Tiger Temple to sue 'National Geographic' over damning report

[Barnet]

“We are about to press charges. I’ve already read the article,” lawyer Saiyood Pengboonchoo said.

Press charges for making him read? Makes a change from something that doesn't involve Doraemon or accompanying Japanese animations.

National Geographic V's Corrupt, cruel incompetent hypocrites...... Maybe they're hoping National Geo will travel to Samui to have the case heard.

[outsider]

This is National Geographic. Not some half-witted publication with semi-naked 'superstars' gracing the front page and spy shots of who's sleeping with who's mom and dad. NatGeo doesn't run stories without a modicum of truth and solid data behind it. Again, as I've always said, there's no smoke without fire. Want to sue NatGeo huh. LOL... just another day in LOS, I guess.

[Barnet]

Those tigers are sedated no way in the world could total strangers sit on them , cuddle them the place should be shut down !!!

...and you are an expert on Tiger behaviour/psychology?

I am not saying the tigers are or are not drugged, and the reason for this is firstly I do know a bit about tiger behaviour and also how circuses use various methods to subdue animals. Drugging is commonly used by street vendors to placate their animals, it is commonplace in Thailand, but alll reports about the temple have shied away from making this accusation directly as the evidence is simply not there - and glib comments about lay-person assumptions of tiger behaviour have no value whatsoever.

What makes me so annoyed about this is that people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about make these assertions which at beat are a distraction from the main issues the temple is accused of....it just shows that they have no idea of the problems cause by and surrounding the temple if they think that repeating accusations of drugging is in any way helpful.

if the temple is to be brought to task it is important that those who criticise the place have at least basic grasp of the issues involved.

*****

Tigers are apex predators, unlike lions and other big cats they are solitary hunters most of the time and use there "camouflage" to get within a few meters of prey before making one short final dash. They often stash their food and come back to it....they don't run around making frenzied attacks on anything that moves and they don't spend all their time hunting. in fact like many predators, between preys they reduce their movement to an absolute MINIMUM to conserve energy. Tigers cover large ranges - especially the males, and they will walk around them in a way that uses as little energy as possible. It is often possible to find tiger scat etc on human tracks and paths laid through forests as these offer the tiger the line of least resistance when moving about. when not moving the tigers will rest for long periods of time.

there is a serious problem with those who think they oppose the temple - they don't seem to have the right facts and time and again the allegations of drugging are cited as if fact. the truth is - although plausible - there has never been concrete evidence of this.

The most serious thing about the allegations of drugging is that this kind of "gossip" detracts from the very real and serious shortcomings of the temple - the breeding (even hybrids), that is illegal, the substandard care and conditions, the inappropriate diet, which is in itself evidence of the gross lack of knowledge displayed by the temple, and the massively misleading claims that this temple has any conservation credentials when in fact they are actually harming attempts to conserve the tiger and its ecosystems in Thailand and S. E. Asia..

You remind me of an American hippy girl I once met who had visited the temples in Chiang Mai.

She thought it was so cool and spiritual to hang out with and take pictures with the tigers. I told her that they're drugged and tigers don't wanna hang out with people no matter how cool and spiritual they are. They're a wild animal who hunt for their food and are very territorial.

She simply said 'Not at this temple" Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Most people spend their whole lives deluded to satisfy their own selfish needs.

Quality!!!

I worked with a tree hugger who visited a temple and came back with - "The temple dogs are spiritual!"

Really???????

"Yeah, the monks are in the dogs man."

I just bet they are....

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Typical Thai answer, like the Fruit Company , instead of trying to improve, they just sue...

[Chao Lao Beach]

Oh Please sue them......Please........and broadcast it Live !!!! stupid gits.

[bheard]

When faced with REALITY : SUE!

A typically purile response.

[spidermike007]

Whether it's fishing, human trafficking, fruit processing, aiviation, and now tigers, it's sad the first reaction of the average Thai business operator is to kill (sometimes literally) the messenger. Hopefully, in this age of social media, these types will soon learn it's better to work to solve the underlying issue than shoot oneself in the foot.

If that happens, then social media will be responsible for one of the most miraculous turnarounds of a society in modern times. It goes against the very nature of Thai society to introspect, look within for the source of the problem, take responsibility, admit blame, guilt, or fault, show remorse, man up, act like a man, or ignore the childish or cowardly concerns over loss of face. If this happened it would be a wonderful awakening that takes place within Thai society, and would allow its people to progress by leaps and bounds, in a way only decades of hardship would potentially push them to change and grow.

In my opinion introspection is the very bedrock of personal development. The whole practice of face seems to discourage introspection, or perhaps it is simply an excuse to not have to look within for the source of the problem. Regardless, it is a terribly destructive and corrosive force within Thai society, and holds the people, the society, and the country back, to no end.

The Thai defamation laws are designed for a nation of cowards, who are unwilling to face their own problems, or to confront the nature of their crimes. It allows simple deflection. It allows them to continue committing the crime, without fear of repercussions, as they can just deflect blame, and kill the messenger. It reminds one of Dickless Cheney's reaction to Joe Wilson's conclusion that Saddam never tried to acquire yellow cake from Nigeria, after an extensive investigation into it. That is how cowards behave. That is what cowards do. Deflect, deny, obfuscate and sue.

Edited January 26, 2016 by spidermike007

[cumgranosalum]

Those tigers are sedated no way in the world could total strangers sit on them , cuddle them the place should be shut down !!!

...and you are an expert on Tiger behaviour/psychology?

I am not saying the tigers are or are not drugged, and the reason for this is firstly I do know a bit about tiger behaviour and also how circuses use various methods to subdue animals. Drugging is commonly used by street vendors to placate their animals, it is commonplace in Thailand, but alll reports about the temple have shied away from making this accusation directly as the evidence is simply not there - and glib comments about lay-person assumptions of tiger behaviour have no value whatsoever.

What makes me so annoyed about this is that people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about make these assertions which at beat are a distraction from the main issues the temple is accused of....it just shows that they have no idea of the problems cause by and surrounding the temple if they think that repeating accusations of drugging is in any way helpful.

if the temple is to be brought to task it is important that those who criticise the place have at least basic grasp of the issues involved.

*****

Tigers are apex predators, unlike lions and other big cats they are solitary hunters most of the time and use there "camouflage" to get within a few meters of prey before making one short final dash. They often stash their food and come back to it....they don't run around making frenzied attacks on anything that moves and they don't spend all their time hunting. in fact like many predators, between preys they reduce their movement to an absolute MINIMUM to conserve energy. Tigers cover large ranges - especially the males, and they will walk around them in a way that uses as little energy as possible. It is often possible to find tiger scat etc on human tracks and paths laid through forests as these offer the tiger the line of least resistance when moving about. when not moving the tigers will rest for long periods of time.

there is a serious problem with those who think they oppose the temple - they don't seem to have the right facts and time and again the allegations of drugging are cited as if fact. the truth is - although plausible - there has never been concrete evidence of this.

The most serious thing about the allegations of drugging is that this kind of "gossip" detracts from the very real and serious shortcomings of the temple - the breeding (even hybrids), that is illegal, the substandard care and conditions, the inappropriate diet, which is in itself evidence of the gross lack of knowledge displayed by the temple, and the massively misleading claims that this temple has any conservation credentials when in fact they are actually harming attempts to conserve the tiger and its ecosystems in Thailand and S. E. Asia..

You remind me of an American hippy girl I once met who had visited the temples in Chiang Mai.

She thought it was so cool and spiritual to hang out with and take pictures with the tigers. I told her that they're drugged and tigers don't wanna hang out with people no matter how cool and spiritual they are. They're a wild animal who hunt for their food and are very territorial.

She simply said 'Not at this temple" Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Most people spend their whole lives deluded to satisfy their own selfish needs.

really?It seems pretty obvious you haven't even read my post and are just gainsaying willy-nilly.

Would you care to be specific? If you have a problem with anything I post why not counter it with an argument of your own rather than show your lack of argument by resorting to baseless ad hominem attacks

[cumgranosalum]

Oh Please sue them......Please........and broadcast it Live !!!! stupid gits.

There's the rub.....broadcast live? In Thailand? Absolutely not - any decisions will take place in secret behind closed doors.....and then how do you think it'll go?

[wabothai]

Those tigers are sedated no way in the world could total strangers sit on them , cuddle them the place should be shut down !!!

So I believe.

And why in the rest of the world f.i. zoos are tigers held in cages wit strong fences about 4 m high.

In India they prey on kids.

Edited January 26, 2016 by wabothai

[atyclb]

suing NG is tantamount to surgically attaching their feet to their inner mouths.

[sawadee1947]

Filing a suit means nothing....just to keep your (monks) face.

[Benmart]

Hypocrites and charlatans don't all wear suits and other western apparel.

[Yann55]

Oh, Thailand. The bigger the truth - the bigger the libel.

There's a lot of truth in your statement, Sir.

However, shouldn't we keep in mind that Western journalism is far from flawless either ? I have seen many programs on TV where some sanctimonious Western, self-proclaimed do-gooder(s) goes to the 'other side of the world' (South-America, Asia, Africa) and starts pointing fingers and 'unearth the damning truth'.

Sometimes they hit the nail right on the head, and deliver the result of a thorough, deep, and long investigation. Other times, they just seem to 'surf' on a cliché already deeply ingrained in Western minds (for example about commercial sex in Thailand, about child labor in Bangladesh, about paedophilia in South East Asia, ecological abuse everywhere, or in this particular case, animal abuse in Thailand)), and the message is : yeah, we were right, these bad guys are really bad, and now it's on TV, it's printed on paper, which makes it even more true.

Those 'other times', when and if one happens to have extensive knowledge on the subject, one cannot fail to notice how this bad journalism works : partial information, information copied from other ill-informed sources, insufficient and/or one-sided probing, deliberate lumping together of different factors, etc.

Those journalists are not 'working for the truth' or for some impartial multi-cultural NGO ... they are out to make money for themselves and their TV channel or magazine. Ethics are not always on the top of their list. And it's a win-win situation for them : sulfurous subjects are popular, and they make them appear like the White Knights.

As for the people who watch/read their programs/articles, the reason why they love them is obvious : it makes them feel good : "ha ! look at the way those third-worlders behave ... we are not like that ... we respect the law ... we do the right thing" ...

Do we ?

Edited January 26, 2016 by Yann55

[cumgranosalum]

Oh, Thailand. The bigger the truth - the bigger the libel.

There's a lot of truth in your statement, Sir.

However, shouldn't we keep in mind that Western journalism is far from flawless either ? I have seen many programs on TV where some sanctimonious Western, self-proclaimed do-gooder(s) goes to the 'other side of the world' (South-America, Asia, Africa) and starts pointing fingers and 'unearth the damning truth'.

Sometimes they hit the nail right on the head, and deliver the result of a thorough, deep, and long investigation. Other times, they just seem to 'surf' on a cliché already deeply ingrained in Western mind (for example about commercial sex in Thailand, about child labor in Bangladesh, about paedophilia in South East Asia, ecological abuse everywhere, or in this particular case, animal abuse in Thailand)), and the message is : yeah, we were right, these bad guys are really bad, and now it's on TV, it's printed on paper, which makes it even more true.

Those 'other times', when and if one happens to have extensive knowledge on the subject, one cannot fail to notice how this bad journalism works : partial information, information copied from other ill-informed sources, insufficient and/or one-sided probing, deliberate lumping together of different factors, etc.

Those journalists are not 'working for the truth' or for some impartial multi-cultural NGO ... they are out to make money for themselves and their TV channel or magazine. Ethics are not always on the top of their list. And it's a win-win situation for them : sulfurous subjects are popular, and they make them appear like the White Knights.

As for the people who watch/read their programs/articles, the reason why they love them is obvious : it makes them feel good : "ha ! look at the way those third-worlders behave ... we are not like that ... we respect the law ... we do the right thing" ...

Do we ?

...and your point is?

[Yann55]

Oh, Thailand. The bigger the truth - the bigger the libel.

There's a lot of truth in your statement, Sir.

However, shouldn't we keep in mind that Western journalism is far from flawless either ? I have seen many programs on TV where some sanctimonious Western, self-proclaimed do-gooder(s) goes to the 'other side of the world' (South-America, Asia, Africa) and starts pointing fingers and 'unearth the damning truth'.

Sometimes they hit the nail right on the head, and deliver the result of a thorough, deep, and long investigation. Other times, they just seem to 'surf' on a cliché already deeply ingrained in Western mind (for example about commercial sex in Thailand, about child labor in Bangladesh, about paedophilia in South East Asia, ecological abuse everywhere, or in this particular case, animal abuse in Thailand)), and the message is : yeah, we were right, these bad guys are really bad, and now it's on TV, it's printed on paper, which makes it even more true.

Those 'other times', when and if one happens to have extensive knowledge on the subject, one cannot fail to notice how this bad journalism works : partial information, information copied from other ill-informed sources, insufficient and/or one-sided probing, deliberate lumping together of different factors, etc.

Those journalists are not 'working for the truth' or for some impartial multi-cultural NGO ... they are out to make money for themselves and their TV channel or magazine. Ethics are not always on the top of their list. And it's a win-win situation for them : sulfurous subjects are popular, and they make them appear like the White Knights.

As for the people who watch/read their programs/articles, the reason why they love them is obvious : it makes them feel good : "ha ! look at the way those third-worlders behave ... we are not like that ... we respect the law ... we do the right thing" ...

Do we ?

...and your point is?

My point, you sanctimonious, arrogant, unpleasant person, is that a libel suit may be a ridiculous response to the NG article, but we should not take this kind of article at face value either. If you don't get my point, too bad for you, others will. This Forum is so infested with nasty and useless comments such as yours, I can't believe it. I bet you think you're funny, too.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Yann55

[Orac]

Buddhist Monks are going to sue Rupert Murdoch - this has serious entertainment potential!

[cumgranosalum]

Oh, Thailand. The bigger the truth - the bigger the libel.

There's a lot of truth in your statement, Sir.

However, shouldn't we keep in mind that Western journalism is far from flawless either ? I have seen many programs on TV where some sanctimonious Western, self-proclaimed do-gooder(s) goes to the 'other side of the world' (South-America, Asia, Africa) and starts pointing fingers and 'unearth the damning truth'.

Sometimes they hit the nail right on the head, and deliver the result of a thorough, deep, and long investigation. Other times, they just seem to 'surf' on a cliché already deeply ingrained in Western mind (for example about commercial sex in Thailand, about child labor in Bangladesh, about paedophilia in South East Asia, ecological abuse everywhere, or in this particular case, animal abuse in Thailand)), and the message is : yeah, we were right, these bad guys are really bad, and now it's on TV, it's printed on paper, which makes it even more true.

Those 'other times', when and if one happens to have extensive knowledge on the subject, one cannot fail to notice how this bad journalism works : partial information, information copied from other ill-informed sources, insufficient and/or one-sided probing, deliberate lumping together of different factors, etc.

Those journalists are not 'working for the truth' or for some impartial multi-cultural NGO ... they are out to make money for themselves and their TV channel or magazine. Ethics are not always on the top of their list. And it's a win-win situation for them : sulfurous subjects are popular, and they make them appear like the White Knights.

As for the people who watch/read their programs/articles, the reason why they love them is obvious : it makes them feel good : "ha ! look at the way those third-worlders behave ... we are not like that ... we respect the law ... we do the right thing" ...

Do we ?

...and your point is?

My point, you sanctimonious, arrogant, unpleasant person, is that a libel suit may be a ridiculous response to the NG article, but we should not take this kind of article at face value either. If you don't get my point, too bad for you, others will. This Forum is so infested with nasty and useless comments such as yours, I can't believe it. I bet you think you're funny, too.

If you had read and understood the article you would know that it is based on years of research by other organisations, so you can dismiss any thoughts of "face value" - the problem is that people are too keen to comment without having even the slightest knowledge of the issues involved. Get up to speed before posting.

[kotsak]

Glad to see that my NGM subscription goes to a good cause I just hope I'll be getting my subscription copy this month.

[johnno2]

this place has history going back to 2002.....http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/335474-tiget-temple-case-at-court-tomorrow/

[rkidlad]

Oh, Thailand. The bigger the truth - the bigger the libel.

There's a lot of truth in your statement, Sir.

However, shouldn't we keep in mind that Western journalism is far from flawless either ? I have seen many programs on TV where some sanctimonious Western, self-proclaimed do-gooder(s) goes to the 'other side of the world' (South-America, Asia, Africa) and starts pointing fingers and 'unearth the damning truth'.

Sometimes they hit the nail right on the head, and deliver the result of a thorough, deep, and long investigation. Other times, they just seem to 'surf' on a cliché already deeply ingrained in Western minds (for example about commercial sex in Thailand, about child labor in Bangladesh, about paedophilia in South East Asia, ecological abuse everywhere, or in this particular case, animal abuse in Thailand)), and the message is : yeah, we were right, these bad guys are really bad, and now it's on TV, it's printed on paper, which makes it even more true.

Those 'other times', when and if one happens to have extensive knowledge on the subject, one cannot fail to notice how this bad journalism works : partial information, information copied from other ill-informed sources, insufficient and/or one-sided probing, deliberate lumping together of different factors, etc.

Those journalists are not 'working for the truth' or for some impartial multi-cultural NGO ... they are out to make money for themselves and their TV channel or magazine. Ethics are not always on the top of their list. And it's a win-win situation for them : sulfurous subjects are popular, and they make them appear like the White Knights.

As for the people who watch/read their programs/articles, the reason why they love them is obvious : it makes them feel good : "ha ! look at the way those third-worlders behave ... we are not like that ... we respect the law ... we do the right thing" ...

Do we ?

You need to get away from the whole "They're not perfect either" argument.

It's a childish argument. Like when a kid says "Jimmy did it as well!". It doesn't make it right or justify or excuse what happened.

Let's keep to the point here. And remember, no matter how bad something else is, it's not a god damn competition.

[rkidlad]

Those tigers are sedated no way in the world could total strangers sit on them , cuddle them the place should be shut down !!!

...and you are an expert on Tiger behaviour/psychology?

I am not saying the tigers are or are not drugged, and the reason for this is firstly I do know a bit about tiger behaviour and also how circuses use various methods to subdue animals. Drugging is commonly used by street vendors to placate their animals, it is commonplace in Thailand, but alll reports about the temple have shied away from making this accusation directly as the evidence is simply not there - and glib comments about lay-person assumptions of tiger behaviour have no value whatsoever.

What makes me so annoyed about this is that people who clearly have no idea what they are talking about make these assertions which at beat are a distraction from the main issues the temple is accused of....it just shows that they have no idea of the problems cause by and surrounding the temple if they think that repeating accusations of drugging is in any way helpful.

if the temple is to be brought to task it is important that those who criticise the place have at least basic grasp of the issues involved.

*****

Tigers are apex predators, unlike lions and other big cats they are solitary hunters most of the time and use there "camouflage" to get within a few meters of prey before making one short final dash. They often stash their food and come back to it....they don't run around making frenzied attacks on anything that moves and they don't spend all their time hunting. in fact like many predators, between preys they reduce their movement to an absolute MINIMUM to conserve energy. Tigers cover large ranges - especially the males, and they will walk around them in a way that uses as little energy as possible. It is often possible to find tiger scat etc on human tracks and paths laid through forests as these offer the tiger the line of least resistance when moving about. when not moving the tigers will rest for long periods of time.

there is a serious problem with those who think they oppose the temple - they don't seem to have the right facts and time and again the allegations of drugging are cited as if fact. the truth is - although plausible - there has never been concrete evidence of this.

The most serious thing about the allegations of drugging is that this kind of "gossip" detracts from the very real and serious shortcomings of the temple - the breeding (even hybrids), that is illegal, the substandard care and conditions, the inappropriate diet, which is in itself evidence of the gross lack of knowledge displayed by the temple, and the massively misleading claims that this temple has any conservation credentials when in fact they are actually harming attempts to conserve the tiger and its ecosystems in Thailand and S. E. Asia..

You remind me of an American hippy girl I once met who had visited the temples in Chiang Mai.

She thought it was so cool and spiritual to hang out with and take pictures with the tigers. I told her that they're drugged and tigers don't wanna hang out with people no matter how cool and spiritual they are. They're a wild animal who hunt for their food and are very territorial.

She simply said 'Not at this temple" Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night. Most people spend their whole lives deluded to satisfy their own selfish needs.

really?It seems pretty obvious you haven't even read my post and are just gainsaying willy-nilly.

Would you care to be specific? If you have a problem with anything I post why not counter it with an argument of your own rather than show your lack of argument by resorting to baseless ad hominem attacks

Yea, this isn't a pi****g contest.

I made my point perfectly clear. Judging by your comments to other users you're just desperate to be told you're right.

I'll sit back and let you stew angrily at your computer.

[Yann55]

Oh, Thailand. The bigger the truth - the bigger the libel.

There's a lot of truth in your statement, Sir.

However, shouldn't we keep in mind that Western journalism is far from flawless either ? I have seen many programs on TV where some sanctimonious Western, self-proclaimed do-gooder(s) goes to the 'other side of the world' (South-America, Asia, Africa) and starts pointing fingers and 'unearth the damning truth'.

Sometimes they hit the nail right on the head, and deliver the result of a thorough, deep, and long investigation. Other times, they just seem to 'surf' on a cliché already deeply ingrained in Western minds (for example about commercial sex in Thailand, about child labor in Bangladesh, about paedophilia in South East Asia, ecological abuse everywhere, or in this particular case, animal abuse in Thailand)), and the message is : yeah, we were right, these bad guys are really bad, and now it's on TV, it's printed on paper, which makes it even more true.

Those 'other times', when and if one happens to have extensive knowledge on the subject, one cannot fail to notice how this bad journalism works : partial information, information copied from other ill-informed sources, insufficient and/or one-sided probing, deliberate lumping together of different factors, etc.

Those journalists are not 'working for the truth' or for some impartial multi-cultural NGO ... they are out to make money for themselves and their TV channel or magazine. Ethics are not always on the top of their list. And it's a win-win situation for them : sulfurous subjects are popular, and they make them appear like the White Knights.

As for the people who watch/read their programs/articles, the reason why they love them is obvious : it makes them feel good : "ha ! look at the way those third-worlders behave ... we are not like that ... we respect the law ... we do the right thing" ...

Do we ?

You need to get away from the whole "They're not perfect either" argument.

It's a childish argument. Like when a kid says "Jimmy did it as well!". It doesn't make it right or justify or excuse what happened.

Let's keep to the point here. And remember, no matter how bad something else is, it's not a god damn competition.

You totally missed my point, which was NOT 'others do it too'. if you would PLEASE read what I wrote, and not what you think I wrote, thanks.

[Yann55]

...and your point is?

There's a lot of truth in your statement, Sir.

However, shouldn't we keep in mind that Western journalism is far from flawless either ? I have seen many programs on TV where some sanctimonious Western, self-proclaimed do-gooder(s) goes to the 'other side of the world' (South-America, Asia, Africa) and starts pointing fingers and 'unearth the damning truth'.

Sometimes they hit the nail right on the head, and deliver the result of a thorough, deep, and long investigation. Other times, they just seem to 'surf' on a cliché already deeply ingrained in Western mind (for example about commercial sex in Thailand, about child labor in Bangladesh, about paedophilia in South East Asia, ecological abuse everywhere, or in this particular case, animal abuse in Thailand)), and the message is : yeah, we were right, these bad guys are really bad, and now it's on TV, it's printed on paper, which makes it even more true.

Those 'other times', when and if one happens to have extensive knowledge on the subject, one cannot fail to notice how this bad journalism works : partial information, information copied from other ill-informed sources, insufficient and/or one-sided probing, deliberate lumping together of different factors, etc.

Those journalists are not 'working for the truth' or for some impartial multi-cultural NGO ... they are out to make money for themselves and their TV channel or magazine. Ethics are not always on the top of their list. And it's a win-win situation for them : sulfurous subjects are popular, and they make them appear like the White Knights.

As for the people who watch/read their programs/articles, the reason why they love them is obvious : it makes them feel good : "ha ! look at the way those third-worlders behave ... we are not like that ... we respect the law ... we do the right thing" ...

Do we ?

My point, you sanctimonious, arrogant, unpleasant person, is that a libel suit may be a ridiculous response to the NG article, but we should not take this kind of article at face value either. If you don't get my point, too bad for you, others will. This Forum is so infested with nasty and useless comments such as yours, I can't believe it. I bet you think you're funny, too.

If you had read and understood the article you would know that it is based on years of research by other organisations, so you can dismiss any thoughts of "face value" - the problem is that people are too keen to comment without having even the slightest knowledge of the issues involved. Get up to speed before posting.

BS. Nothing but unfounded affirmations and arrogant judgment. You're just like the journalists I was talking about. 'Years of research by other organizations'... ha !

[rkidlad]

Oh, Thailand. The bigger the truth - the bigger the libel.

There's a lot of truth in your statement, Sir.

However, shouldn't we keep in mind that Western journalism is far from flawless either ? I have seen many programs on TV where some sanctimonious Western, self-proclaimed do-gooder(s) goes to the 'other side of the world' (South-America, Asia, Africa) and starts pointing fingers and 'unearth the damning truth'.

Sometimes they hit the nail right on the head, and deliver the result of a thorough, deep, and long investigation. Other times, they just seem to 'surf' on a cliché already deeply ingrained in Western minds (for example about commercial sex in Thailand, about child labor in Bangladesh, about paedophilia in South East Asia, ecological abuse everywhere, or in this particular case, animal abuse in Thailand)), and the message is : yeah, we were right, these bad guys are really bad, and now it's on TV, it's printed on paper, which makes it even more true.

Those 'other times', when and if one happens to have extensive knowledge on the subject, one cannot fail to notice how this bad journalism works : partial information, information copied from other ill-informed sources, insufficient and/or one-sided probing, deliberate lumping together of different factors, etc.

Those journalists are not 'working for the truth' or for some impartial multi-cultural NGO ... they are out to make money for themselves and their TV channel or magazine. Ethics are not always on the top of their list. And it's a win-win situation for them : sulfurous subjects are popular, and they make them appear like the White Knights.

As for the people who watch/read their programs/articles, the reason why they love them is obvious : it makes them feel good : "ha ! look at the way those third-worlders behave ... we are not like that ... we respect the law ... we do the right thing" ...

Do we ?

You need to get away from the whole "They're not perfect either" argument.

It's a childish argument. Like when a kid says "Jimmy did it as well!". It doesn't make it right or justify or excuse what happened.

Let's keep to the point here. And remember, no matter how bad something else is, it's not a god damn competition.

You totally missed my point, which was NOT 'others do it too'. if you would PLEASE read what I wrote, and not what you think I wrote, thanks.

Okay? Are western journalists perfect? No, absolutely not.

Is libel a bigger problem here than in the west? I'm sure the cases are just as bad but you're allowed to discuss them as members of the public.

Do we in the west always do the right thing? No, we don't.

I agree.

Is libel a big problem in Thailand? It's <deleted> huge! Does it matter if you expose the truth? Yes, it does.You'll be in even more trouble the more truth you expose.

[cumgranosalum]

this place has history going back to 2002.....http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/335474-tiget-temple-case-at-court-tomorrow/

It goes back even further to the very fist apocryphal stories of how it started

[EyesWideOpen]

I bet the Nat Geo people were spewing coffee out their

noses in laughter when they saw this threat. Sigh, when

will these idiotic Thai entities learn this blustering bull

shit only works in Thailand with these insane libel laws.

But outside in the real world that Nat Geo lives in it

will just cause mirth.... So here is an idea. The Tiger

Temple should go on public media and refute the

report point by point...........Oh wait they probably

cannot do that.

Edited January 26, 2016 by EyesWideOpen

[TKDfella]

I haven't seen the NG article but like other posters here I tend to think NG got it right. NG is not just any magazine or reporting tabloid it's major (popular) scientific organisation that has to get 'it right'. One can find many cd's in Thai shops (and in schools) on various topics which report the current understanding/research. Its research and reporting belong to the National Geographic Society and print in many languages and have been outspoken on many subjects. I am not saying that they don't make mistakes but I doubt very much that this article is one of them.

Edited January 26, 2016 by TKDfella

[cumgranosalum]

I bet the Nat Geo people were spewing coffee out their

noses in laughter when they saw this threat. Sigh, when

will these idiotic Thai entities learn this blustering bull

shit only works in Thailand with these insane libel laws.

But outside in the real world that Nat Geo lives in it

will just cause mirth.... So here is an idea. The Tiger

Temple should go on public media and refute the

report point by point...........Oh wait they probably

cannot do that.

The thing is under thai procedures it is quite possible they won't need to refute anything - they will just have to show the report has damaged their reputation.

[DM07]

Oh..so Nat Geo was in the right, then!

Good!