05 May 2014
Andrew Marshall.
Over the years an unwelcome retinue of stalkers appeared at my heels. Only a few stand out. Just why I suffer from stalkers is a mystery: I am no Brad Pitt or Justin Bieber.
My latest stalker is Mr. Andrew MacGregor Marshall. This former Reuters bureau chief is infamous in Thailand for his criticism of the Thai Royal Family, his combative and insulting conduct on social media, his infatuation with prostitution, and endless parties.
To be clear, this is not to imply that any of these many women are prostitutes. We will get to those later. From Marshall’s own Facebook:
Marshall has shared more than 5,000 personal images on Facebook. When Marshall is not partying his way through Asia, he insults total strangers.
A typical Marshall Facebook post:
Some say that Marshall was not always unhinged. Friends of mine previously read his work and complimented him, but they soon stopped.
As a war correspondent, Marshall was a failure. Not one piece of writing, not one photograph, not one video, survives the test of posterity. Marshall and I were covering the same war at the same time, and I did not know that he existed. I did read the work of other war correspondents. Despite my long periods in Iraq, I never noticed Marshall.
Marshall's greatest claim to fame is excavating the WikiLeaks cables courtesy of former US soldier Bradley “Chelsea” Manning, who received a 35 year prison sentence for his efforts.
After Marshall left Baghdad, he dug into the stolen diplomatic cables pertaining to Thailand and he staked a claim as if he had discovered a new natural law. The WikiLeaks cables are available to anyone via a simple web search. Marshall contends that his interpretations and analyses of US State Department cables revolutionize the study of Thai society and politics.
Marshall does not tolerate those who disagree with his interpretations. He is infamous for combative conduct on social media.
Marshall has no evidence that the handicapped subject was a terrorist. This is a case of defamation atop mockery.
It is best to ignore stalkers, but given their prominence, a few must be addressed. In this case, Andrew MacGregor Marshall is an internationally known former news correspondent who published false and defamatory comments about my work and person at least a hundred times. If the publisher of Marshall's forthcoming book incorporates such commentary, a lawsuit could ensue. Fair warning.
In addition to being a former Reuters bureau chief, Marshall occasionally publishes on a freelance basis on CNN and Foreign Affairs. He is quoted in articles published on the BBC from time to time.
Stalkers are normally just individuals, but stalkers in the age of the Internet can be organized cheerleaders who orchestrate followers. For the purposes of this dispatch, a stalker is an individual or a group that doggedly pursues another, repetitively demanding acknowledgement, often stooping to character assassination.
Typical of Marshall’s followers, the poster below endorses violence against me because I am guilty of "smeering Yingluck and the reds in the cheapest ways possible." The bizarre thing is that Marshall and his followers claim that I smear the Reds when I observe that they use violence, when the Reds themselves often threaten violence in advance, then extol the bloodshed in true Hezbollah style. For an independent writer to observe that the Reds employ violence when they wage politics is no smear. The fact is, the Reds kill people like me.
Marshall started off politely. He did not receive the reciprocal attention from me that he demanded. I read a bit of his work on Thailand and I found it dull, but I never said this publicly, or privately. I forgot his name until he began throwing temper tantrums in my direction, month after month, beginning in December 2013.
Marshall’s messages to me became abusive, to the point where I blocked him on Facebook. This is a rare step for me. It was a shame to see a former Reuters bureau chief conduct himself this way.
Marshall then whipped up a storm of like-minded, equally profane readers on his Facebook page and Twitter. Marshall and his fan club support terrorism. We have no common ground.
When he is not partying or insulting strangers, Marshall loves to talk about prostitutes, usually under the guise of journalism. Marshall will seize any pretext to publish images of bar girls.
Of course Marshall rationalizes his frequent use of bar girl imagery. My words are not intended to disparage bar girls, but to illustrate Marshall's behavior. Mentioning bar girls and Marshall in the same sentence is not fair to bar girls.
Marshall’s readers are different than most who come to my pages. Many of Marshall’s readers who reside in Thailand waste an inordinate amount of time talking about prostitutes and seedy topics. In short, many appear to fit the profile of what are called “sexpats” here, and they are very different from the expatriates and the Thai patriots on my pages.
Prostitutes are never far from the minds of Marshall or members of his fan club. Many of them cannot write two sentences without scratching readers’ eyes with obscenities.
To wit:
There is another Reuters journalist by the name of Andrew R. C. Marshall. Andrew R. C. Marshall recently shared a Pulitzer for work co-produced in Thailand. Both Andrew Marshalls worked for Reuters in Thailand. The Pulitzer Prize-winning Marshall is British. The former journalist Marshall who obsesses about bar girls is Scottish. Needless to say, this leads to confusion.
When Marshall first tried to communicate with me, I was busy in Turkey studying the Syrian war. Marshall wanted my endorsement for his forthcoming book, and he forwarded an excerpt. He did not directly ask for my endorsement but that was clearly his intent. I believe that he wanted a comment to include on his book jacket.
Marshall was a wage earner at Reuters for 17 years, including a stint in Baghdad, so he may have felt that professional etiquette required that I cease research on Syria, and pay full attention to his writing about Thailand, which he apparently did while residing in Singapore and Cambodia.
There are a thousand books that I would like to read by authors who have “been there and done that." There was no time to labor through a disjointed manuscript about Thailand from a vulgar expatriate who has not stepped foot in the Kingdom in years. I read a few pages and he lost me. Aside from his barroom research, most of Marshall's work is secondhand. There was no chance that I would endorse his book.
Individuals and organizations who have acknowledged or endorsed my work range from The New York Times, The Boston Herald, The Los Angeles Times, CNN, BBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, Bruce Willis, Gary Sinise, Joe Galloway, Tom Ricks, Michael Barone, General David Petraeus, Ripley’s Believe it or Not!, numerous scientific papers, the Smithsonian's Air & Space, many books, and a thousand others in dozens of countries and languages.
This is not to boast. My interest is in serious people doing serious work, not in a malicious former journalist who insults the handicapped and who cannot keep his mind and tongue off of dance poles.
Marshall published pictures of himself getting a tattoo. Nobody cares about the tattoo.
Marshall often attacks total strangers. Perhaps he does it for the accolades of taking on someone with a higher profile, or with the satisfaction of a bully picking on people who are powerless to fight back. Perhaps the bitterness of his divorce from Reuters and his exile in Cambodia is too much to bear. After he lost his Reuters badge, doors did not open like they opened before. After all, the doors did not open for a party animal sexpat. They opened for Reuters. When Marshall lost his job, he lost access.
Marshall's total Facebook and Twitter followers number about 32,000. Considering his antics, that is a respectable following. My total is about 210,000. Clearly Marshall is angered that an independent writer with no affiliations can reach a vaster audience than a former journalist who was a bureau chief for a global media monster.
A journalist who expired.
The limited reach of his social media readership is due to his own, self-absorbed posts. Marshall the party animal continues to slosh around, posting selfies as if he is in high school:
Marshall does not grasp that one reason he cannot build a serious readership or a larger audience could be due to his immaturity, despite that he is over forty years-old. Without his Reuters badge, what is Marshall? Was the fission between Reuters and Marshall so explosive that the fallout leaves him radioactive and unemployable?
Now that he is unemployed, attacking high profile subjects like the King of Thailand might seem a wise strategy. Such malfeasance has real world consequences.
Marshall is contemptuous and disrespectful of Thai culture.
When the mysterious or the unexplained happens in Thailand, such as the murder of a high profile activist, it is often said to be the work of an “invisible hand." On many occasions during nocturnal attacks on peaceful protestors this year in Bangkok, Whistleblower guards fought back against unseen perpetrators. Victims died.
This tweet is indicative of the way that Marshall's mind works. He cannot pass up the opportunity to mock a handicapped man:
This stunned many readers:
A member of Marshall's fan club defended by doubling down:
We expect a Reuters journalist to be like this:
Not like this:
Marshall cannot seem to help himself. He often derides victims for physical handicaps, or for obesity, or because they do not meet his standard for personal beauty.
In this 2011 video, at the 5'20" mark, Marshall describes how nobody should have to endure gratuitous insults.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9uRqv9jHbE
Marshall the former journalist demanded that I debate him. It is noteworthy that he did not ask me privately, which would have been the professional approach. Instead, Marshall engaged in what is for him, a normal public spectacle.
When Marshall’s work in Thailand became too whacky, Reuters washed their hands of him. Marshall countered, claiming that he resigned as a matter of conscience.
Either way, Marshall is not setting himself up for future success. When Marshall is not obsessing over bar girls, insulting the unattractive and mocking the handicapped, Marshall insults the Royal Family of the Kingdom of Thailand.
It is not just boorish to disparage the Thai Royal Family here, it is illegal, and it profoundly upsets good Thai people. Those who do not reside in the Kingdom, or who have not spent considerable time here, likely do not understand the fervency of the personality cult of His Majesty the King.
The personality cult of the King of Thailand is pervasive, and it is as potent as a system of religious belief, though it is important to note that the Thai do not worship their King as a deity. They know that he is a man, and the Thai are familiar with many gods. But foreigners often misinterpret the love that the Thai feel for their King, and the nearest phenomenon that they can compare it to, is a profound religious belief.
Marshall's criticisms of the Thai Royal Family are personal, speculative, abusive, and dismissive, and they are light years beyond sober observations. Marshall does not seek to inform. Marshall seeks to incite.
Muslims are provoked to furious anger over any slight directed at the Prophet Mohammed, or any disrespect for Allah. Fatal riots are not uncommon. This is the closest comparison that I can draw, though the personality cult of the King is not as volatile. Muslims and Christians in Thailand deeply revere the King, in part because of his support for religious freedoms. Mocking His Majesty the King will not incur a death sentence, but fines and incarceration are common. For foreigners who disparage the Thai Royalty, banishment, expulsion and blacklisting typically follow a stretch in prison.
For the Thai people, His Majesty the King is more than a beloved Grandfather. The Thai people deeply love him and he has been a very good king for Thailand. Marshall's insults are supremely disrespectful, incredibly inconsiderate, and deeply wounding. What Marshall does on a small scale on social media, abusing and insulting strangers, he also does on a vaster scale, insulting and antagonizing an entire culture, belittling the Thai Royalty, and the Thai people.
But what better way to explain getting booted from Reuters, where Marshall worked for 17 years and was a bureau chief? Marshall could simply write words that he knew his bosses would never publish, statements that are illegal in Thailand, allegations that would get him, and Reuters, banned and blacklisted, and he could claim that he resigned as a matter of conscience.
Thai laws on lèse majesté may be draconian by Western standards, but foreigners who wish to remain in the kingdom comply with them. By way of illustration, in America most political commentary is protected by the First Amendment. Americans can say almost anything that is not false and defamatory, with the exception of threatening the life of the president.
Americans can castigate our president for his policies or his behavior, and no one will pay much attention. But if someone threatens the life of the president, he can expect a visit from the Secret Service. Prosecution is common. So we can say that America enjoys freedom of speech, up to a point.
The US, lawsuits derive daily from defamation in the US. Some people lose everything they own, and even future earnings in these lawsuits. In Thailand, the Royal Family is not permitted to sue people, so the government uses criminal defamation law instead.
Under Thai laws on lèse majesté, criticism of the King and the Royal Family is off-limits. It is rude to call the Prime Minister of Thailand a hooker, and this actually happens every day, even though it is defamatory and untrue. There are no or few consequences. Like America, Thailand enjoys much freedom of speech. Up to a point.
These laws on lèse majesté are, moreover, a matter for the Thai people to address in their own time. Simple respect dictates that foreigners avoid commenting on them if they expect to live here. These “cultural laws” are Thai business. Every country has cultural red lines not to cross. It goes without saying that Marshall should not abuse such laws to whitewash his manipulations and gather attention.
Note that Marshall set up his dispute with Reuters in the most public way possible. He tried to pit Reuters against the Kingdom, transgressing the laws against lèse majesté as a publicity stunt to garner attention for his book.
Typical Marshall post.
Marshall’s book is allegedly scheduled for release in October. He knows that his odds of success are small. He knows that audiences rarely read his work, they read the work of Reuters, or the work of a “former Reuters bureau chief.” Marshall does not have a standalone name that will translate into book sales. His writing skills are generic. So generic that nobody seems to recall a single piece from the wars.
There is no mass audience for speculations about the succession in Thailand. While it is an important subject for the Thai, and there is an academic niche market addressing it, Marshall lacks credentials and credibility as an academic. Marshall's book will not be available in Thailand, and his combative advocacy of his own analyses alienates others who disagree with him, no matter how mildly.
Marshall’s banishment from the Kingdom of Thailand was his own manufactured stunt to cover his downfall from Reuters. If his actions were not a stunt, and he did not intend to damage the reputation of Reuters for his own personal gain, Marshall could have quietly resigned, departed the Kingdom, and gone on his way. But he made the normal spectable.
Marshall's stalker-club photoshopped my missing cat King Kong, and me, into a photo from a conference. Marshall wanted me to come to the Thai conference in Australia to debate him.
Marshall needs to get a hold of himself. I will not debate a poor writer who was manipulative with Reuters and who habitually insults and mocks the handicapped.
Marshall mocked the health of the 86 year-old King of Thailand.
The King has been a blessing to this country. Mocking him for ill health is sickening.