Thai media, civil society discuss objectivity in covering on-going political crisis
(7 May 2010) Thai media groups and members of civil society agreed in the recently concluded World Press Freedom Day observance in Bangkok that fair and responsible reporting is crucial in addressing the political crisis in the kingdom.
Thai media somberly observed the occasion on 3 May this year as many journalists themselves had a divided opinion of what is really "a responsible role of the media"--whether mainstream press or new media--to help bring about a peaceful end to the country's protracted and violently escalating political conflict.
A recent survey conducted by Suan Dusit independent pollster on "Thai Media Today" showed that 28.10% of the 1,251 respondents perceived the media as enjoying relatively more freedom.
However, the survey--conducted between 29 April and 2 May--noted that despite this, the media failed to provide its audience with complete facts during the current political crisis, at best giving only partial information owing to challenges facing the different media outlets.
During the past five years of the unprecedented political polarization in Thailand, the media has become an unwitting party to the conflict as each side sought to use it as a political weapon.
For one thing, the emergence of the anti-Thaksin Yellow Shirt movement with unconventional media campaigns, along with the democratization of the media--in which the mainstream press no longer dominates the flow of information--have placed freedom of expression in Thailand to a crucial test.
Nevertheless, the critical debate among journalists in the face of the current political crisis is not so much about media's independence but rather the temptation of taking sides in the on-going conflict, thus increasing the risk of jeopardizing the government's current peace-building efforts, which also happen to be supported by members of civil society.
Observers of the media's coverage of the violence-plagued political stand-off that has been going on since the anti-government Red Shirts resumed their street protests in Bangkok on 12 March, noted that media outlets with outright political bias are to be blamed for giving false information and distorted facts about events and statements of leaders from both sides.
These observers also criticized the government for taking a double-standard approach in controlling information by shutting down the media outlets that either supported or sympathized with the Red Shirt cause, at the same time using the state-owned and -controlled media outlets as a tool to demonize the protesters. During a panel discussion on "How can free media contribute to peace-building?" organized by the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) and its allies as part of their World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) celebration, Sunai Phasuk, an advisor to Human Right Watch, said the media should maintain a certain degree of professionalism in its reporting, and should give out facts, not fiction, notwithstanding the political stance of the concerned media outlet.
Sunai, however, said that from what he observed, the media outlets of both the government and the Red Shirts have on several occasions presented false information and distorted facts to their respective audiences.
Sunai's remarks were supported by other panelists, including Dr. Ekaphan Pinthavanit, a professor at Mahidol University's Peace Study and Development Center, who concurred that the media organizations with partisan views performed irresponsibly. He cited as an example the two sides' different interpretations of the video clips of the 10 April violent clash between the security forces and Red Shirt protesters at Rachadamnoen Avenue.
While acknowledging that partiality undeniably exists among the individual media outlets, Dr. Ekaphan said it should only be allowed as long as the media organization remains accountable for the political belief it espouses. The academic suggested that media organizations with a political agenda can still perform a professional service by attempting to find common ground for the opposing parties.
Dr. Pana Thongmee-arkom, a member of the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) said impartiality is almost impossible to achieve. "What matters is that the media offers balanced information. So far, the information that mainly come from the mainstream press is imbalanced and reflects more the views of urban dwellers and not much of the rural people's opinions," said Dr. Pana. The NTC said that the media with its respected status in a democratic society must promote a peaceful solution as it is a well-informed witness to the political situation.
The views shared in the panel discussion are crucial to the on-going efforts by professional media groups and civil society to explore proper ethical conduct and professional practices in the industry in order to promote peace, at the same time ensuring that free expression and press freedom are not suppressed.
TJA and its allies have been heavily criticized for failing, through their self-regulatory mechanism, to address what many view as a "free expression overdose" that inadvertently worsens the current political crisis.
Nevertheless, Sunai believed that self-regulation is still the way to go for the media. He said the state's attempts to use censorship on the mainstream media, online expression and the opposition's media outlets only proved to be ineffective. "It only causes a balloon effect, given the power of information technology, and only serves to aggravate social hatred," said the human rights advocate. Dr. Somkiat Onwimol, an independent media producer and news commentator, suggested that the new media should be allowed to chart its course and regulate itself. On the other hand, he suggested that the mainstream media should focus on strengthening its traditional role.
"The mainstream media must adhere to its standards of professionalism by consistently providing facts and searching for the truth, objectively educating the public about current affairs and democracy, offering independent opinions and views and offering itself as a public platform for all voices in society," said the veteran news commentator.
Sunai said self-regulation of the media industry should be actively encouraged. Players in new media must also do likewise if only to keep the free expression environment healthy. "The media professional groups should impose stricter ethical control and provide effective and appropriate remedy to address irresponsible practices by the press and should be in a position to share their experience in news reporting and introduce self-regulatory measures to the new media," said the human right advocate.
Dr. Ekaphan also suggested the professional media groups should invite experts to educate the media about the concept of peace journalism and media reporting in a conflict situation. They all agreed that the public also has to shoulder a fair share of responsibility in achieving peace by learning to tolerate pluralism in the media, using critical judgment to screen information they receive and be more open to different opinions and diverse sources of information.
Comments
Censorship is quite
Censorship is quite unproductive. It conflicts the flow of information and, because it drives toward the use of mostly briefer methods of communication it forces messages to be more extreme.
Since 1832, the military, using the monarchy as cover and in cooperation with big business families (generally grouped as the Bangkok Elites), has been in control of Thailand with various thin layers of civilian and political leaders rising and falling at the whim of the military.
The military in the aftershock of 1992 allowed the writing of a reasonably democratic constitution and allowed, facilitated even, Thaksin Shinawatra to take power after his election win.
As usual it wasnt long before the military discovered that Thaksins popularity looked like it could threaten their power and wealth creation schemes. After he was re-elected, they funded the PAD and others to campaign for his removal.
The 2006 coup and aftermath is now history and the military are still trying to put Thaksin's "spawn" back into their museum.
Until someone is able to control the military, lock them in their barracks, banned from any involvement in business, politics and any actions inside the country, attempts at democracy will fail in Thailand.
Without the military, the government, reds with Peu Thai representing the majority of people and the police acting in their normal crime catching and crowd control roles will be able to act like normal political rivals and develop democratic solutions.
The insurgency in the south of Thailand will also subside since it is fuelled primarily by the same rule by the military ("Bangkok elites") that is inspiring the reds only more so because the military in the south are exercising their violence, sadism and illegal businesses at levels so far not permitted to them, except in treating certain groups like refugees and "illegal migrant workers" in the rest of the country.
Fears of the PAD, and even perhaps the reds, disturbing the peace and distorting political outcomes will evaporate when no group is able to call on or be inspired by military support.
Bottling the military is an ongoing challenge for every democracy, for example witness the recent upsurgence of military power in the US, but must be achieved and sustained.
Now, how can someone achieve this in Thailand?
A recent survey conducted by
A recent survey conducted by Suan Dusit independent pollster on "Thai Media Today" showed that 28.10% of the 1,251 respondents perceived the media as enjoying relatively more freedom.
Translation : Twenty-eight percent of the respondents were management, stroking the government men. The media are clearly less free than ever.
However... despite this, the media failed to provide its audience with complete facts during the current political crisis, at best giving only partial information owing to challenges facing the different media outlets.
Translation : Since "media freedom" is a fraud, "free media" are a fraud as well.
...the media has become an unwitting party to the conflict as each side sought to use it as a political weapon.
Translation : It's not our fault that we print what we do and screen what we screen, we're too witless, that is too stupid, to understand what we print and screen. Right.
For one thing, the emergence of the anti-Thaksin Yellow Shirt movement with unconventional media campaigns... have placed freedom of expression in Thailand to a crucial test.
Translation : The full-blown propaganda mills dominate the media now. The mainstream is now chasing the propaganda mills. The entire mass communication machine lurches further and further right. Any alternative is outlawed.
Nevertheless, the critical debate... is not so much about media's independence but rather the temptation of taking sides in the on-going conflict, thus increasing the risk of jeopardizing the government's current peace-building efforts, which also happen to be supported by members of civil society.
Translation : We always have always been house organs for the government, but now we are aligned with the "members of civil society", aka the Yellow/No/Multicolor/Brown Shirts, and we are moving our line in concert with theirs - to the far-far-right, far-right of the government.
Observers... noted that media outlets with outright political bias are to be blamed for giving false information and distorted facts about events and statements of leaders from both sides.
Translation : All the Thai media are "outlets with outright political bias". Exceptions have been shut down, and we are giving "false information and distorted facts about statements and events". What are you gonna do about it?
Removing the military from
Removing the military from power in Thailand will take the resources of all of society. I don't know how the military will be toppled in Thailand, but here's one way it might happen.
Bangkok prefers rule by the military to rule by the people. They've proved that, again, in 2006 and have constantly reaffirmed it since. Bangkok is a fairly large part of society and commands resources in excess of its size. As long as this relatively powerful minority prefers military rule to democracy it's hard to see how democracy can prevail.
But fleshing out the rural, agrarian infrastructure will produce vastly more wealth for Bangkok to skim than is available now. Bangkok has to get over its fear and loathing of Thailand, embrace the country, and move forward from there. The greed of Bangkokians will be much better served by an alliance with Thailand than by continuing their very expensive alliance with the military. But until Bangkok realizes this the stalemate will continue.
I think its really just sloth and prejudice on the part of Bangkokians. It always seems easier to do nothing rather than to do something, and similarly, it seems easier to service stereotypes than to venture forth into reality.
I feel quite privileged
I feel quite privileged really, to see such complete humbug and buffoonery delivered with an (apparently) straight face is something of an occasion.
Surely the Thai media recognise that they are not a part of the solution, they are a large part of the problem.
But then perhaps not I guess.