Page 1 of 2 1 2 Next 39 replies to this topic

[george]

Court orders Bangkok Post to reinstate reporter

BANGKOK: -- The Central Labour Court Tuesday ordered Bangkok Post to reinstate its reporter fired following a report on runway cracks at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

The court ruled that plaintiff Sermsuk Kasitipradit had not violated any regulations for proposing his report for the Bangkok Post editorial for publishing.

The court also ordered the Bangkok Post Provident Fund to pay Bt623,700.08 as the contribution of employer to Sermsak plus interest at the annual rate of 7.5 per cent from August 29 2005 when he was fired until the day he receives the money.

-- The Nation 2007-07-24

[hammered]

Good to hear.

[slapout]

Now lets find out why and who ordered this action against what some people wpuld call a whistleblower even if they were not a employee at the airport. The award, to make an example, and discourge individuals from trying to surpress freedom of the press should have been enough to make the payee hurt.

[John K]

slapout, on 2007-07-24 17:03:17, said:

Now lets find out why and who ordered this action against what some people wpuld call a whistleblower even if they were not a employee at the airport. The award, to make an example, and discourge individuals from trying to surpress freedom of the press should have been enough to make the payee hurt.

One Guess on this one.

This is some good news and a bit of a no brainer. I wonder if this will cause any change on the quality of the news at the Bangkok Post.

Edited by John K, 2007-07-24 17:26:56.

[chiang mai]

Very welcome news. The guy was doing his job properly in the first place and suffered only because of politics. I'll buy him a drink any day.

[bulmercke]

These sackings constituted a disgraceful act by the The Bangkok Post.

The two reporters summarily dismissed from their positions as reporters at the Post were only doing their job in diligently and earnestly reporting on a situation that they believed existed at the airport at the time.

They were in no way involved in any type of subterfuge or exageration of details - they were simply reporting details that had come to their attention which they genuinely believed (rightly) should be brought to the public's attention and which they believed the public had a right to know about. This report was surely of public concern.

Unfortunately they were made scape-goats as it was politically expedient at the time to dismiss them and for The Post to make a big song and dance about it.

The managing director at The Post at the time of the sackings was David Armstrong. He issued a statement about the matter at the time in which he justified the newsapaper's actions.

He was directly responsible for these two unfortunate individuals losing their jobs, loss of income and the shame and indignity that accompanied the firings.

The buck must surely stop with him. David Armstrong should surely lose his job because of his unfair and unjust actions.

Or at the very least a full public apology should appear in the pages of The Post within the next few days  (Armstrong is still at the helm there).

[jayjayjayjay]

So what we are saying is that any journo can sensationalise any story he wants without any consequence.  Highly questionable.........

[Mid]

sensationalise

do tell more ................

[Mid]

Thai court orders English-language newspaper to reinstate sacked editor
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:49 PM

Quote

BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) - The English-language Bangkok Post newspaper must reinstate an editor who was fired for a controversial report two years ago on the construction of Bangkok's new international airport, Thailand's Labor Court ruled Tuesday.

Sermsuk Kasitipradit reported in a front-page story _ citing an unidentified source _ that U.S. aviation experts told the Thai government the new airport's runways had cracks "large enough to sink the nose wheel of an aircraft."

The Post retracted its report and printed a front-page apology the next day, and also dismissed Sermsuk and another editor. Sermsuk filed a lawsuit against his dismissal, which led to the Labor Court ruling Tuesday that he had been illegally fired.

The court said the decision to publish the story was made by senior editors, and the substance of the report has not yet proven false.

Beside giving Sermsuk the right to resume working at the newspaper, the court ordered the Post to pay him 623,700 baht (US$21,000, ?15,100) in accrued benefits since the time of his dismissal.

"I believe that this ruling will set a precedent for the people's right to know and the protection of journalists who carry out their duty without fear and favor," Sermsuk said in a statement.

The Post's editor, Pattnapong Chantranontwong, said the newspaper had no immediate comment on the court's ruling.

The Suvarnabhumi Airport was opened in September last year, and some of its taxiways have cracks in need of repair.

After the Post's August 2005 report, the state airport authority sued the newspaper for criminal libel, a case that has not been resolved.

The firing caused a furor in the paper's newsroom, where nearly 100 journalists wore black in protest, claiming the newspaper acted under pressure from the government.

The newspaper's then-editor, David Armstrong, said at the time "the number of errors and misjudgments in the lead-up to the publication of the story was so great that firm action was both justified and necessary."

Philstar.

[Tony Clifton]

I would accept payment for damages and show up for work on Monday morning along with a hungry pack of journalists only to offer my resignation after being reinstated.

[belidofan]

Exit David Armstrong!!!...absolutely, that's the least its subscribers should demand. He made loose hughly face the Bangkok Post. Anyone interested in aking action on this, please post here

[John K]

Mid, on 2007-07-24 22:22:16, said:

sensationalise

do tell more ................

I agree, please tell how you arrived at that conclusion. Then go and check the lengthy thread(s) on the airport runway cracks that posed such a threat that the old airport was reopened to offload traffic so they could be repaired.

[billrose]

bulmercke, on 2007-07-24 21:59:47, said:

These sackings constituted a disgraceful act by the The Bangkok Post.

The two reporters summarily dismissed from their positions as reporters at the Post were only doing their job in diligently and earnestly reporting on a situation that they believed existed at the airport at the time.

They were in no way involved in any type of subterfuge or exageration of details - they were simply reporting details that had come to their attention which they genuinely believed (rightly) should be brought to the public's attention and which they believed the public had a right to know about. This report was surely of public concern.

Unfortunately they were made scape-goats as it was politically expedient at the time to dismiss them and for The Post to make a big song and dance about it.

The managing director at The Post at the time of the sackings was David Armstrong. He issued a statement about the matter at the time in which he justified the newsapaper's actions.

He was directly responsible for these two unfortunate individuals losing their jobs, loss of income and the shame and indignity that accompanied the firings.

The buck must surely stop with him. David Armstrong should surely lose his job because of his unfair and unjust actions.

Or at the very least a full public apology should appear in the pages of The Post within the next few days  (Armstrong is still at the helm there).

What makes you think that the MD of the Bangkok Post had any say in the decision to sack them?

Look a little higher!!!

Who was runnig the goverment at the time? Who's big baby was the new airport?

[wpcoe]

I seem to recall that there was some irresponsible reporting mixed in with the now-apparent accuracy of reporting runway cracks.  There was front page hyperbole about American experts flown it to evaluate the extent and danger of the cracks, and later it was admitted that no such foreign experts were involved.

I have no doubt others far more plugged into this issue will correct my memory.  What exactly was the reason given at the time the reporter was sacked for his dismissal -- inaccuracy as to the existence of cracks, inaccuracy of reporting the involvement of foreign experts, or something else?

[bulmercke]

billrose, on 2007-07-25 09:26:44, said:

bulmercke, on 2007-07-24 21:59:47, said:

These sackings constituted a disgraceful act by the The Bangkok Post.

The two reporters summarily dismissed from their positions as reporters at the Post were only doing their job in diligently and earnestly reporting on a situation that they believed existed at the airport at the time.

They were in no way involved in any type of subterfuge or exageration of details - they were simply reporting details that had come to their attention which they genuinely believed (rightly) should be brought to the public's attention and which they believed the public had a right to know about. This report was surely of public concern.

Unfortunately they were made scape-goats as it was politically expedient at the time to dismiss them and for The Post to make a big song and dance about it.

The managing director at The Post at the time of the sackings was David Armstrong. He issued a statement about the matter at the time in which he justified the newsapaper's actions.

He was directly responsible for these two unfortunate individuals losing their jobs, loss of income and the shame and indignity that accompanied the firings.

The buck must surely stop with him. David Armstrong should surely lose his job because of his unfair and unjust actions.

Or at the very least a full public apology should appear in the pages of The Post within the next few days  (Armstrong is still at the helm there).

What makes you think that the MD of the Bangkok Post had any say in the decision to sack them?

Look a little higher!!!

Who was runnig the goverment at the time? Who's big baby was the new airport?

Thaksin and the government were incensed by this report BUT what the newsaper did was reprehensible and unethical by journo standards within the industry.

Under the heat Armstrong should have instead stood by his reporters whose copy was approved for publication by the sub-editor/editor at the time.

He should have steadfastly defended his staff who were acting in good faith when they wrote the story. Instead he had total disregard for his loyal staff - throwing them to the lions in an attempt to hopefully appease the baying government.

I believe the Post's final decision to remove these two reporters at the time was Armstrong's alone.

If he had any principles he would resign.

[A_Traveller]

The following post which appears to be sourced for the Bangkok Post may be the 'original' article.

Post 2005-08-06 15:23:20

Quote

The government is quietly investigating reports that cracks have appeared on the runways of the yet-to-be-completed Suvarnabhumi airport while transport authorities yesterday denied there were any problems and insisted the runways were 100% up to standard.
An aviation source said Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had privately brought in a team of independent aviation experts from the United States to inspect the airport and they reportedly found cracks. Although it was argued these were normal during the construction process, the source said the US team would recommend to the prime minister the two runways in place so far be rebuilt because the construction was sub-standard and likely to be internationally unacceptable.

Regards

[John K]

billrose, on 2007-07-25 09:26:44, said:

What makes you think that the MD of the Bangkok Post had any say in the decision to sack them?

Look a little higher!!!

Who was runnig the goverment at the time? Who's big baby was the new airport?

I disagree, the inconsistences continue. I forgot where but I did bring it up in a post earlier this year.

[blaze]

John K, on 2007-07-25 20:56:55, said:

billrose, on 2007-07-25 09:26:44, said:

What makes you think that the MD of the Bangkok Post had any say in the decision to sack them?

Look a little higher!!!

Who was runnig the goverment at the time? Who's big baby was the new airport?

I disagree, the inconsistences continue. I forgot where but I did bring it up in a post earlier this year.

John, I think the poster is suggesting that Thaksin engineered the firing of the reporter. Still disagree?

[lazeeboy]

billrose, on 2007-07-25 09:26:44, said:

bulmercke, on 2007-07-24 21:59:47, said:

These sackings constituted a disgraceful act by the The Bangkok Post.

The two reporters summarily dismissed from their positions as reporters at the Post were only doing their job in diligently and earnestly reporting on a situation that they believed existed at the airport at the time.

They were in no way involved in any type of subterfuge or exageration of details - they were simply reporting details that had come to their attention which they genuinely believed (rightly) should be brought to the public's attention and which they believed the public had a right to know about. This report was surely of public concern.

Unfortunately they were made scape-goats as it was politically expedient at the time to dismiss them and for The Post to make a big song and dance about it.

The managing director at The Post at the time of the sackings was David Armstrong. He issued a statement about the matter at the time in which he justified the newsapaper's actions.

He was directly responsible for these two unfortunate individuals losing their jobs, loss of income and the shame and indignity that accompanied the firings.

The buck must surely stop with him. David Armstrong should surely lose his job because of his unfair and unjust actions.

Or at the very least a full public apology should appear in the pages of The Post within the next few days (Armstrong is still at the helm there).

What makes you think that the MD of the Bangkok Post had any say in the decision to sack them?

Look a little higher!!!

Who was runnig the goverment at the time? Who's big baby was the new airport?

make you right on this ,taksin all over ..

[A_Traveller]

One should also recall the atmosphere at that time, an article in the Straits Times [17 August2005] noted

Quote

Two Thai government agencies have brought a criminal libel lawsuit against Thailand's top English daily the Bangkok Post which, if successful, could together with a second civil libel suit bring the newspaper to its knees.  
The Airports Authority of Thailand and the New Bangkok International Airport (NBIA) have filed the criminal libel suit against the respected Bangkok Post for a report, later retracted, that the new Suvarnabhumi Airport runway had dangerous cracks.
Besides the standard maximum penalty of a 200,000 baht (S$8,000) fine and two years imprisonment for the editor, the agencies want the Post to publish the verdict in full page ads in international newspapers and through TV spots on major international networks for 15 days. If it loses, the Post will likely have to shell out millions to comply. The second suit. which is being readied by the same agencies, is for one billion baht, reportedly based on the cost of an international campaign to restore their image.

Further it's worth looking back at the Committee to Protect Journalists archives for 2005 CPJ 2005 to remind oneself of the various court actions, many of which were being driven by the Government.

Regards

[THAILIBAN]

its still good news..... and good news are rare in the Kingdom of Siam in the year 2550....

[Scott]

The firing of the reporter(s) was not justified because the story was true.  The fact that it was being covered up meant that there was bound to be some misinformation into the story.  It's not until, in this case the gov't, comes clean that the facts are known.  

It's obvious that there were cracks, so please tell me how we know there weren't overseas experts brought in to check it?  Because the former gov't said there weren't any?  But then they said there weren't any cracks either!!

The airport saga is far from over and I am glad the reporter was reinstated.  I am a bit miffed at the Post, but then again, without real, true and genuine safeguards, it's hard to have freedom of the press.

[John K]

blaze, on 2007-07-25 21:06:55, said:

John K, on 2007-07-25 20:56:55, said:

billrose, on 2007-07-25 09:26:44, said:

What makes you think that the MD of the Bangkok Post had any say in the decision to sack them?

Look a little higher!!!

Who was runnig the goverment at the time? Who's big baby was the new airport?

I disagree, the inconsistences continue. I forgot where but I did bring it up in a post earlier this year.

John, I think the poster is suggesting that Thaksin engineered the firing of the reporter. Still disagree?

Although I would love to say Thaksin is the root of this, I would only say that is partially true. Distorted news that puts the government in a better light still continues. I think it is more of “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”  The Thai government buys a lot of papers every week for the schools. ‘The Learning Post’ and so on. I think it more driven by money. The Bangkok post just had a major anniversary and I seem to remember a few Thai high ups attending.

[Plus]

Sermsuk said the decision to sack him as punishment came from the Post’s interim editor, David Armstrong....

Sermsuk was offered a “special amount” of money by Armstrong to encourage him to leave, together with a so-called guarantee letter testifying to the high standard of his work at the Post. But Sermsuk decided to stay and to stand up and fight for his dignity.

“Personally, I don’t believe Armstrong had a reason to do this [sacking] to me. He really acted improperly, threatening me strongly and impolitely. He began work at the Post less than a month earlier. I think he had a special mission, to get rid of us – me and Chadin,” the former news editor said....


“But what about the interim editor, Armstrong, who was also at the news meeting when we made the decision to publish the story despite it quoting only one source? He should not escape from that responsibility,” Sermsuk said.

http://nationmultime...date=2005-09-04



According to a reliable source, during the editorial meeting yesterday morning, which lasted about an hour, Armstrong lashed out at a demand by numerous editorial hands for him to be replaced. He went on to rebuke the 103 journalists, editors, and other staff who backed a call for his resignation, the source said.....

During the meeting Armstrong denied he had caved in to senior government officials demanding that he sack news editor Sermsuk, which he did on Monday.

The source said Armstrong stressed that Suttikiat Chirathiwat, the paper’s major shareholder, had also rejected allegations that any outside influence played a part in the decision....

http://nationmultime...date=2005-08-31

[John K]

Good story of the time, perhaps a little of what goes around comes around may be in the works for Strongarm. A dance with the devil as perhaps suggested by another....