VZCZCXRO3040
RR RUEHCHI RUEHCN RUEHDT RUEHHM
DE RUEHBK #3066/01 2840923
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 100923Z OCT 08
FM AMEMBASSY BANGKOK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4643
INFO RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RUEHCHI/AMCONSUL CHIANG MAI 5701

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