In turn, I responded:

—

Thank you for responding.

First of all, I have no ill will towards you as “an American journalist pissing on your town a little too personally.” It’s merely as I say: journalists getting FACTS wrong – deliberately or otherwise – gives us all a bad name. I agree in principle that us “colleagues” should help each other, but not to the point of tolerating practises which harm the trade.

A copy editor changing something, I can accept. It can happen to anybody. And also I can believe you walked around town, as uncomfortable as it may have been. That in itself that is to be applauded because the best way to get a feel for a city is at ground level.

However, it remains that you made some huge errors and to simply dismiss them with a “but really – so what” does you no favours. You may argue it’s not important, and to the readers who have never been here, it wouldn’t be. But you can see from the comments attached to the Maxim Online version and The Shark Guys blog (not mine), that others DO consider it important.

The penis shrine and Bangkok Dan were addressed by The Shark Guys, not me, so I have no comment on that. Neither do I know Bangkok Dan, so I’m unavailable to pass on any messages, but certainly if I ever meet him, I will ask. As a “colleague” I do know that differences between interviewer and interviewee can arise, so I won’t automatically assume anything on either side.

Yes, you addressed SOME of the issues, and I appreciate that, but nevertheless the errors were too big to be brushed off, and I did take particular exception to the child prostitution angle. I suppose you can say it did happen, and if so, there’s nothing I can do to prove you wrong. It’s just surprising that someone who lives here has never seen anything even resembling that, yet you found it almost immediately.

Finally, regarding the “ethics” of someone here trying to sell you the photo. First of all, it’s not my department, as I am a mere sub. Secondly, not that I’m excusing it, but it would hardly be the first time such opportunities were pursued in our trade. Finally, if he was attempting to sell fake photos, then I would have just as much indignancy for him as I would for someone selling a story with false reportage, regardless of who his employer is.

Again, thank you for taking the time to reply, and for allowing the debate to be public. As I do not know you, I assure you it’s nothing personal, and while it’s natural you have defended yourself, I do hope you take on board the things that have been said, even if they may have been said in a more acidic fashion than you appreciate.

Regards,

Oliver

The author responds to Bangkok Post sub-editor, Oliver Fennell:

It really is amusing to see the outrage coming at me about the Maxim story, especially when it’s spearheaded by a “colleague.” I come from a place where we in the ink trade try to help each other out rather than tear each other down, but, with you, I’ll bite. Do I think the story is perfect? Hell no. They never are. I was in town for three short days, and did the best I could in a strange city. Sure, there were some factual errors in what made it to the printed page, but nothing more egregious than my editor swapping out “tuk tuks” for “rickshaws.” Hell, I caught that one myself.

The other BIG issue for you seems to be with my sense of local geography. Sorry man, but I walked from the Nai Lert Park Hotel down Telegraph to and around the places described (Patpong, Nana, Cowboy) in an evening – and I passed embassies on the way. I may be off in distances traveled and the time it took to walk from one place to another, but really – so what?

What else? The “penis shrine” in the room. It should be clear that I was quoting your coroner on that one, and that I knew of the actual shrine outside the hotel. I described it straight away in my piece.

I think I’ve addressed the issues leading the outraged posse to claim that I wasn’t even there, and am left with the feeling that you all are just taking an American journalist pissing on your town a little too personally.

Don’t like my prose? I’m honored that you took the time to respond to it. Anger is a valid response to my journalism, but riddle me the irony of the guy trying to sell me the Carradine morgue photos BEING ON STAFF AT YOUR NEWSPAPER. Think hard on that before you start banging me on ethics, friend. And if you see “Bangkok Dan” around town, tell him I think he’s a pussy for trying to back-flip off of his on the record taped quotes, put down in perfect context. I promised him nothing in exchange for the interview (not a bottle – nothing) and actually thought he was a nice guy until I read his bullshit comments.

Anyway Oliver, there’s your response. Feel free to share it with the posse.

I wish you continued success and joy,

Mark Ebner

NOtthenation already uncovered the real story on Carradine’s death months before Maxim

http://bangkok-noir.blogspot.com/2009/10/frederic-mitterand-french-minister-of.html

OK, you’re on, but only if you promise not to hire the services of a ninja child bride prostitute, who earns pocket money as a sidewalk cripple beggar and can also charm poisonous snakes into doing her bidding. Apparently she’s the talk of “The Patpong”.

tuk tuk/not rickshaw,

Ebner
http://www.hollywoodinterrupted.com