The dust has settled in Bangkok after weeks of protest
and a violent crackdown in May that left 91 dead and hundreds injured.
But the anger is still simmering below the surface, with plenty of criticism of international media coverage on newspaper letters pages and ex-pat discussion boards.
I can tell you, there was a lot of anger out there. I suffered my first 'death Tweet' when someone half-heartedly threatened to "burn down the BBC" the next time they were in London.
The red-shirts will be back for the next phase of what was something between a class struggle and a not quite clear-cut case of political manipulation.
The poorer masses' folk hero and far-from-democrat Thaksin Shinawatra
still rattles the bars from his self-imposed exile outside Thailand, avoiding jail for a corruption conviction.
Many people are still angry and still energised by what he did for them and what he promises to do.
They aren't all dirt poor, but the core red-shirt supporters see the lives of the rich elite in Bangkok and wonder why they don't get more of a fair share.
Despite the government's efforts towards reconciliation, there is deep division and a sense it cannot do anything right, however healthy the economy may strangely be.
Media reform is the focus of a committee set up in the aftermath of the fighting of 19 May. I asked the prime minister's spokesman why he felt the work the government is actually doing towards targeting the poor is not making an impact, and the answer was a little scary.
"That's exactly why we need media reform," he said.
Thailand suffers from self-censorship, primarily because of the lese majeste laws which prevent open criticism of the king or the royal family. I can't go into too much detail as I live in Bangkok and the closed world of lese majeste investigations can result in 15-year jail terms.
The king is said to be above politics - not involved in these matters - but his recent poor health has prompted questions as to where the country is going next.
Thailand also suffers from real censorship. Tens of thousands of web pages have been blocked; a special unit has been expanded to cope with the monitoring. And much opposition media has been banned across the board and labelled "hate speech".
Some community radio stations are guilty of 'hate speech', but a blanket ban risks starving the angry of a vent for their point of view and inflaming the very situation the government is trying to contain.
The continued State of Emergency in Bangkok and other provinces, and jailing of red-shirt leaders, also forces the voices of criticism underground.
Thailand is especially polarised at the moment - even we foreign correspondents, as outsiders, are labelled 'red' or 'yellow' - the colour of the red's royalist, mass-protesting rivals.
The foreign media has been pilloried in the English-language press, often by ex-pats rather than Thais. CNN took a lot more criticism than the BBC; very little of it specific or justified. Social media, especially Twitter, saw a frenzy of anti-media sentiment which at one point verged on a witch hunt.
The biggest criticism was that we were not covering the crisis deeply enough - that, by missing out key details, our coverage was biased. We were also wrongly accused of things by people who were clearly not watching our output, which then became 'facts' in the Twittersphere.
If you've got this far in my blog post, you've done well - that stuff at the top about Thaksin and who the red-shirts are and what they want is hard to get your head around. And it's even harder to explain in the 20 seconds you might be able to set aside for background context in a tight Ten O'Clock News piece.
I even Tweeted
a challenge for people to send - in one Tweet - a summary of the background to the Thailand crisis ... and then to try to do it again for people who had never been to the country.
I received some interesting answers and it went some way to helping explain what the BBC's job is in Thailand. It is not a national TV channel. But in the absence of unbiased Thai journalism - particularly on 19 May when the violent events in the heart of Bangkok were not allowed to be shown live - people looked to the international channels for news.
They were then disappointed not to be getting the in-depth analysis they hoped for, and, perhaps more importantly, not getting the analysis which fell in line with their point of view.
The daily Nation newspaper published complaint letters day after day - some of them reprints of the same letters written by the same people.
On one occasion, I tried to confront the critics in an open discussion panel at a university on media freedom. My comment "I struggle every day to ensure I stick to the BBC's principles of balance, fairness and accuracy" was even misquoted as "the BBC admitted it struggled to be balanced, fair or accurate".
The dust may have settled for now, but the problems in Thailand have not been solved. They will be back, and perhaps worse than before. The media will again be attacked from all sides.