B by Tom

B is for BUSTED (Will this shame those fools who were crying murder about the terrorism law? Doubt it.)
10:12

With us or with the usual suspects

True to its ideals, the Bangkok Post has chosen...

The government has been labelled an opportunist and dictator for its swift passage of two executive decrees yesterday to impose anti-terrorist measures which human rights and civic groups denounced as being politically motivated.

To be against the government. Yes, even if it means siding with the terrorists, Thaksin just has to be opposed. Thanks for making that clear.

Just one question, those "human rights and civic groups", aren't they the ones who also waxed lyrical about how great and good Saddam's Iraq was and cried foul about the "Western media's smear campaign"?

Don't know about you, but Thaksin will get my vote just for having the right enemies alone.

P.S. This is the first Bangkok Post report of the anti-terrorist measures and it elects to lead with the "outcry" spin before even telling the readers what the measures are about. But, hey, why so coy? Why bother reporting the official lines at all? You could've gained a lot more space for that "outcry" stuff. What, you've already coverd all there was? Just make up some more! What're you, a serious newspaper?
00:40

I'm SEETHING with rage. Today the Bangkok Post published a horrid, brazen, mendacious hatchet work against Tony Blair's government from the World Socialist Web Site and had the temerity to label it "Comment/Press Freedom".

Yes, free speech reigns supreme and everyone is entitled to voice his opinion, but as the self-proclaimed "Newspaper You Can Trust", the Post has an obligation to its readers to publish things that are at least, how to say, not RUBBISH. How to define that? Here's Rubbish 101 for you, if rubbish is anything, it is this -- a 10-day-old propaganda by dubious writer for an organ overtly with an axe to grind. Over hordes of British newsmongers of all colors (at least half of which are critical of the government), why choose this from a socialist website? And why wait TEN DAYS? Your comrade in charge of email distribution was on holiday or what?

Let me be clear, I don't object to stuff from a socialist organization per se. If we were debating capitalism or globalization, it would make sense to solicit their opinions (to be balanced by capitalist ones, of course). But the Blair v BBC affair lies smack in mainstream politics and journalism. What insight can we possibly gain from these outcasts who fancy bringing down the whole house? If you want a left perspective, then how about The Guardian, The Independent, or even the BBC itself? No, the sympathizing crowds aren't good enough for the Post. It has to be the very fellows who were organizing the war protests and holding hands with Islamic fundamentalists (trampling on their feminist and gay causes in the process). It's this sort of credibility that the Post can't resist.

Finally, even stripped of all the political background, how could this article have passed anyone who calls himself a newspaper editor. It is littered with such language as "ruling class" and "British imperialism" and outright falsehoods like, "The BBC's coverage of the war was... the most pro-government and least likely to cite oppositional sources of all the major broadcasters." All in all, a travesty and a grave insult to the reader. Congratulations, Bangkok Post, you've reached a new low.
00:14