Even as the World Watched IV: Peaceful, or Pistol?
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
12 July 2010
Chiang Mai, Thailand
During the Thailand fighting in May, the rain of media mixed with the dust of politics, creating mud that left honest people feeling bogged down. People desiring clarity slogged knee deep, then waist deep, and it kept coming.
My reports avoided politics largely because I do not understand Thai politics. There can be value in this, just as a Korean, for instance, can come to the United States and observe from a “here and now” perspective and, quite possibly—if he sticks to what he sees and not what people tell him to see—render a more accurate observation from a riot. The “mouths of babes” are not restricted to children.
For many Americans, Asia is a murky, mysterious place inhabited by primitive people and repressive governments. We see what we expect to see. Mixing that with muddy journalism, many people at home in America seemed to think the Thai government was slaughtering helpless protesters in Bangkok. This was untrue.
Many people—and even some journalists who were present—espoused that protesters were unarmed. Some clearly were armed and to miss this would be egregious journalistic malpractice. If a medical doctor missed something so big, a lawsuit might be the least of his problems; he’d probably lose his license to practice.
This story ran in Thailand:
CNN, BBC fully deserve criticism
By Dave ShermanSpecial to The Nation
Dan Rivers' assertion that CNN's coverage of the crackdown on the red-shirt protest was "impartial" ("CNN, BBC correspondents defend coverage", The Nation, June 12) is simply untrue. The misinformation, generalisations and biases seen on CNN and BBC cannot be easily excused, especially because these reports brought the story of Thailand's conflict to the world - and the story the world saw was not the story of what actually happened.
The point is not that CNN didn't report that some of the red shirts were armed or show those armed men to the viewers. This they did. Where CNN and Rivers failed is in properly explaining the context of what was happening during the May 14-19 crackdown - and without proper context, understanding the story becomes impossible.
When Dan Rivers reported on May 14 that soldiers were firing on protesters, whom Rivers repeatedly insisted were unarmed, he was misinforming his viewers. He was omitting the fact that the soldiers were firing defensively on men who had been attacking them all morning with makeshift weapons, guns and grenades after the Army tried to secure a perimeter around the protest zone. Rivers did not mention that such red-shirt assaults were part of a long-standing pattern of militancy. The red shirts had been attacking legal authorities and civilians for weeks - invading Parliament and Thaicom, beating and killing military officials, fatally attacking peaceful anti-red-shirt demonstrators in Silom, and storming Chulalongkorn Hospital, forcing it to evacuate its patients.
Insurgencies are like animals, and veterinarians deal with many sorts of animals. Polar bears are different from kangaroos are different from dogs, and every sort of dog has different qualities and issues. A highly experienced and equally determined veterinarian could probably spend a year explaining differences between cats and dogs, then switch hats a spend years explaining similarities. The same is true with insurgencies. Each is very different and similar.
Today, the insurgency in greater Thailand is in a pediatric stage. It’s still in a condition that it’s small enough and sufficiently in control that an observer can make out the parts. If a war matures, it will grow long hair; it will become wild and confusing to everyone. (The Islamic issue in the deep south is far more mature but also limited.)
In Thailand, there are main morphological influence features that are still easy to discern. Various powerful influence groups exist within Thailand and the latest Bangkok confrontation brought certain actors onto the stage: most visible were the Red Shirts and the government. Less visible but crucially important were outside actors, which includes ex Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and agitators under his employ or influence.
The agitators definitely existed. I saw and photographed some of them.
Luckily, there is zero tribal influence and religion is more spectator than participant here, and in any case is ointment not fuel.
Many observers—including many journalists—seemed to view this simplistically as a “Red Shirt” uprising where the peaceful poor were fighting for justice and equality, yet in reality this is a platypus. If there be a symbol that best describes the insurgencies I have seen, that symbol might be the Platypus, or a Mr. Potato Head. The Platypus, Mr. Potato Head, and insurgencies worldwide seem to be made out of spare parts.
The Men in Black seemed to have snapped themselves onto Red Shirts. Here some agitators are setting tires ablaze just before bullets start flying.
Overlooking Red camp near Lumpini Park, Bangkok.
Inside Red shirtless camp.
Comments
Discard your rose colored glasses and create a well worded award for Michael Yon's photographic essays. Concentrate on the reality revealed by Yon's camera eye, and not on such evaporating chimeras as Obama's "charisma".
Michael is THE ONLY voice of reason coming out of where ever he is at the moment. Our so called "journalists" are a major disgrace, pandering to the leftist morality of the aforementioned committees who have been taken over by sycophants of the American Communist Liars Union!
We no have believable journalists in this country any more, probably a major reason Michael does not call himself a journalist.
Our biggest problem is the oligarchy of communist professors who run all of the major journalism schools. Who, in the process, are turning out brainwashed ignorant drones who have an preset agenda before they even put one word to paper or video tape.
Insurgents have more agility and media mass, eh? Can we learn from them? Why not issue a still or video camera right along with every rifle, and then train our people to use both. You see, we can tell stories too. To the extent that we will adhere to 'truth-telling' and reject bias and 'spin', we can take the important high ground of media mass and agility. Just my $0.02.
one from your astute perspective. Keep it up.
I, for one, appreciate all the stories of the positive changes that were happening in Iraq when the media was reporting all the negative. I am so glad that you report the GOOD as well as the bad and the ugly. Keep up the good work and ignore the naysayers and critics. The more critics that you have it must mean that you are doing a bang up job.
You keep making references to the Men in Black in your post....Who exactly are they? How do they fit into the political situation there?
Also, Back in 2009 you did some reporting from the Philippines and I am wondering if you have any plans to go back there and do some more?
The cost of this iinsurrection could take years to calculate.
Thanks Micheal your work is always relevant.
Having said that, the situation is so convoluted and complex with so many people with "interests" that just about anything anyone says is pure speculation, IMO. And talking to Thai people themselves doesn't help much. One Thai Yellow Shirt who was arrested at the airport and charged with treason told me that "they (Reds) are just finishing what we started."
As for my criticism, as with anyone purporting to convey facts upon which others' opinions would be founded, a little critiquing by readers is a reasonable standard. All this "non-journalist" hero worship is a bit much. Obviously Mr. Yon can handle a challenge. His ego and his integrity are not so fragile. Military service is a legacy in my family up to the present and our toughness is only matched by our humility.
I admit that I know very little about Thai security forces, but is it usual for them to carry Molotov Cocktails like the man that Michael identifies as a 'Ronin Warrior' in the fourth image on the first page?
Michael, I think you're an excellent photographer and the texts you write are well written, but to add abit of contrast to the the comments .. this is a very american text, so to speak. As you do not understand thai politics you then go to draw lines and conclusions that to many thai would be insulting. Don't get me wrong, I've followed your writting for a good 3-4 years I'd say, but this mentality of not knowing the country or the politics but still judging is something you'll have to outgrow, stating facts and taking nice pictures is where your best work lies; at as an observer and not a political commentator.
If you are referring to my comment of the 20th of July, that was a sarcastic reply to a comment that was later deleted. I did not actually think that they were part of any legitimate security force.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/MichaelYonFanPage?ref=ts
Thank you Michael Yon, for being a (surprisingly rare) honest voice. You have a few new fans.
RSS feed for comments to this post