For much of his career, the British journalist Andrew MacGregor Marshall has covered Southeast Asia for Thomson Reuters. During that time, he developed a particular fondness for Thailand, learning the language and falling for the “warmth and joie de vivre of the Thai people.” From 2000 to 2002, he was deputy chief of the wire’s Bangkok bureau, and in the years since he returned often, from his base in Singapore, to write about the political and social turmoil that roils the kingdom.
In June, though, Marshall quit Thomson Reuters after seventeen years to publish a three-hundred-plus-page story—on the Internet, for free—that has made him a wanted man in his beloved Thailand and will likely prevent him from safely returning there for years. “People thought I was crazy,” says Marshall, not to be confused with the Andrew Marshall who is Time’s Southeast Asia correspondent. “They probably still think I’m crazy.”
There is, however, a method to Marshall’s madness. He had grown increasingly frustrated at his inability, and that of journalism generally, to tell the full and honest story of the kingdom’s ongoing political crisis, which at its core is about the unspoken role the monarchy plays in the politics of a country that claims to be a free and functioning democracy. This crisis produced a military coup in 2006, and street protests and occasional violence ever since.
Thailand is a country that runs on rumor, due to a chilling trifecta of laws: defamation, the computer crimes act, and a draconian lèse majesté law that makes it illegal to insult the monarchy. Together, they criminalize essentially all candid public discussion of politics and power in the kingdom and make serious reporting all but impossible. (I ran afoul of Thai press laws, too, in 2009, and had to flee the country. You can read my story at cjr.org/behind_the_news/fry_in_thailand.php.) Marshall calls Thailand a country of secrets and describes reporting there as an exercise in taking “baby steps” towards truth.
That changed dramatically for him in March, when Reuters gained access to the trove of 250,000 secret US diplomatic cables that WikiLeaks dumped on the world in November 2010. Marshall homed in on the three thousand cables that pertained to Thailand, which the rest of the journalism world had mostly ignored. “The cables went far beyond baby steps,” he says. “They just ripped everything wide open.”
He knew he had a story that Reuters would never publish, and that he would need to leave the company to write. (Reuters has publicly stated that it could not publish the work because of “questions regarding length, sourcing, objectivity, and legal issues.”) Marshall left with copies of the cables—the cache from Thailand, but other countries too—a decision that strained his relationship with Reuters, but which he justifies as being in the spirit of the information and transparency. “I never wanted to put my colleagues in danger,” he says. “I was doing it because I believed in journalism and that I could do some good.”
Marshall has published two parts of his four part story, entitled “Thailand’s Moment of Truth: A Secret History of 21st Century Siam,” and plans to publish parts three and four soon. It draws largely on these cables, complemented by his own reporting. It offers an account of Thailand’s recent troubles that is unprecedented in its scope and candor, reaching back through the country’s history to provide insight into the current situation. Marshall dissects the messy political and royal dynamics. He depicts the kingdom in the throes of a behind-the-scenes power struggle and succession crisis that continues to mount as the much-revered but ailing King Bhumibol fades from relevance in a Bangkok hospital.
- 1
- 2
You seem to have forgotten the Marshall walked from Reuters after being reprimanded for making the kind of crass sexist comment that would get him thrown out of pretty much every single company in either the USA or Europe.
#1 Posted by Oh, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 01:09 PM
Actually, Oh, your statement is wholly wrong. I resigned from Reuters in June 2011 over their refusal to publish #thaistory. I could still be working at Reuters to this day, had I agreed to continue self-censoring coverage on Thailand. I have never been reprimanded for making any sexist comment, crass or otherwise. Perhaps you are referring to an incident in March 2011 when I made a joke about a male colleague's baldness and was later sent a disciplinary letter [correct details are here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mp-nunan/thomson-reuters-to-war-re_b_853810.html] Although I was stunned to be reprimanded over that incident, it was the fifth formal reprimand I had received during 17 years at Reuters, and they never seemed to do my career any harm. That incident clearly didn't do anything to enhance my respect for Reuters management in Asia, but it was not connected to my decision to resign. If you read the prologue of #thaiatory, the events that led to my resignation are discussed in some detail. Best wishes.
#2 Posted by Andrew MacGregor Marshall, CJR on Fri 23 Sep 2011 at 06:43 PM
Try making a sexist joke about bald, female genitalia (you know full well it wasn't just about your bald colleague - that's a misrepresentation) on an internal staff forum at Columbia University (or any other US university). See what happens.
While your work on thaistory has been of some interest and I applaud you for it, your reasons for leaving Reuters have been completely overstated.
#3 Posted by Oh, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 02:20 AM
I'm interested you seem to think you know better than me what my reasons for leaving Reuters were. You are entirely wrong about the 2011 incident, either through ignorance or because you are wilfully misrepresenting it. I made a joke about a colleague's baldness, and at no time then or at any other time in my career did I make a sexist joke. Please read the details for yourself before throwing around spurious accusations:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/business/2011/04/reuters-journalists-fired-disciplined-remarks/36835/
Following that incident, I continued to work at Reuters, as normal, until I was told they would not publish #thaistory, and I resigned immediately. Those are the facts. I'd welcome your clarification of which part of this series of events I have misrepresented. Because it seems that you are the one misrepresenting this story. I'm delighted to debate any aspect of #thaistory or the circucumstances in which I left Reuters, but please do ensure you have a reasonable grasp of the basic facts before entering any debate. Namaste!
#4 Posted by Andrew MacGregor Marshall, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 04:11 AM
You are dissembling. You know full well that that bald joke related initially to comments about bald female genitalia. You and your colleague (who was fired) desperately attempted to delete them from the Reuters internal forum but failed - hence your reprimand.
That little detail doesn't fit your "back story" narrative of heroic freedom fighting journalist who dramatically gave up his career to publish his work (where is part 3? you claimed several weeks ago you were going to publish it but couldn't because of a failure of google docs - which was completely spurious as google docs have been working fine).
Your work - a rehash of publicly available cables, cut with stuff taken from previously authored texts - has hardly been ground breaking or had much impact beyond journalist circles.
The entire thing has been incredibly overdramatized, your carefully constructed backstory is tiresome and your credibility suffers with it. It is now resembling a circus.
Please quit your overbearing histrionics and get on with publishing some decent journalism.
#5 Posted by Oh, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 05:27 AM
I think the fact that my work has attracted so many anonymous and inaccurate attacks like this one amply demonstrates that it has already had a rather significant impact. Please do take a look at the links above. You will see that I was disciplined for asking a bald colleague in Japan: "So how is the radiation situation mate? Has your hair been falling out?" And that had nothing to do with my departure from Reuters two months later. My colleague's reply was a mistake, and led to problems for him.
Perhaps you are confused, or perhaps you just want to try to discredit #thaistory because of its potential implications for Thailand. Either way, you really should get your facts in order. I'd also urge all other readers of this exchange to look at the links I gave above, read the details of the case, and decide for yourself whether I am dissembling or whether others are trying to undermine #thaistory. If you conclude that it's the latter, I hope it encourages more of you to read and share #thaistory. Namaste!
#6 Posted by Andrew MacGregor Marshall, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 06:57 AM
Why do you immediately try to smear anyone who criticizes you or your work as being part of some "anti-thaistory" conspiracy? Evidence, once more, of your slightly histrionic self-promotion.
Readers here should note I applauded your efforts so your retort comes off as a bit paranoid. Your links are also to your own comments on the situation so are hardly neutral, objective fact.
Here is a fact: your Reuters colleague made jokes about bald female genitalia which you then joined in with. Your "joke" was clearly meant to have a double-meaning.
Also, why didn't you just publish thaistory anonymously? Why all the grandstanding? Where is part 3? Why the faux google docs excuse?
You have become the story rather than the story itself.
#7 Posted by Oh, CJR on Sat 24 Sep 2011 at 07:09 AM
re: Oh's repetitive and onerous comments
It would seem that Mr. Oh is working for the PAD/Yellow/Royalist cult in Thailand in his slanderous and false comments regarding Andrew Marshall's history at Reuters. Rather pathetic in my opinion but now that I think about it, most of the diehard PAD/Yellow Royalist fanatics in Thailand are on the pathetic side of the equation.
#8 Posted by Nathan, CJR on Sat 1 Oct 2011 at 05:57 PM
"Oh" (actually somebody I know using a fake name) is correct that #thaistory3 is taking forever. Guilty as charged. But when it is published, I promise it will be very good indeed.
The repeated efforts to claim I left Reuters because of some kind of sexist remark have become tiresome. I don't wish to cause a distraction from more serious issues like Thailand's future, but if anybody wants to know exactly what happened in the case mentioned, a full account is provided here: http://www.zenjournalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/appeal6.pdf
It should be added that Reuters ended up agreeing with what I wrote, and settled amicability with my college David Fox. The incident was unconnected to my departure from Reuters.
Namaste...
#9 Posted by Andrew MacGregor Marshall, CJR on Wed 12 Oct 2011 at 06:28 AM