. They have done their homework this time. I think it is every political journalist's role to question/challenge the current establishment, as well as their opponents.

My view on this side of things is: It was a bad period in recent Thai history; the army once it made its move (the validity of which is another question I'll avoid for brevity) have little choice but to stop the hyperbole on all sides as well as blatant incitement in several cases. Many very biased reports, stretches of the truth and out right lies were circulating - this had to be quelled in order to stop continuance of violence. It is never nice to have rights removed - but sometimes it is necessary however distasteful. It has already been reduced (we have TV back - and even True is on now) and like the curfew it will whittle down to nothing given time. This seems to be the visible tend, so as yet I see no reason to state the opposite is likely.

It is likely that a review of laws into broadcasting etc will go ahead in the meantime - there are obviously dangers here with respect to free speech, but that is mitigated by the need to stop this continual and blatant rhetoric inciting violence and making false accusations and perpetuating myth and rumour as fact. On the otherside, libel laws are too easy to be used to silence or punish here - there must be better burden of proof for the accuser and once established as true, the case should be marked as frivolous and the charged to the litigator! Too many frivolous accusations and libel cases (even when true) - this limits freedom of the press and free speech more than any temporary censorship does.

There is little point in screaming that the sky is falling in, just because the possibility exists that it could - especially when the evidence to date suggests otherwise.

I am adamantly not Red or Yellow or any colour between - I try and be logical (and have posted and "liked" posts on both sides of the camp as [my] logic dictates). I do not often read the Post, but will look up that article (not because it is Red - which I agree is absurd - but because I am not a fan generally - although I was an avid reader some 15 years ago ).

Thanks for the clarification. I accept that you weren't making claims about the "majority of Thais" etc but many are and that's who by comments were aimed at.

Anyway, I wouldn't support the junta as a matter of principle but I will try to separate that from my judgement about their policies and method of government. By the way, I was far more scathing about PT generally away from here - my comments may have appeared pro-PT on TV simply because of the nature of the forum, there was little point adding to the criticism whilst I felt that some arguments against them were outright false or exaggerated. However, to say they were very disappointing would be an understatement. So I wouldn't be surprised if the junta feels like an initial improvement to many, I'm simply suggesting that this has also been true in the past and as McCargo points out, the initial goodwill hasn't lasted (they appointed a very good govt in 1991 for instance but look what happened a year later).

What you say about gambling dens seems true - but won't it be the same as in past crackdowns? They will crackdown on those with ties to the old regime, but of course other players will emerge who already have - or will cultivate - connections with whoever is currently in charge. Too much money in it to think otherwise. That's why I suggest legalisation is the only real solution. Gambling dens aside, I do think the social order campaign is a smart move and will win them support. Many motorsai drivers still support Thaksin now because they say he tried to crack down on mafia who exploit them, but, of course, after that initial crackdown the mafia reasserted their influence...

As for the media, that could use a thread of its own. The main issue is who regulates the media and who decides what's biased or what classes as incitement to violence etc. In the UK the press is pretty much allowed to print whatever they want - and much of what they print would certainly class as lies and propaganda - but the TV is more strictly regulated. I think those who incite violence should be prosecuted but it's a slippery slope when you start shutting down radio stations etc wholesale.

[wolf5370]

Why because he says things you dont like ? a reporters job is to follow a story and report. That it may not be to some peoples liking is irrelevant thats what reporters are supposed to do, follow a story and peoples personal stories will always have a personal point of view. Clearly those people have.

Thats the beauty and point of freedom of the press. ( which of course Thailand dosnt have and the BBC does. They are supposed to watch the watchers and expose that story which challenges the status quo where and when they find it. mostly a report is a one side story when its a one on one, especially interviews. Take Michael Yon as an alternative if you like or others out there, for other sides there are plenty to choose from.

If it helps Mr Mugabe dosnt like the BBC either so your in good company there.

Its not a tale of two cities its a follow up report of a previous visit and video and how things have changed in 6 mths from the same area. Rather strikingly different id say.

I would suggest it's not because was he reports is not to his liking, but because it is not true. Thaksin had the chief editor of BKK Post fired for allowing stories that pout him in a bad light - true ones (otherwise he would have sued for libel instead - so by your logic, does that him a "Mugabe" too?

Actually it was the airport authorities which filed a lawsuit against the Post, prompting them to remove the editors responsible for the story. The Post was still defending their decision even under the junta in 2007 as they claimed that the reporters had made serious errors which were unacceptable. No doubt political pressure played a large part in it though. Anyway, I know of one Thai journalist who's already been fired for expressing opposition to the coup and I wouldn't be surprised if more follow. If it was wrong that journalists were fired for political reasons in 05, it's still wrong now.

And again, I don't see what was "not true" about Head's report. It really seems that people want those who oppose the coup silenced - their view apparently no longer counts. But they are just as Thai as those waving pro-military banners.

I am referring to the Veera Prateepchaikul back in 04 http://2bangkok.com/2bangkok-news-7810.html (not much meat there - but might jog a few memories with respect to the news and rumours of the time - wrt Paragon and certain investors).

In answer to "Anyway, I know of one Thai journalist who's already been fired for expressing opposition to the coup and I wouldn't be surprised if more follow. If it was wrong that journalists were fired for political reasons in 05 [04 ], it's still wrong now." I would answer simply, YES it is.

The report was not made from lies, but is in itself a falsehood - in that it is pushing forward a view, on the international stage (where this is the only source of information they are exposed to in this regard, in most cases) that is very carefully controlled by being very selective in the interviewees. This can be done anytime about anything - to push any idea or belief as being mainstream. Piss poor reporting (or actually very good biased reporting) and piss poor quality control from the beeb - my opinion, but seems well shared.

As said in another post - I would have said the same if the reverse had happened during say the early days of the protests (anti-amnesty pre-Suthep days) and such had been pushed as mainstream. Propaganda is propaganda whichever side it favours.

[Emptyset]

The question was "Are you saying that the people Head interviewed were lying?" - my response was a direct answer to that question. It matters not a jot if they air the other side or not, they should still not air overtly biased or selective reports as if they are fact and without commentary to the fact, or challenge. You are emotive because of your ideology - but if the opposite had been done, someone interviewing PDRC members at home about the last government, and thus a very biased report was aired against your position, without challenge, would that still be OK?

Me, I would argue against both - people believe what they are shown on the box - especially the news and even more so it being Auntie. A news channel is not the place for soapboxing or propaganda being disseminated as news; biased reports are fine AS LONG as they are challenged - then the people can chose whom to believe.

//Edit: Keyboard hates me

Head did interview PDRC members in several reports during the protest, of course. And yes I'd love to see a report from southern Thailand. However, I can see why he'd choose to go Udon as that's the frontline of military efforts, one of the areas where the real "reconcilliation" action is taking place, and that's probably of more vital interest at this point than interviews with people who agree with military rule.

[wolf5370]

Just seen Jonathan Head on BBC News

My god! What biased bullshit

Goes to Udon and is insinuating the Thais are crushed by Harsh Military Coup

Just WRONG, WRONG

I hope the army pull him in for damaging the country

Anyone else see the piece?

Worth a new thread.....

Are you saying that the people Head interviewed were lying?

Thank goodness that we still have access to uncensored media reports.

Lying or not is not always relevant. It is selective reporting. I am sure you can find a KKK member to tell you about the oppression of the whites in the USA and the evil control of the Jews and Blacks - would that make it true or news worthy? The Beeb should be ashamed of such biased unchecked reporting - they should have learned that lesson over events that cost the DG his job a few years back! If they put someone like Head on, they should counter with either commentary, questions or a report from the other stable.

What nonsense. The BBC have reported the 'other side' many times. For this one (short) report where Head travelled to Isaan to find out how the Reds were coping with the coup. All credit for them for doing so, as no one else is reporting it.

The question was "Are you saying that the people Head interviewed were lying?" - my response was a direct answer to that question. It matters not a jot if they air the other side or not, they should still not air overtly biased or selective reports as if they are fact and without commentary to the fact, or challenge. You are emotive because of your ideology - but if the opposite had been done, someone interviewing PDRC members at home about the last government, and thus a very biased report was aired against your position, without challenge, would that still be OK?

Me, I would argue against both - people believe what they are shown on the box - especially the news and even more so it being Auntie. A news channel is not the place for soapboxing or propaganda being disseminated as news; biased reports are fine AS LONG as they are challenged - then the people can chose whom to believe.

//Edit: Keyboard hates me

I have no ideology as far as Thai politics are concerned. I just think it's good journalism to seek out some Isaan folk to find out their views about the coup. No other news organisation seems to be doing this.

Sent from my GT-S7270L using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I coloured (Blue) your reply just to make it more obvious as it appears the quote system let you down

I agree that would have been good - however, a good unbiased reporter would also show the opposite views in the same report. Things are rarely as cut and dry as shown, and people will have varying opinions and degrees there of - it is a good reporter's job to ensure that as much is covered as possible - this not only levels the report, it also gives more information as a single biased side will only speak about the important things for them and leave out anything that muddies their beliefs. It is a news broadcaster's job to ensure the quality of the piece to ensure that such bias is countered. mitigated or challenged.

[Emptyset]

I am referring to the Veera Prateepchaikul back in 04 http://2bangkok.com/2bangkok-news-7810.html (not much meat there - but might jog a few memories with respect to the news and rumours of the time - wrt Paragon and certain investors).

In answer to "Anyway, I know of one Thai journalist who's already been fired for expressing opposition to the coup and I wouldn't be surprised if more follow. If it was wrong that journalists were fired for political reasons in 05 [04 ], it's still wrong now." I would answer simply, YES it is.

The report was not made from lies, but is in itself a falsehood - in that it is pushing forward a view, on the international stage (where this is the only source of information they are exposed to in this regard, in most cases) that is very carefully controlled by being very selective in the interviewees. This can be done anytime about anything - to push any idea or belief as being mainstream. Piss poor reporting (or actually very good biased reporting) and piss poor quality control from the beeb - my opinion, but seems well shared.

As said in another post - I would have said the same if the reverse had happened during say the early days of the protests (anti-amnesty pre-Suthep days) and such had been pushed as mainstream. Propaganda is propaganda whichever side it favours.

Ah right, I thought you were talking about the airport related story. At the time the Chirathivat family were still more or less Thaksin allies, I believe, so that was probably part of it too.

I still don't think Head's report is a "falsehood". He tends to focus on one side or the other in single reports, but he's covered both sides over the past several months. Head was actually accused by some pro-red types of not getting out to the countryside and finding out what rural red shirts think - and of course when he does just that, he gets slaughtered by the other side. There's always a risk of a three minute report coming across as biased simply because it's impossible to do all the arguments justice in that short amount of time. I'm pretty sure he did reports from the PDRC protests where he didn't also get a red shirt or government view.

[tonbridgebrit]

Let's cut the nonsense about the BBC being unbiased. They're as corrupted as anyone these days. Anything for the money.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-to-issue-global-apology-for-documentaries-that-broke-rules-6719997.html

When it comes to Thailand the BBC lost all credibility in 2010. Their reporting was a disgrace to professional journalism. Nothing changed. They're as biased as it gets.

So, what we're trying to say, is, is that Thailand should boot the BBC out of the Thailand ??

[northernjohn]

Why because he says things you dont like ? a reporters job is to follow a story and report. That it may not be to some peoples liking is irrelevant thats what reporters are supposed to do, follow a story and peoples personal stories will always have a personal point of view. Clearly those people have.

Thats the beauty and point of freedom of the press. ( which of course Thailand dosnt have and the BBC does. They are supposed to watch the watchers and expose that story which challenges the status quo where and when they find it. mostly a report is a one side story when its a one on one, especially interviews. Take Michael Yon as an alternative if you like or others out there, for other sides there are plenty to choose from.

If it helps Mr Mugabe dosnt like the BBC either so your in good company there.

Its not a tale of two cities its a follow up report of a previous visit and video and how things have changed in 6 mths from the same area. Rather strikingly different id say.

I would suggest it's not because was he reports is not to his liking, but because it is not true. Thaksin had the chief editor of BKK Post fired for allowing stories that pout him in a bad light - true ones (otherwise he would have sued for libel instead - so by your logic, does that him a "Mugabe" too?

Actually it was the airport authorities which filed a lawsuit against the Post, prompting them to remove the editors responsible for the story. The Post was still defending their decision even under the junta in 2007 as they claimed that the reporters had made serious errors which were unacceptable. No doubt political pressure played a large part in it though. Anyway, I know of one Thai journalist who's already been fired for expressing opposition to the coup and I wouldn't be surprised if more follow. If it was wrong that journalists were fired for political reasons in 05, it's still wrong now.

And again, I don't see what was "not true" about Head's report. It really seems that people want those who oppose the coup silenced - their view apparently no longer counts. But they are just as Thai as those waving pro-military banners.

Just dropped in to see if people were still rooting for the Thaksin team.

Apparently so. Don't know what Head said but I have seen some of his other reports and seriously doubt if he is in Thailand and if he is he is not paying attention to what is going on.

Bitch on fellows Thailand is getting to be a better place in spite of the complaining.

[Thaddeus]

I have no ideology as far as Thai politics are concerned. I just think it's good journalism to seek out some Isaan folk to find out their views about the coup. No other news organisation seems to be doing this.

Sent from my GT-S7270L using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I coloured (Blue) your reply just to make it more obvious as it appears the quote system let you down

I agree that would have been good - however, a good unbiased reporter would also show the opposite views in the same report. Things are rarely as cut and dry as shown, and people will have varying opinions and degrees there of - it is a good reporter's job to ensure that as much is covered as possible - this not only levels the report, it also gives more information as a single biased side will only speak about the important things for them and leave out anything that muddies their beliefs. It is a news broadcaster's job to ensure the quality of the piece to ensure that such bias is countered. mitigated or challenged.

+1

Mr Head went out of his way to travel to Udon, to report on the feelings of 'some' of the people there.

He made zero effort to interview others that may counter his obvious bias.

Why?

[englishoak]

Jonathan Head is a professional journalist for a highly respected news organization and knows Thailand well from his years of excellent and insightful reporting in and around the country.

You and 20% of the BBC viewership don't like him, the 80% of us do, roughly speaking.

And really, this post is not intended to be a windup to the chronic Head hating posters.

Jonathan Head belongs in a Thai prison.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/bbc-reporter-faces-threat-of-thai-jail-1211116.html

Why because he says things you dont like ? a reporters job is to follow a story and report. That it may not be to some peoples liking is irrelevant thats what reporters are supposed to do, follow a story and peoples personal stories will always have a personal point of view. Clearly those people have.

Thats the beauty and point of freedom of the press. ( which of course Thailand dosnt have and the BBC does. They are supposed to watch the watchers and expose that story which challenges the status quo where and when they find it. mostly a report is a one side story when its a one on one, especially interviews. Take Michael Yon as an alternative if you like or others out there, for other sides there are plenty to choose from.

If it helps Mr Mugabe dosnt like the BBC either so your in good company there.

Its not a tale of two cities its a follow up report of a previous visit and video and how things have changed in 6 mths from the same area. Rather strikingly different id say.

I would suggest it's not because was he reports is not to his liking, but because it is not true. Thaksin had the chief editor of BKK Post fired for allowing stories that pout him in a bad light - true ones (otherwise he would have sued for libel instead - so by your logic, does that him a "Mugabe" too?

What is not true ? and for the record restriction of the press is just plain wrong including Thaksins bullying of it too, end of. Its also always been like that here, before during and since. Its wrong and repressive. I just dont try to attribute every woe to one man and pretend the rest are saints...They arnt,its tiresome to hear excuses for it cycle after cycle.

The root of it is not the parties but all their consistent compliance to keep this country in the dark ages.

[wolf5370]

What is not true ? and for the record restriction of the press is just plain wrong including Thaksins bullying of it too, end of. Its also always been like that here, before during and since. Its wrong and repressive. I just dont try to attribute every woe to one man and pretend the rest are saints...They arnt,its tiresome to hear excuses for it cycle after cycle.

The root of it is not the parties but all their consistent compliance to keep this country in the dark ages.

I refer the honourable gentleman to my earlier reply (replies in fact)

[bigbamboo]

Well, I stand corrected and disappointed

Maybe I'm just old (fashioned) but I do recall the BBC in better days when they DID try to achieve objectivity and give at least some air time to opposing views.

My information is not as parochial as you may think

I mix socially with all types here in Phuket and run a consultancy business (electrical engineering)

I also socialise in Bangkok (The British Club etc)

My wife's family are from Nakhon Phanon Province and we visit the wider family there frequently.

My son is married to woman from Buri Ram (who graduated from a top BKK university)

So, I think my sources are pretty eclectic

The Economist is also surprisingly weak on Thailand

I also think Aljazeera is pretty good.

All I'm asking for is some balance here.

Personally, I find JH way too shallow and simplistic. A bit too second rate university I imagine. A bit daily Mail if you like.

Sadly, that's the BBC these days. It may have been a bit too "Oxbridge" elitist in the past but frankly I preferred those Halcyon days.

Let's have some real analysis here

Well I'm going to throw my two pennyworth in here. I not only went to the same university as Jonathan Head, though not the same college, but also the same school. My own view about my fellow Old Alleynian is that he still has an axe to grind where Thailand in concerned and it has a tendency to show in some of his asides.

[brewsterbudgen]

+1

Mr Head went out of his way to travel to Udon, to report on the feelings of 'some' of the people there.

He made zero effort to interview others that may counter his obvious bias.

Why?

There were plenty of references to the intentions of the junta and the BBC have carried plenty of reports on the coup and the junta. Have any of the Thai media reported on the feelings of those Thai citizens who support Pheu Thai?

[Emptyset]

+1

Mr Head went out of his way to travel to Udon, to report on the feelings of 'some' of the people there.

He made zero effort to interview others that may counter his obvious bias.

Why?

There were plenty of references to the intentions of the junta and the BBC have carried plenty of reports on the coup and the junta. Have any of the Thai media reported on the feelings of those Thai citizens who support Pheu Thai?

BKK Post did a good report from Khon Kaen with similar findings to Jonathan Head. If you look up "Out of step with the junta" you should find it.

[jayboy]

Personally, I find JH way too shallow and simplistic. A bit too second rate university I imagine. A bit daily Mail if you like.

Sadly, that's the BBC these days. It may have been a bit too "Oxbridge" elitist in the past but frankly I preferred those Halcyon days.

Let's have some real analysis here

Head graduated from Pembroke College, Cambridge and SOAS London. There are many at both Cambridge and Oxford who find his views close to their own. Did you experience your own halcyon days beside the Cam or the Cherwell? It may not be quite as you imagine, though admittedly it was almost back in Abhisit's days as a student when I left.

Game,set and match!

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Erm, Kim Philby (Stanley), Donald Duart Maclean (Homer), Guy Burgess (Hicks) and Anthony Blunt (Johnson) - the Cambridge Four - were also Cambridge alumni, does say so much for honesty there then!

It says nothing relevant at all about honesty or indeed much else except perhaps the influence of Marxism among students during the rise of fascism in the 1930's, but the fact you apparently think it does tells a great deal about your level of intellectual sophistication.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[jayboy]

Well, I stand corrected and disappointed

Maybe I'm just old (fashioned) but I do recall the BBC in better days when they DID try to achieve objectivity and give at least some air time to opposing views.

My information is not as parochial as you may think

I mix socially with all types here in Phuket and run a consultancy business (electrical engineering)

I also socialise in Bangkok (The British Club etc)

My wife's family are from Nakhon Phanon Province and we visit the wider family there frequently.

My son is married to woman from Buri Ram (who graduated from a top BKK university)

So, I think my sources are pretty eclectic

The Economist is also surprisingly weak on Thailand

I also think Aljazeera is pretty good.

All I'm asking for is some balance here.

Personally, I find JH way too shallow and simplistic. A bit too second rate university I imagine. A bit daily Mail if you like.

Sadly, that's the BBC these days. It may have been a bit too "Oxbridge" elitist in the past but frankly I preferred those Halcyon days.

Let's have some real analysis here

Well I'm going to throw my two pennyworth in here. I not only went to the same university as Jonathan Head, though not the same college, but also the same school. My own view about my fellow Old Alleynian is that he still has an axe to grind where Thailand in concerned and it has a tendency to show in some of his asides.

Then you will be interested to know that another Dulwich and Cambridge man told me a few years ago when I met him at an Ox and Cam dinner that Jonathan Head was one of the finest foreign journalists working in Thailand.He was fulsome in his praise and I am inclined to take his word rather than the criticism of various expatriates of unknown origin.My informant's name? Anand Panyarachun.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[jaidam]

Well, I stand corrected and disappointed

Maybe I'm just old (fashioned) but I do recall the BBC in better days when they DID try to achieve objectivity and give at least some air time to opposing views.

My information is not as parochial as you may think

I mix socially with all types here in Phuket and run a consultancy business (electrical engineering)

I also socialise in Bangkok (The British Club etc)

My wife's family are from Nakhon Phanon Province and we visit the wider family there frequently.

My son is married to woman from Buri Ram (who graduated from a top BKK university)

So, I think my sources are pretty eclectic

The Economist is also surprisingly weak on Thailand

I also think Aljazeera is pretty good.

All I'm asking for is some balance here.

Personally, I find JH way too shallow and simplistic. A bit too second rate university I imagine. A bit daily Mail if you like.

Sadly, that's the BBC these days. It may have been a bit too "Oxbridge" elitist in the past but frankly I preferred those Halcyon days.

Let's have some real analysis here

Well I'm going to throw my two pennyworth in here. I not only went to the same university as Jonathan Head, though not the same college, but also the same school. My own view about my fellow Old Alleynian is that he still has an axe to grind where Thailand in concerned and it has a tendency to show in some of his asides.

Then you will be interested to know that another Dulwich and Cambridge man told me a few years ago when I met him at an Ox and Cam dinner that Jonathan Head was one of the finest foreign journalists working in Thailand.He was fulsome in his praise and I am inclined to take his word rather than the criticism of various expatriates of unknown origin.My informant's name? Anand Panyarachun.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

People say the strangest thing to staff at dinner functions. It's often a combination of too much to drink and being in an exuberant mood. I wouldn't read too much into it mate.

[jayboy]

Well, I stand corrected and disappointed

Maybe I'm just old (fashioned) but I do recall the BBC in better days when they DID try to achieve objectivity and give at least some air time to opposing views.

My information is not as parochial as you may think

I mix socially with all types here in Phuket and run a consultancy business (electrical engineering)

I also socialise in Bangkok (The British Club etc)

My wife's family are from Nakhon Phanon Province and we visit the wider family there frequently.

My son is married to woman from Buri Ram (who graduated from a top BKK university)

So, I think my sources are pretty eclectic

The Economist is also surprisingly weak on Thailand

I also think Aljazeera is pretty good.

All I'm asking for is some balance here.

Personally, I find JH way too shallow and simplistic. A bit too second rate university I imagine. A bit daily Mail if you like.

Sadly, that's the BBC these days. It may have been a bit too "Oxbridge" elitist in the past but frankly I preferred those Halcyon days.

Let's have some real analysis here

Well I'm going to throw my two pennyworth in here. I not only went to the same university as Jonathan Head, though not the same college, but also the same school. My own view about my fellow Old Alleynian is that he still has an axe to grind where Thailand in concerned and it has a tendency to show in some of his asides.

Then you will be interested to know that another Dulwich and Cambridge man told me a few years ago when I met him at an Ox and Cam dinner that Jonathan Head was one of the finest foreign journalists working in Thailand.He was fulsome in his praise and I am inclined to take his word rather than the criticism of various expatriates of unknown origin.My informant's name? Anand Panyarachun.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

People say the strangest thing to staff at dinner functions. It's often a combination of too much to drink and being in an exuberant mood. I wouldn't read too much into it mate.

Believe whatever you want.The fact you use the term "dinner function" is rather a give away though you probably don't understand why.Incidentally in Thailand cognoscenti agree the one time it's sensible to listen extremely carefully is when one's Thai friends are one sheet to the wind, in vino veritas etc.But these dinners are not really piss ups in the manner to which I expect you are accustomed.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[pahang]

By Bloomberg News June 11, 2014

"Its a new kind of coup that focuses on the economy," said Kampon Adireksombat, an economist at Tisco Securities Co. in Bangkok who previously taught in the economics department at Singapores Nanyang Technological University. "They have made the right move in unlocking money for farmers first, because thats a key drag on the economy. This will not only help boost consumption, but also build support for them."

Thailands stocks have outpaced most Southeast Asian peers since the coup, with the benchmark SET Index (SET) rallying more than 4 percent from May 22 through June 11.

Consumer confidence rose in May for the first time in 14 months.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-11/thai-junta-takes-page-from-thaksin-playbook-with-populist-steps

[rametindallas]

Yingluck, Obama and the coup - how it began?

[rubl]

International alarm grows more and more ...

"The forum also agreed that the current development has only little impact on business dealings in Thailand, and they are looking forward to strong recovery as the situation has now been stabilized.

JFCCT also urged Thai people to come together with foreign businesses in Thailand and work as a team in pushing forward the recovery Thailand deserves."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/733734-foreign-investors-expect-economic-recovery-in-thailand-special-report/

[Nickymaster]

International alarm grows more and more ...

"The forum also agreed that the current development has only little impact on business dealings in Thailand, and they are looking forward to strong recovery as the situation has now been stabilized.

JFCCT also urged Thai people to come together with foreign businesses in Thailand and work as a team in pushing forward the recovery Thailand deserves."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/733734-foreign-investors-expect-economic-recovery-in-thailand-special-report/

And let us not forget what Thaksin's mouthpiece Robert Amsterdam had to say about a coup last month...

“Thailand is in the midst of a coup by stages. Thai Army Chief Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha is not seeking to prevent violence, but rather to prevent elections,” said Amsterdam. “We are deeply concerned for the human rights and safety of millions of Thai citizens in the face of an unlawful seizure of power by the same individuals who perpetrated the Bangkok massacre of 2010.”

“The declaration of martial law represents a gross abuse of power that is disproportionate to any threat that Thailand may be facing. The world has woken up to these games, and it’s time to end impunity for the Thai elites,” said Amsterdam. “Nobody voted for the Army; they should return to the barracks where they belong. They must be made to understand that there will be significant consequences if democracy is overthrown yet again in Thailand.”

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/2014/05/20/statement-on-thai-armys-declaration-of-martial-law/

I guess Thaksin and this scumbag have lost the game....

[fab4]

International alarm grows more and more ...

"The forum also agreed that the current development has only little impact on business dealings in Thailand, and they are looking forward to strong recovery as the situation has now been stabilized.

JFCCT also urged Thai people to come together with foreign businesses in Thailand and work as a team in pushing forward the recovery Thailand deserves."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/733734-foreign-investors-expect-economic-recovery-in-thailand-special-report/

The international alarm is not about the Thai economy.

(If you still insist it is, not everybody agrees with the Malaysians and the Norwegians - http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/733690-world-bank-sees-dimmer-thai-economic/)

Edited June 12, 2014 by fab4

[siampolee]

fab4 post # 1228

The international alarm is not about the Thai economy.

The fab4 alarm is not about the Thai economy it is about the downfall of the great god Shinwatra.

Beware of false prophets

[heybruce]

The military government is making some headlines and embarrassing the police. I suspect that if the police, or anyone else, were allowed an unrestricted investigation of the activities and the accounts of the military they could make some headlines as well.

In the real world in Thailand, there's still a curfew, still censorship, still soldiers on the streets and still creepy interruptions of television programs so the junta can announce dozens of names of people required to report to the government.

We still haven't seen the reforms, still don't know what the new constitution will look like, and still don't know when there will be elections. If the international pressure doesn't continue we may not see these things for a long time.