Pravit: Why was the study necessary?

Uajit: The Television and Radio Journalist’s Association asked us to do the study after they received complaints that some reporters from the provinces said their reports [on anti-Thaksin activities] were not used. [Media] academics also issued statements saying television and radio news reports have not been well rounded.

Some say the independence and quality of news reports of the anti-government demonstrations are similar to those during the time just prior to the May 1992 revolt. Do you agree with that assessment?

 It’s always like this when the media is not truly free. One TV anchor has just been sacked for allegedly supporting the protesters. And [on Wednesday] morning I heard that Senator Sophon Suphapong received a warning from a [middle-ranking] official [of the Public Relations Department] that his comment made during a radio programme may affect the peace and order of the country.

 The situation now is more confusing than in the past. The government’s spokespeople say they are open-minded and that there’s nothing wrong with criticism and freedom of expression, but it’s the government officials who carry out the censorship. Provincial governors and police also issued warning letters to community radio stations in the provinces. It’s just like the rally at Royal Plaza – the government claims there’s no problem about free assembly, but in reality that’s not the case.

What do you think about the way anti-government rallies, like Sondhi Limthongkul’s, are represented on so-called free television?

Well, what’s more interesting is how Khun Sondhi appeared on other mainstream media not controlled by the state. His ASTV and Manager Radio have been facing obstacles. However, free TV coverage of Khun Sondhi has improved somewhat since the February 4 rally.

Why do the large majority of viewers and listeners seem to have no problem with government control of media?

Freedom of the press is still something far removed from the majority of people. There hasn’t yet been any education about it and most people don’t feel their rights are being infringed upon. Even quality newspapers, which are freer, tend to dwell on personal conflicts between Thaksin and Sondhi.

 Most people are still in the cheering mode – cheering one side or the other. They still think they’re cheering a boxing match while in fact they are being punched as well. They still think they’re outsiders, which is wrong.

There are some quality journalists who understand the importance of press freedom at state and privately controlled television stations. But they’re not doing anything about the current news distortion. Why is that?

We may have to wait until the political boiling point and support from the public comes to the fore. They can’t present anything straightforward, and whatever news they produce is discarded. During the October 1973 revolt nothing was said about freedom of expression. It only became an issue in May 1992. It was followed by the establishment of iTV, but history has since repeated itself and the problem has come full circle.

What’s your view on Khun Samak Sundaravej, who was pressured to quit his talk show on Army-controlled Channel 5 for defending Thaksin and criticising Privy Council President General Prem Tinsulanonda?

It’s about the Army exercising its power of media ownership. We don’t know what was behind Samak’s defence of Thaksin and attack on Prem, but there may be many things going on behind the scenes.

But why didn’t a free-media advocate like yourself, or the Campaign for Popular Media Reform (CPMR), defend Samak’s freedom of expression? Most, if not all quality newspapers also cheered the Army’s pressure on Samak simply because they dislike him. Is this not a case of double standards?

I would have to respond by saying that when we refer to freedom of expression we must also ask what impact it has on society. I used to be on the media sub-committee of the National Human Rights Commission and have received complaints before that Samak’s programme was creating divisions within society. Even the CPMR, of which I am deputy chairperson, is aligned with the people’s movement.

Samak is in the pro-Thaksin camp and with the powers-that-be, while the CPMR is with the anti-Thaksin camp. Freedom of expression is not suspended in a vacuum. Samak’s case is the exercise of freedom of expression by those with state power in their hands.