On the media’s role

The events associated with the Songkhran Uprising in April appear to have placed the mainstream media under considerable and deserved scrutiny. Some of the political and mental gymnastics this provokes is displayed in two stories in The Nation. The two stories are:

In The Nation (29 May 2009: “Media’s duty is to stir debate: seminar”), a longer version of what actually appeared in the published version of The Nation, Thai Journalist’s Association (TJA) president Prasong Lertratanawisute opined that the Thai media was “not inclined to accept criticism and there was a need to promote more media monitoring.” While we are not sure what kind of monitoring Prasong wants, we are sure that the military and the government are monitoring.

Prasong then admits that some of the criticism of the local media has been justified and he points to “double-standard treatment of political groups, one-sided reports, or a tendency to omit reporting lese majeste cases”.

No prizes for guessing which bits were left out of the print version, but Prasong then talks more about “lese majeste-related news,” and says, “The media dare not report it because they have been taught [not to]. It’s a deep-rooted culture.”

Prasong then urged the government to do something about the government’s and especially the military’s control of the media, mentioning the army’s 200 radio frequencies. Perhaps being even-handed, he also mentioned the explosion of community radios and said that the mainstream media “don’t know how to handle the issue…”.

Chulalongkorn University’s Pirongrong Ramasoota seemed to explain part of the latter’s confusion, observing that the “conventional media had proven themselves too ‘urban-centric and middle-class- centric’ at the cost of neglecting news about rural and poor people. The rural poor are aware of this, she said, and have started to look for alternative media.”

In the second piece in The Nation (29 May 2009: “The media under scrutiny; journalists have their say”), the TJA’s secretary-general, Pradit Ruangdit, seems to provide a different perspective.

Pradit (of the Bangkok Post) is asked: “What are your views on the role of media in Thailand’s current political crisis?” and he responds that he “satisified,” even with the government-owned NBT, in providing balance by giving space to all partisan positions. PPT isn’t convinced that Pradit is watching and reading the same media we are.

Pradit adds that his main concern “that the mainstream media must not be a tool of propaganda and distort information…”. Maybe he should ask his president to explain to him the military’s position in the media.

When asked if the mainstream media was balanced during the political crisis, Pradit again claims that “we try to be fair with every partisan view by allocating equal space for every opinion.” He is then asked: “What do you think about the call for the media to ‘filter’ information that ‘hurts’ society [the Abhisit government’s position]?” and he responds: “I agree. News that instigates hatred is news that distorts the facts.”

That a senior office holder in the TJA is advocating censorship should be worrying to all working journalists and to media consumers.

On red shirt accusations that the mainstream media of being unfair to them, Pradit complains: “They have the right to voice their dissatisfaction, but there are reasons for the reports. Most of the information they voice is rumour and the word of propaganda, and, surely, we cannot publish this. If we present misinformation, we will lose our credibility…”. As Chulalongkorn University’s Pirongrong pointed out, for some, this credibility is already lost.

In summarizing this report, we have left out the comments by Chulalongkorn University mass media lecturer Ubonrat Siriyuwasak. Her response show how conservative Pradit is in his approach to media freedom and PPT urges our readers to look at the interview.

The TJA does seem to have gotten itself into a conservative position on issues of censorship and media freedom. That’s lamentable.

Advertisement