MEDIA COVERAGE OF THAI CRISIS, OCTOBER 7-10: BLACK

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BANGKOK 003066 STATE PLEASE PASS EAP/PD, EAP/MLS, DRL PACOM FOR FPA SIPDIS SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PREL PGOV KPAO TH SUBJECT: MEDIA COVERAGE OF THAI CRISIS, OCTOBER 7-10: BLACK OCTOBER, PART III BANGKOK 00003066 001.2 OF 002 Sensitive but unclassified. Please handle accordingly. ¶1. (SBU) Summary: Media coverage of Thailand's worst street violence in 16 years has been extensive and pervasive. Print media, televised news coverage and internet blogs each have their own spin on the October 7 violence as they join in the "blame game" that has played out in the public arena. Over the last three days of coverage, print headlines have conveyed a sense of sympathy predominantly for the protesters, while broadcast news coverage tended to be more balanced. The greatest divide in opinion (and most emotion) was conveyed through discussion in the online community. END summary. ¶2. (SBU) Comment: The public reaction to the October 7 violence should be placed in the context of Thai history and social attitudes towards institutions, the police in particular. The dates October 6 and October 14 have been seared into the Thai consciousness for over a generation, "Black Octobers" with the blood of students/civilians in the streets of Bangkok after military crackdowns of pro-democracy movements in 1976 and 1973, respectively. Media references this week to "Black October" are a conscious echo of those landmark events in late twentieth century Thai political development. In polls covering social attitudes of Thai institutions, the Thai police consistently rank at the bottom in terms of societal trust and respect. Many Thai see Thai police as bribe takers, not upholders of law and order, predisposing them to think ill of the institution. Thailand's current crisis differs in one respect from past incidents of violent social unrest, the most recent occurring in May 1992, "Black October" part III is being debated on the internet, allowing thousands of (mostly) affluent and young people to argue over the crisis. END Comment and Summary. Newspapers: Arrogant Tyrant to Blame -------------- ¶3. (U) Print press coverage of the violent events of October 7 has been highly critical of the government's handling of the crisis, which erupted when police used tear gas to disperse anti-government protesters blocking access to parliament buildings where the Prime Minister was scheduled to announce his policy plan to Parliament. October 8 headlines pointed the finger of blame for the deaths and injuries squarely at the RTG, while being sympathetic to the protestors. On October 8, the tabloid-style Thai-language Daily News ran the headline "Riots Kill Two, Scores Injured by Police Crackdown." Another tabloid-style Thai-language daily Kom Chad Luek headlined "Black October! Police Uses Tear Gas to Disperse Crowd Causing Two Deaths, 400 Injured; Cold-Blooded Somchai Walks Past Wounded People to Announce Policy in Parliament." The elite, influential Thai-language daily Matichon made note of the monarchy's sympathy for the protestors running the headline, "Riots All Day, Two Deaths, More than 300 Injured; Queen Concerned, Donated Money to Help Victims." ¶4. (U) Lead editorials and commentaries in several Thai-language dailies voiced disapproval about what they characterized as "excessive force" used by the police to disperse the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protestors. On October 9, all major Thai-language dailies continued to criticize the manner in which the authorities responded to the face-off between protesters and police, including voicing disapproval of Prime Minister Somchai's explanation that the police crackdown of PAD on October 7 was in keeping with international norms. ¶5. (U) Coverage in most dailies seemed to approve of the "social sanctions" employed by doctors at eight medical institutes who declared that they would not treat policemen and soldiers in uniform and the case of a Thai Airways captain who refused to let three MPs from the ruling People's Power Party (PPP) board his airplane. One sensational headline from the anti-government, elitist daily Naew Na, read "Arrogant Tyrant Says Order to Kill People Legal," while Matichon went with the more subdued banner of "RTG Boycotted; Doctors Refuse Treatment; Thai Airways Declines Services to PPP MPs." All lead editorials and some commentaries suggested that the government should set up a body to investigate the incident thoroughly and called on Prime Minister Somchai to dissolve the Parliament. Television: Overwhelmed Police -------------- ¶6. (SBU) In contrast to the print media, which has a varied ownership, most broadcast stations are government- or army- owned, if not controlled. Not surprisingly, television news coverage of the October 7 violence has been less incendiary than that of newsprint and, relatively speaking, has provided a more balanced BANGKOK 00003066 002.2 OF 002 account of the events though coverage did vary. Channel 7, Channel 9, and state-operated NBT prime time news tended to air more footage that showed images of PAD protestors on the offensive with the police. While Channel 3 and TPBS strived to provide more balanced coverage, giving airtime to the government, the PAD, the opposition, academics, and the general public. Army-operated Channel 5, covered both government and PAD accounts with limited commentary, though more airtime has been given to the explaining the government's position and accounts of the events. (Note: In some instances, it appeared that individual outlets attempted to present a neutral stance through much of their coverage, but personal biases of some on-air anchors against PAD's actions crept in to their respective news commentary, tainting the tone of some individual reports. END note.) Internet: Fanning the Flames in Cyberspace -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The more freewheeling nature of the internet has provided opportunity for sympathizers on both sides to express their outrage. The overall tone in the blogosphere reflected overwhelming anger and despair from both sides( e.g. pro-Thaksin supporters and anti-government PAD sympathizers). Among the hot topics being discussed online were the use of tear gas by the police, police statements that mini-bombs carried on the bodies of PAD protesters were to blame for the serious injuries and deaths, and the refusal by some medical professionals to treat policemen in uniform. Images, some extremely graphic in nature, were liberally posted. Comments on both sides of the argument were emotional and filled with hatred, many of them underscored with the use of strong expletives. ¶8. (SBU) Posts on Pantip.com, which clearly leans toward the PPP and former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, were overwhelmed with pro-police, anti-PAD commentary. Netizens in this forum claimed that the injuries and death were caused by "friendly fire," not the police and alleged that PAD had instigated the clash. Images posted to this blog showed injured policemen and PAD members carrying various types of weapons. All were accompanied by comments on PAD's overt brutality and use of force against the police. A surge of negative comments about the ineffective, corrupt Thai judicial system popped up in the aftermath of the court's October 9 decision to drop treason charges against PAD leaders were dropped. ¶9. (SBU) In contrast, online forums like Manager.co.th, which is part of the larger Manager Media Group owned by PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul, and PAD's own website, PADnet.net, painted a very different picture of the October 7 incident. Discussions on these websites painted the events as blatant acts of brutality and excessive force by the police and the government. Considerable real estate was also dedicated to glorifying the young, female PAD supporter who was killed in the clash, calling her a "heroine." (Note: This is in contrast to other pro-government leaning for a like Pantip.com that extended no sympathy at all, saying it "served her right." END note.) Several images of what appeared to be police with mini-bombs in their hands were posted, as well as policemen throwing what bloggers claimed were hand grenades. ¶10. (SBU) Activity in pro-PAD blogs on October 10 included harsh criticism of the United States after an AFP article, quoting press guidance, reported that an anonymous U.S. Department of State official asked Thailand to respect the rule of law, calling on protesters to peacefully express their opinions and not to obstruct the work of the elected government. Several bloggers on Pantip.com opined that the U.S. should not comment on internal politics, although they generally agreed with the comment. ¶11. (U) Bloggers on non-partisan sites generally condemned the Thai Airways pilot who refused to fly the PPP MPs, and the medical professionals who refused to treat injured policemen in uniforms for being unprofessional and unethical. They also opined that PAD protesters themselves were not using peaceful means to address the conflict, and commented that it was possible that the alleged bombs were from the PAD side, not the police. JOHN