What's more, media associations appear to be too fixated on Samak and Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted premier. It is no secret that the majority of mainstream newspapers are out-and-out anti Thaksin - and now increasingly Samak - too.
But there are other issues that the media associations should have given more time and attention to.
..
Just one day after the statement criticising Samak was made, two well-respected academics, Chaiwat Satha-anand of Thammasat University, an expert on peace and conflict resolution, and Ubonrat Siriyuwak, a media expert from Chulalongkorn University, came up with their own statement.
The duo criticised media professionals and organisations for "inciting [political] hatred", engaging in "propaganda" to discredit their political opponents "through all means and tricks".
..
The media war against Thaksin is long and protracted. Apparently, the industry has taken sides so completely that it has lost sight of its role as provider of not just information but fair debate from different camps and perspectives.
BP: I wonder if Sopon, Yoon, Tulsie and Thanong are reading.
So tired of this media is not fair rant. So what BP? As I asked you a thousand times before, could you link to any post at all in your blog that's critical of Thaksin? How many years have you blogged and I don't believe you missed grave Thaksin crimes innocently. And as expected, you never touched the recent poor rating of this new government. The same goes for Pravit and the likes. Everyone takes side. Big Deal. Show me one Pravit's article that says the monarchy is a worthwhile institution. Make no mistake. You and Pravit are entitled to your opinion but I'm saying both of you are as "fixated" as others but are only on the opposite side. So spare me the fair play BS. If you want the others to be fair, be an example. I seriously doubt you can.
Marty
Marty: I really should do a post with all my criticisms of Thaksin contained in it so I don't have to go searching through all I have written. Here is one:
COMMENT: This is Thaksin's biggest flaw (his inability to accept criticism is a close second), he fails to think before speaking. Nice to see that there is some acknowledgement from the government. What about the PM himself acknowledging his weakness?
--
I mentioned the poor rating in a newslink and I thought at the end of a previous post, but if I get time this weekend I will - more in larger problems for the government in regards to the constitution amendments/inflation etc. I also haven't blogged on the South much recently with statistics and many other topics like the constitutional amendments as I have been busy. You will see posts have been fairly light recently.
I have no doubt on your South violence commitment, BP. Your blog has been exellent on that. What I'm saying is your blog is as biased as everyone or every newspaper you mention when it comes to Thaksin, only you and Pravit are on the other side. And I'm not saying that that is wrong either. You and Pravit are entitled to your opinions. But if you are to attack others for being biased, one-sided or fixated, just take a good look around.
And what you mentioned are not Thaksin's "crimes". They are his "flaws". Not tolerating criticism or quick tongue is not a crime. I was asking if you have ever questioned Ratchapisek land deal, the loan to Burma, the nominees holding shares and the tax avoidance. I can go on and on. Those are alleged crimes that pretty much escaped the hand of the law when Thaksin was in power. The Thai media did their job in digging up information that Thai authorities had turned a blind eye on. How come the media, in your and Pravit's eyes, commit bigger crime than Thaksin I can never know. And don't tell me Thaksin has never been charged with those crimes. That's the point. The media has to keep attacking him because he was never charged with some obviously blatant crimes. Such a claim ---that he never been charged--is a sorry excuse used by politicians. Journalists or bloggers must not buy that too easily.
I'm not criticising you for even trying to defend Thaksin. What has been happening in Thailand is all debatable. I'm simply saying you and Pravit are as biased as anybody else.
Marty
Marty: I'm busy until very late tonight so I will briefly respond now.
I have no doubt on your South violence commitment, BP. Your blog has been exellent on that.
Thanks.
What I'm saying is your blog is as biased as everyone or every newspaper you mention when it comes to Thaksin, only you and Pravit are on the other side.
My problem is principally with The Nation compared to the Post primarily because all their regular op-ed writers speak with the same voice (cf that with what the NYT which has Brooks and Kristol). If this was a multi-person blog and we agreed on everything then your point of comparison would be more pertinent.
Also, in the context of the vast majority of the Thai print media speak with a single voice - although this is why I blog!
And what you mentioned are not Thaksin's "crimes". They are his "flaws". Not tolerating criticism or quick tongue is not a crime.
I thought you meant "crimes" generally. I usually don't talk about "crimes" of anyone although I have looked in a few cases of whether the Shin clan have broken the law. I prefer to look more at the political aspect of it than whether it was a crime - in some cases it might not be a crime, but I still disagree with what happened, this goes more to a character flaw than a crime.
I was asking if you have ever questioned Ratchapisek land deal, the loan to Burma, the nominees holding shares and the tax avoidance.
I did a couple of posts looking at the Rachadaphisek land deal. In one I said something along the lines of regardless of whether it was legal or not. From what I have read on the law, there is a 80% chance they will get off.
On Burma, again I have posted on it. I also recently commented that I think it is a bad idea and would not support a PM or any important political player having (through themselves of their family) such a large stake in a company is a bad idea. One of the reasons is regardless of whether it can be proven that there was a quid-pro-quo on the loan, it creates the appearance of a conflict of interest and the Shin clan ownership hampered telecommunications in Thailand - I think partly through their desire not to change anything and with AIS at the top this benefitted AIS, but if they did change anything and somehow AIS benefitted regardless of whether others benefitted more changing the rules would have caused an outcry so not much changed.
There is no smoking gun on whether it was illegal although this will depends on Surakiart said after the coup vs now - there are reports he has tried to make up with Thaksin (the e-passport "scandal" involving Surakiart is noticeably quiet).
I initially thought it was a big deal, but like with most of the cases there is more mud than substance.
Those are alleged crimes that pretty much escaped the hand of the law when Thaksin was in power. The Thai media did their job in digging up information that Thai authorities had turned a blind eye on.
I wasn't blogging during the war on drugs, but if I was I imagine I would have been extremely critical. I have taken a more tempered view particularly on the number of victims because I think the media are got so much wrong in their reporting and it lead me to question their other details.
How come the media, in your and Pravit's eyes, commit bigger crime than Thaksin I can never know. And don't tell me Thaksin has never been charged with those crimes.
You seemed so picky on "crimes" before so have I accused The Nation of breaking the law? Also, the media have dug up nothing solid that I have seen.
That's the point. The media has to keep attacking him because he was never charged with some obviously blatant crimes.
Where there is smoke there is often fire, but why didn't the coup leaders give the cases to the NCCC instead of the ASC/AEC? What has the ASC/AEC been doing?
I disagree on whether all the so-called crimes are crimes.
Such a claim ---that he never been charged--is a sorry excuse used by politicians. Journalists or bloggers must not buy that too easily.
I'm simply saying you and Pravit are as biased as anybody else.
I don't purport to run a newspaper and report news on most issues. Most of what I write is opinion. My live blogging and coverage on the South are more news-related so I take a different approach.
As I wrote somewhere else the other day, I regret not criticising Thaksin more when I first was blogging - he was only PM for about 5 months when I was blogging regularly and I was responding more to the Thai media's political coverage then. I am trying to be critical of Samak and the government - I have lost count on the number of posts in the last couple of months particularly where I have criticised Samak and Chalerm. If I don't they have done something wrong, I won't criticise them! We see things differently and so we have different opinions.
I think you probably know that the Manager radio blatantly encouraged its listeners to physically attack Chotsak (the anti-royal anthem activist). Now that is NOT merely taking side. It shows you how the media people can become dangerous if they think they can do whatever they like.
"...lost sight of its role as provider of not just information but fair debate from different camps and perspectives."
Oh, right I forgot.
Good media suppose to present two side of the story. Too bad no one have the gut to continue Sorayud's ex-TV show "Tung Luk, Tung Kon". The closest is Jom's, which still not close enough.
Only opinion page for the duo critics on taken this stance. If they did it the other way, they could have color photo, front pages with exclusive interviews and praises.
Marty, Marty, Marty. Its better if you calm down and objectively look at the point BP has been making.
The Thai media is in shambles and is in no place to criticize the government with the rhetoric and the bias it uses--that perverts its point and also perverts journalism. Does the Thai media even employ fact checkers? Do the columnists have a clue?
The point is, BP's opinions have always had good grounding in fact, evidence, and reasonableness even if you may or may not agree, his/her points are pretty damn solid.
So besides some natural human biases, what else have you go to criticize BP's blog for? The fact that he doesn't fervently hate Thaksin? Or is it the fact that the BS that slipped through in your first post was very thoroughly destroyed in the face of actual evidence?
BP, thanks for responding sincerely. I don't want to repeat myself so much so here's new points..
Nothing solid against Thaksin? We have to seriously agree to disagree here. I think the AMLO scandal is a big crime and major abuse of power. I think the loan to Burma (we have debated this thoroughly) is wrong and shameful. I think the use of Ample Rich to evade paying taxes for the sales of Shin Corp is absolutely wront and unethical for a prime minister. I don't think thaksin's wife had the right to buy that government auctioned land. etc. So, we have different perspective on what is solid. And I took my stand after reading from the Thai media including The Nation and the Bangkok Post so I won't accuse them of not doing their watchdog jobs.
You indicate when it comes to politics you are sort of a opinion writer and you don't intend to run a newspaper here. Fair enough. Opinion writers have their own opinions based on what they believe. From what I observe, both Nation and Post writers do not ridicule those who have different opinions. They think Thaksin is bad, they go against Thaksin. They think the junta is bad, they go against the junta. They don't ridicule people who think differently or undermine the other side's right to express opinions. I know blogs are different, but it won't hurt to take the same approach. Yours is not as outrageous as one blog that horrifies me.
I'm not telling you how to blog, of course. Just want to expand from my original views that be careful when you accuse others of being unfair. That is too easy to say but may be hard to justify considering your own approach.
Or do you think blogs can be unfair while newspapers can't?
Marty
P.S. And you point out that the Thai media speak virtually in a single voice so you blog.
Interesting. How about Thai people speak in a single voice (on Thaksin) so the Thai media balance that?
Sounds like the same logic to me. The whole idea is checks and balances isn't it?
Nothing solid against Thaksin? We have to seriously agree to disagree here.
It seems the disagreement is about what constitutes guilt and innocence.
I think the AMLO scandal is a big crime and major abuse of power.
Again, it comes to the definition of major. In a country where plenty of politicians do much more evil things, is it really major? Especially since the media seem to think every other public figure is clean except Thaksin and PPP. Or is it okay to hurt Thaksin but ignore the other people? What about Surayud's land, is that major?
I don't defend Thaksin, but I abhor the double standard that leads to people becoming so emotionally anti-Thaksin.
Therefore, this is my stance: I abhor corruption, but I will emotionally rage against Thaksin as much as I emotionally rage against my own family and friends who routinely bribe traffic cops. This is a reason why I like BP, s/he views corruption cases based on the strength of the evidence without attempt to judge the person, whether Democrat nor PPP. When BP is raging on about Sophon (or some phuyaism), though, that's another thing.
I think the loan to Burma (we have debated this thoroughly) is wrong and shameful.
It is dodgy, but is it wrong?
I think the use of Ample Rich to evade paying taxes for the sales of Shin Corp is absolutely wront and unethical for a prime minister.
I hope you think its wrong and unethical for everybody else too.
And I took my stand after reading from the Thai media including The Nation and the Bangkok Post so I won't accuse them of not doing their watchdog jobs.
You should because their watchdog job is done very perfunctorily.
I'm not telling you how to blog, of course. Just want to expand from my original views that be careful when you accuse others of being unfair. That is too easy to say but may be hard to justify considering your own approach.
This is reasonable. Your first post, on the other hand...
Or do you think blogs can be unfair while newspapers can't?
Newspapers can certainly be unfair, but since the journalists continue to tell us they ARE fair, shouldn't we be able to point out this bit of inaccuracy?
I think I have made myself clear enough that this is a debate on fundamental rights to criticize and scrutinize the power that be. If you think all the Thaksin acts that I mentioned are not wrong, you are entitled to your opinions. I take a stand that those acts are selfish, greedy and immoral and totally unbecoming as he was a national , democratic leader. We have to agree to disagree.
If you read carefully, you will know that my point is that rival camps in a political conflict must keep their eyes on the ball and make sure they don't end up undermining their own fundamental rights. Accusing the voices of the other side of being unfair sows dictatorial seeds in a vicious circle. You are encouraging hatred and promoting crackdown on rival opinions. Go on keep attack Nation writers. What will you get? People like Jakkapop will consider them enemies of the state and will try to stifle them, directly or indirectly. Then, when the other side gets the power, what will happen? Prachathai writers or Pravit will be blacklisted and etc. This will go on and on and worse still both sides will claim they do the clampdown in the name of democracy.
I think opinion writers of both sides, fair or not fair, should be protected because fundamentally their role serves ultimate democracy. When one side starts to demonize the other side's innocent voices, dictatorship will set in. Maybe you won't notice now and you may think Jakkapop is doing the right thing but believe me he's taking advantage of accusations that anti-government media is "unfair".
Demonising the other side's opinions is tightening the noose on yourself, because it will confirm the power-that-be beliefs that to win a political war, you will to clampdown of freedom of expression first. Maybe today it will benefit you, but your turn will come. It will be a vicious circle.
And if you think the Thai media is part of a conspiracy, that's how it all begins. Assuming that rival opinions are a conspiracy that has to be dealt with are what dictatorship is all about. For all your criticisms against the Thai media, can you point to any report or article or opinion piece that targeted or lashed out at people who voiced opposite opinions? Show me an article that said hi-thaksin.net is nonsense and detrimental?
I think the journalists ---as bad as you consider them---have never gone as low as attacking fellow opinion makers.
Marty
Marty,
You live in a self-delusional fantasy land.
The original article by Pravit was criticism of the Thai media for being obsessed with Thaksin at the exclusion of everything else. Further, he argued that the Thai media lacks any introspection regarding its own hypocrisy, since it is corrupt just like the politicians just like it criticizes. The Thai media is corrupt to the core. When have you ever read an article that criticizes an advertiser? When have you ever read an article that connects the dots of corruption in the bureaucracy or the police force? The answer is never. The Nation ain't The New York Times. It has more in common with a tabloid than a newspaper of record in any major metropolitan city in the West.
Pravit didn't demonize the media or demand that the government shut it down, so I suggest you stop being hysterical. He demanded that Thai media act professionally.
I guess anybody who demands that the Thai media act professionally is the reincarnation of Joseph Goebells in your book.
Further, the Thai media has not done any investigative reports that uncovered Thaksin's nefarious and evil empire. Most of what has been written about Thaksin's crimes have been on the opinion pages.
There is a difference between saying Thaksin is a crook based on opinion and proving he is a crook based on empirical evidence And it is quite troubling that you can't make that distinction. Just because you have personal feelings of hatred towards Thaksin doesn't mean your feelings are factual evidence.
As far as the Thai media not attacking fellow media outlets that disagree with them, that is a bunch of BS.
The Thai media was universal is wanting close down YouTube over the king videos. It didn't stick up for the community radio stations when they were being shut down anytime they broadcast anything positive about Thaksin or one of his interviews. The media said nothing when pro-Thaksin voice were being purged throughout the broadcast media after the military took over. The Thai media didn't do squat when websites were being shut down. Also, what about when iTV was shut down and given over to Thaksin haters on a silver platter?
Or what about when Sondhi Lim was given free reign to say whatever he wanted on satellite TV but when the pro-Thaksin people created an alternative satellite channel that was forbidden.
Funny, also this time you have been attacking Thaksin, you have not mentioned the coup and the Thai media's part in enabling that coup.
So why don't we put all card out on the table, did you support the coup?
And, if so, please explain how Thaksin's unproven crimes justified tearing up the constitution and the Thai media's complicity and defense of that horrendous crime against 65 million people?
And don't say the Thai media didn't defend the coup, because they did, especially The Nation. As a matter of fact, Thanong was defending it just last week.
Marty, I've read your comments and it is pretty interesting. As for me I think we should instead praise The Nation for keeping Pavit at the newspaper. Why the like of Fonzi keeps attacking The Nation where it is the paper that hires an excellent journalist like Pavit. This newspaper shows a very high-standard of journalism. They also hire Pavit and also allow him to work on Prachathai. I don't think newspaper like Thai Rath or Manager will keep someone like him. --LS