NY Times article-36 Hours in Bangkok

Jun 28th, 2008, 08:09 AM
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,400
NY Times article-36 Hours in Bangkok

There is an article in this Sunday's NY Times travel section; 36 Hours in Bangkok.
http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/06/29...tml?ref=travel

I point it out not because the article is particularly useful, insightful, or even provides any new information, but precisely because it does not.
There is nothing in here which isn't already in half a dozen guidebooks. Articles like this make me wonder if the writer has even been there or just spent half an hour perusing a few guidebooks at his local Barnes and Noble.
I swear, if I see another recommendation for Cabbages and Condoms I am going to scream! Wow, a visit to the Grand Palace and then Wat Po, now that's different!

I know, I know, not everyone has been before. But how many articles like this have already been written? Why not at least make an effort to include something new and unusual?
Kristina is offline  
Jun 28th, 2008, 08:33 AM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,619
Kristina, I know just what you mean. I have become totally disillusioned with the NYT's 36 hours in... series. Nothing unusual, no suggestions that get someone closer to the people or give them a different perspective.

Kathie is offline  
Jun 28th, 2008, 09:03 AM
  #3  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 779
While the content of the article is a bit ordinary, there is also a link to a BKK slideshow. They have some great pictures there. Its astonishing what a professional photographer can do, as compared to my poor photo capabilities . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/200...URS_index.html
tengohambre is offline  
Jun 28th, 2008, 10:00 AM
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,619
The photos are nice, but didn't strike me as exceptional. Or perhaps I'm just miffed by the quality of the article. The writer apparently thinks the Singapore Sling was invented in Bangkok, refers to Wat Arun as a "downsized Angor Wat" and thinks the food at Cabbages and Codoms is well-prepared. Need I say more? It also perpetuates the idea that taxi travel in Bangkok is mission impossible. I'm always surprised by the new posters who are under the impression that one must not under any circumstances take a taxi in Bangkok, but here is the NYT saying that in print.
Kathie is offline  
Jun 28th, 2008, 01:07 PM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,664
The activities listed are actually a good first visit, but do not delve into the magic of BKK. Pretty pedestrian. Also, in the picture link, the Reclining Buddha is listed as 50 ffet high. Am I missing something, my perception was that it nowhere near this high. Am I mistaken?
Gpanda is offline  
Jun 28th, 2008, 02:04 PM
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,100
The Reclining Buddha is i5 metres high which is just about 50 feet

And whats the matter with Cabbages and Condoms restaurant. I think it is quite good and very resonable. But that is just me since I never have the need for expensive eating places.
Scotters is offline  
Jun 28th, 2008, 02:58 PM
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,400
I agree the photos are not exceptional; most of them are of hotel and restaurant interiors.

Kathie, I agree with you that it's perpetuating the myths around Bangkok; that's why it irritates me so much.

"What's the matter with Cabbages and Condoms?"
For me it's not about for "expensive" places, it's about the lack of recommendations for authentic local places. Instead, they list "safe", westernized places, which serve versions of Thai food similar to what we get here in the US.
Kristina is offline  
Jun 28th, 2008, 04:19 PM
  #8  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,619
In my view, C&C serves bland, dumbed-down food. There are lots of inexpensive places that serve more authentic food.
Kathie is offline  
Jun 28th, 2008, 08:16 PM
  #9  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,100
Quite true but maybe the average tourist is not a
Scotters is offline  
Jun 28th, 2008, 08:21 PM
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,100
Quite true but maybe the average tourist is not that interested in aauthentic Thai food and quite happy with the watered down version. I know many that don't even like anything hot or spicy but still love visiting Bangkok. So to eaxch his own
Scotters is offline  
Jun 28th, 2008, 08:30 PM
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,619
True, Scotters. We've certainly seen first-time visitors who loved C&C. I'm just disappointed that the NYT would give it's only mention of a restaurant to a place like C&C which is entirely oriented to tourists.
Kathie is offline  
Jun 29th, 2008, 05:19 AM
  #12  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,925
anything the nyt does is second rate and slanted....everyone knows that....well unless you live in cambridge where it is considered the second coming of C....
rhkkmk is offline  
Jun 29th, 2008, 06:22 AM
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,925
not a bad first timers guide, but very limited...
rhkkmk is offline  
Jun 29th, 2008, 10:54 AM
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,688
perhaps the NYT 36hrs is written to encourage the regular joe or josephine to go to those places. perhaps we should write the NYT to advise if they want to reach a well-traveled bunch (perhaps like Kristina) they should do a better job of in-depth reporting, and becoming more specific in their report of a location.

you have a good point Kristina.
GypsyMaiden is offline  
Jun 29th, 2008, 12:10 PM
  #15  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,281
That NYT photographer is a freakin' amateur. Nothing even remotely special about those photos.
Mango7 is offline  
Jun 29th, 2008, 02:04 PM
  #16  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,400
I understand that those "36 Hours" articles are geared toward a specific type of traveler, I just think they could have put forth a little more effort.

Yes, of course, tell people about the Grand Palace and Wat Po, but how about warning them against the legions of tuk tuk drivers and touts who will tell you it's closed for a "holiday"?
Instead of Patpong, why not mention the Night Market or weekend market?
Why recommend the same old hotels?And the food...well we've already discussed that.

Again, there is nothing in this article that isn't in a basic guidebook. Even if I'd never been before, I'd been looking for something different.

Let me write the article for "36 Hours in Paris", ok?
Make sure you go to the Louvre and the D'Orsay museums, Notre Dame and see the Eiffel Tower.
Walk the Champs-Elysees.
Stay at the Georges V or the Marriot (ask for an Eiffel Tower room!).
Eat at Taillevent, La Tour d'Argent and sit in a sidewalk cafe.
36 Hours. Done.
Kristina is offline  
Jun 29th, 2008, 02:51 PM
  #17  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,619
And you would have the idea that you've seen and done everything and never need to go back!
Kathie is offline  
Jun 29th, 2008, 03:22 PM
  #18  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,664
Perhaps someone should E-mail this thread to the travel editors at the NYT.
Gpanda is offline  
Jun 29th, 2008, 05:15 PM
  #19  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,400
Gpanda-
I don't usually write "letters to the editor" but I did look for a link off that article. I didn't see anywhere to comment. I suppose if I had searched the website I would have found something, but I admit to not trying very hard. ;-)
Kristina is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:19 AM.