An article in The Guardian yesterday reveals The Economist took the decision themselves not to distribute the current edition in Thailand.
"We decided not to distribute The Economist in Thailand last week out of consideration for our local distributor, who would otherwise have risked breaching Thai laws," the story quotes an unnamed spokesperson as saying.
I'm not sure what to make of this? They write a story which was, in part, critical of Thai laws yet they cite those same Thai laws as the reason for not distributing the magazine this week. Am I alone in thinking this doesn't make sense and, in some ways, weakens the argument they make in their original stories?
Sure it makes sense.
ReplyDeleteYou might not like the law, you might think it's a bad law, but the reality is IT IS STILL THE LAW and breaking a law you disagree with carries the same consequences as breaking a law you agree with.
I agree - they are running scared. How much must this have cost them? The only other comment I have is that maybe this will raise the profile of this magazine and increase demand.
ReplyDelete