WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 2010

Re: Open Letter to CNN International

[Originally posted as a reply in the Comments under the Facebook note titled "Open Letter to CNN
International" on Thursday, May 20, 2010; the contents below have been revised for this depository.]

Re: Open Letter to CNN International

Hi everyone. Due to the unexpected massive influx of comments, I've unfortunately not been able to
follow up on all of them - though I honestly appreciate each and every response, including critiques, and
sincerely thank you all for kindly taking the time to hear me out. It really means a lot to me that my
simple voice has been heard - even if you didn't agree with my views.

A link to a follow-up note with the various medias' responses to the letter - if any - will be provided in a
later comment in due course.

I'll now address some matters for clarification's sake:

1. Erratum: The last name of the other CNN correspondent is not Snider, but Sidner. My bad, I
apologize.

2. All I wanted was to express the collective opinion that many of us regular Thais who've been directly
affected by the protests have regarding what we perceive as poor quality news reporting by CNN's
leading correspondents in Thailand. My letter neither purports to be, nor does it make any pretensions
of being, anything else. It is certainly no thesis or research paper. It is a statement of complaint that
any dissatisfied consumer of a product has the right to make.

Quite a lot of my letter’s more vitriolic critics seem to have misunderstood its intent – it is not an
attempt to get foreign media to broadcast only pro-government agenda or "only the side I want to see".
Nor is it an attempt to "attack" anti-govt sympathizers or protesters, or to justify the use of violence by
the govt or the act of Thais killing Thais. Please read it carefully with an open mind, sans
prejudice, and a modicum of tolerance - or don't read it at all. If you still don't understand (or
insist on deliberately misunderstanding) the substance and intent of my letter, then don't worry about it.
Save yourself the trouble. Your time and energy can be put to much better use - like helping brainstorm
ways to overcome or at least reduce the social and economical injustices inherent in Thai society.

3. The letter is specifically addressed to CNN but made open to the public for general information
purposes; therefore, I felt no need to include examples of Dan Rivers' work when CNN already has all of
it in their database. The links to other news reports were included to exemplify other international
journalists who have managed to show both sides of the story without so blatantly coloring the depiction
with their own bias or judgment. When Mr. Rivers and Ms. Sidner's work is contrasted with those of their
peers, e.g. Al Jazeera, the NYTimes, France 24, etc., the difference in the quality and objectivity of their
stories is quite palpable.

In any event, as I bear the onus, do find below the links to two articles, one by the CNN correspondents
in question, and the other by their fellow peers from the NYTimes, both dated May 19th, 2010 [my
comments in red]:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/19/thailand.protests/index.html
"Bangkok looked and sounded like a war zone as protesters disbursed and smaller riots erupted
throughout the Thai capital. Witnesses reported a dozen buildings -- including a bank, a police station, a
shopping mall and a local television station -- had been set ablaze." Set ablaze by who? CNN doesn't
mention this. "Smaller riots"...hmm doesn't sound so threatening. 12 buildings burned.

"But on Wednesday in Bangkok, as bullets rang out, black plumes of smoke rose and soldiers crept
forward toward a showdown, some expressed fears that authorities had lost control of the situation."
Bullets? Plumes? So that's all that happened today?

"The leaders could be seen on television telling a crowd at the park that they wanted to avoid further
bloodshed and wanted to turn themselves in. But it seemed as though the large group of protesters
were not heeding that call." Translated quote incomplete. The leaders also said though the rally shall
end, the fight shall not and keep on going. What does CNN mean about the protesters "not heeding that
call"? So what did they do? Doesn't say.

"Sniper fire and explosions could still be heard in the area, George McCleod, a witness and freelance
journalist, told CNN." Sniper fire and explosions by who? Soldiers or militant protesters? CNN leaves this
up to our own imagination, I suppose. But the natural assumption would be, of course, that the snipers
must be soldiers. There is no discussion of the possibility that "sniper fire" might've come from non-govt
sources, i.e. some of the more well-trained members of the paramilitary commandos within the protest
movement who might deck themselves in camo gear not unlike that of govt soldiers...

" 'It is a live ammunition situation and I expect a heavy death toll by the end of the day,' McCleod said."
Gory and gruesome. Live ammo = definitely soldiers! And we ought to believe Mr. McCleod
because...perhaps he is some credible authority on fatality forecasting?

"The fear for some in the area was that there would soon be a violent showdown when security forces
confronted the resolute protesters gathered there.

"I cannot see the operation coming to a successful end without further violence and without further
losses," said Sukhumbhand Paribatra, Bangkok's governor. "I was hoping to have a more optimistic
message but I cannot." More doom and gloom, pessimism galore. Soldiers are about to massacre
unarmed protesters for sure. Typical behavior of third-world governments, after all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/world/asia/20thai.html?ref=asia
"A crackdown on antigovernment [sic.] protesters launched by the Thai military on Wednesday
degenerated into riots, firebombing attacks, looting and street battles after militants allied with the
protest movement resisted the army’s onslaught with grenades and assault weapons." Whoaaa...not
exactly the same picture painted by CNN above. So that's what happened?

"Most of the leaders of the so-called red shirt movement surrendered, but other protesters rampaged
across Bangkok, setting fire to almost 30 buildings, the government said, including country’s stock
exchange, a massive shopping mall, two banks, a movie theater and a television station. The
government warned of further acts of violence into the night and threatened to shoot looters and
arsonists." Okay, this coincides with what I've seen reported by other journalists, including Michael Yon
(a foreigner!) and all the pictures circulating around FB. But wait - 30 buildings?! I thought only "a
dozen" (i.e. 12) burned down, according to CNN! Who should I believe now?

"But the crackdown did not appear to have become the large-scale bloodbath that many had feared."
Eh?? That's not the impression I got when I read CNN's coverage though...

"The surrender of the protest leaders and the dispersal of the crowd are victories for the embattled
government of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. But the crackdown did little to heal the country’s deep
divisions and may have exacerbated the resentment felt by the rural and urban poor, who formed the
core of the protest movement. Rioting in the country’s populous hinterland Wednesday when the
crackdown began underlined those divisions and forced the government to declare a curfew in 24 of the
country’s 76 provinces on Wednesday.

The unruliness and the non-compromising mood of the crowd earlier Wednesday also signaled a possible
radicalization of a movement that leaders found difficult to control." Oh I guess that's what Mr. Rivers
meant by the protesters "not heeding the call" of the red leaders. Had to read the NYTimes to find out.

" 'We cannot resist against these savages anymore,' Jatuporn Prompan, one of the leaders, said on a
stage inside the protest zone before turning himself in. He was booed by protesters who wanted to
defiantly carry on." Ditto above. Wonder why Mr. Rivers felt this information should be omitted from his
report though? Surely, he must've heard Mr. Jatuporn say these words - Jatuporn said it publicly on
stage and was televised everywhere.

"On many days during the two months of protests, Mr. Jatuporn had worn a T-shirt with an image of
Gandhi. But the resistance put up by some militants among the protesters was anything but nonviolent
on Wednesday." What happened to the peaceful protest CNN was talking about? CNN sure made it
sound like the soldiers were the only violent ones here.

"Soldiers assaulting the upscale neighborhood where protesters had been ensconced were repelled with
grenades. One soldier said militants were firing the weapons from the high floors of apartment buildings
in the area." Again, Mr. Rivers never mentioned anything about militant protesters armed with
grenades! Anyone would think they were armed with firecrackers at most!

"After weeks of back-channel negotiations with the protesters, many of whom are followers of Thaksin
Shinawatra, the prime minister ousted in a 2006 military coup, the government had lost its patience."
What negotiations? CNN didn't refer to any of this.

"Television footage showed soldiers opening fire at the backs of protesters running for cover." Wait, I
thought Thai TV was majorly censored by pro-govt propaganda...this doesn't look so good for the govt
though...wonder why the govt would let such images be broadcast though because it really is damning
to them and after all, aren't they big censorship fascists?

Both articles continue, but I'll stop my 'comparative analysis' here. However, feel free to read and
contrast the remainder of the articles yourselves - or not, if you don't see the point, it's up to you. But if
you do, you will see that CNN's article is heavy on doom-and-gloom sensationalism but rather sparse on
material facts, while the opposite is true for Thomas Fuller et al.'s NYTimes article.

Bottom line: The disparate presentation of information between articles published by CNN and those of
their peers, examples of which were cited above, plainly speak for themselves. I don't need censored
pro-govt Thai media for the facts - I'm fine with the New York Times. A foreign press. 'Shooting the
messenger'? Nope, I don't think so. I'm rather satisfied with 'international messengers' like the
NYTimes. Facts are facts. But don't take my word on it - judge for yourselves.

4. Watching news, I suppose, is kinda like going to a restaurant. We don't have to all like the same
restaurant do we? And when you believe one restaurant is insanitary - perhaps you found a roach in
your spaghetti - don't you have a right to complain? I, on the other hand, never having found any
buggers in my food at the same restaurant might have no reason to complain and is content to continue
my custom there. Likewise, my letter is a free expression of my personal opinion - it is no
attempt to convince anyone else except CNN that their news coverage regarding Thailand is
amateur and in conflict with their own professional code of ethics, as can be found here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/fyi/student.bureau/09/03/researching.story/ (Kudos to my friend PS for
the link.)

Other networks' codes of ethics for your information:

Al-Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/aboutus/2006/11/2008525185733692771.html
Associated Press: http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html

Here's my question: If journalists don't intend to follow good and reasonable standards of
practice in their occupations, why bother having any code of ethics at all? Yes, this can be
extremely difficult to do under trying circumstances, but that's why it's your profession - just as a heart
transplant operation is hard to perform, hence we have trained cardiac surgeons expert in carrying out
such difficult tasks and if they make negligent mistakes resulting in harm then they may be liable for
malpractice. Soldiers and freedom fighters don't have it easy out on the battlefield either, but if a
journalist bravely chooses to pursue the career of a WAR CORRESPONDENT, then I think it is reasonable
for the general public to expect that such journalist possesses the training and skills required to deliver
accurate news whilst under extreme pressure or in hostile conditions/locations without compromising
his/her professional integrity to the best of his/her ability.

If such an expectation is too "grandiose", then humanity is surely getting lazier as a civilization. I'm sure
some well-meaning blokes must've said the same thing to Gandhi about his pursuit of national
independence for India by non-violent means. I mean, fasting for the independence of millions?? That's
some pretty "grandiose" ambitions he's got there, eh??

5. I fail to understand dissenters who automatically assume that if I disagree with CNN's reporting, then
I must also be yellow, elitist, and eager to see red protesters get massacred like ants. Such logic is a
slippery slope of massive proportions. It's the same as saying if someone is from Isaan, they must be
Red, poor, stupid, and a terrorist. Both are false assumptions. If you truly believe there is no black and
white, only gray, then is it so impossible to consider that there may be an educated Bangkokian
of moderate means out there who finds CNN's news coverage biased yet sympathizes with
the genuine grievances and struggles faced by poor protesters, empathizes with those who
have been politically oppressed, was angered by the PAD's airport seizure and detests the
laissez-faire attitude/inaction of the apathetic members of the privileged class, yet disagrees
with the violent tactics employed by the anti-govt militants?

Again, I reiterate: my letter was in no way an attempt to discredit or attack the anti-government
movement or the very real cause and grievances of the innocent, underprivileged protesters. I don't
know why it has been so angrily construed as such. Nowhere have I indicated that what CNN broadcasts
are outright lies or fabrications. I acknowledge that they have been presenting the truth, but merely not
ALL of the truth. I have not denied that civilians have been shot by snipers, I have not denied that
soldiers were shooting live rounds. I did not ask CNN to trash everything they have already presented -
I only implored them to do better research and add to their news content in order to give a more
balanced perspective for international audiences to view and judge for themselves.

Nor was my letter an attempt to exonerate the govt for its share of culpability in the ensuing violent
resolution of the red rallies. Nowhere did I mention that it the act of Thais killing Thais can be justified. I
did, however, mention that the govt was "heavily-pressured" ("Open Letter to CNN International", para
5, line 3). Is this not an undisputed fact though? The government was under much pressure to resolve
the crisis asap. This doesn't mean their actions were all correct or should be commended, however. I
passed no judgment in my letter either way.

Neither did I pass judgment on the anti-government movement in general at all. I did, however,
insinuate my disapproval of the violent acts performed by the red militants (ibid., para. 5, lines 4-10)
which ultimately provoked the government into administering force. Note though that I did NOT accuse
ALL protesters of being evil or violent or terrorists, but only "the genuinely violent and law-breaking
ARM of the anti-government protesters" (ibid., lines 4-5; emphasis added). Now, whether or not the
degree of force the govt employed was proportionate and reasonable to the provocation is an entirely
separate issue. I passed no judgment on this either as it is strictly a political point of clash that has
nothing to do with whether CNN's news dissemination is misleading or of an acceptable calibre.

6. What actual or perceived harm do I cause anyone by asking CNN for fairer and more balanced news
reporting?

Even if CNN broadcasts a more balanced perspective of the facts in the same manner as, say, Al
Jazeera, viewers may still not be any more or less swayed towards the pro-government side of the
conflict. That is entirely up to the independent judgments and individual personal biases of each and
every viewer, and neither CNN nor myself have any control over their minds. I cannot make someone
believe something they don't - that is not my goal. I only want people to have COMPLETE INFORMATION
so they can make informed choices and judgments and standpoints. THAT'S IT. And for those who
believe that CNN's reportage is already fair and balanced, you really have nothing to worry about - CNN
surely isn't going to all of a sudden so easily bend to the demands of an insignificant little nobody from a
third-world country! My letter and I are nothing but small fry to them!

Or does the matter simply boil down to this: an inability to tolerate the fact that someone has the
audacity to announce to the world a point of view that is different from yours?

7. Nowhere in my letter did I suggest that Thai media is unbiased or of first rate quality. However,
because I know my own country's various media, I also know which channels and news sources are pro-
govt and anti-govt. With cable TV as well as internet at home, I have access to every media channel in
the world.

But the average person in the international community is NOT going to go to all that bother to select
trustworthy media. They'll grab and be inclined to believe whatever source is easiest to find, which in
most cases happens to be bigwig organizations like CNN and BBC as they are the most pervasive and
extensive news networks on the planet. And why shouldn't they trust CNN or the BBC? I certainly did -
until this year, when I experienced their misinformed journalism first-hand.

For those who have a problem with Thai media being biased, I don't see how attacking my letter will
help further your cause. You are all free to write your own letters of complaints. However, I choose not
to waste time by writing to any Thai media company because a) I know it's a moot effort and b) when
all's said and done, Thai media's reach is neither extensive nor credible. It's influence on world
audiences is relatively minimal. CNN, on the other hand, as one of the largest news networks in the
world, has a much wider viewership, reach, and hence influence. Billions of people rely on CNN as
opposed to the 60+ million that watch Thai TV (and even then, mostly for melodramatic lakorns or soap
operas). But I also heartily believe Thai media ought to undergo drastic reform and would welcome an
energetic discussion about any positive/constructive ideas/suggestions/solutions on how to encourage
such reform.

9. For those who do not share my views BUT have bothered to read and comment
constructively on my letter anyway, I sincerely thank you. It is always good to hear other sides
and varying viewpoints conveyed in a courteous and intellectual manner – I am a firm believer that
sharing ideas is the best way to learn to respect the different viewpoints and beliefs of each other, and
hence arrive at mutual understanding and respect.

10. For those who felt the need to publicly assassinate my character, thank you for providing me with
amusing entertainment in these stressful times; that you went through the trouble, I take as a
compliment. :)

(Although, if I really "just wanted to be famous" as many mun-sai-ers (both hi- and lo-so alike) love to
claim I am (since they know me so well, apparently), I wouldn't have wasted 10+ hours writing an open
letter - I'd go make a sex video and YouTube it instead. Much more efficient I tell you, with success
guaranteed! :P)

Lastly, to everyone in Thailand, regardless of nationality, race or religion: please, look beyond color.
Disregard whether someone is red, yellow, multi, pink, nude, white, black, pale (personally, I’m tan).
Rise above the blame game and forgive. Spread kindness. Spread sympathy. Spread compassion. Share
a funny joke. Give a stranger a smile for free. Accept that society will always have its injustices, but be
proactive in minimizing it. Volunteer. Stop thinking of what you'll get in return for a change. Think
positive, think productive. Rich or poor, these are all things everyone can do. Change won't happen
overnight, wounds won't heal in a day, but we can work on it together, starting now. Judge less, give
more. Most importantly, TOLERATE. Accept each others' differences and focus not on who's right or
wrong but how to live together peaceably. Don't let different ideals make us enemies when we can be
friends.

Please - let’s not be further divided anymore, but united in prayer for an end to the violence, bloodshed,
and destruction once and for all. And in mutual respect of all members of society, let's now actively
strive to work together to rebuild this nation into a better, stronger, more democratic, and less divided,
charming Land of Smiles.