If the PM's Office chooses the first option, iTV would have to pay up to Bt1 billion in annual concession fees and go back to the previously agreed programming ratio with news making up 65-70 per cent of total airtime. This would translate into lower advertising income and huge losses in the years to come, not to mention lawsuits that may be filed by the PM's Office seeking payment of concession fees owed plus a punitive fine.

The second option would require the PM's Office to terminate the concession granted to the current management of iTV and then to voluntarily amend the agreement for any new concessionaire. The yearly concession fee should be at least commensurate to the amounts required from private operators of other profit-oriented free TV networks owned by state agencies, such as Channels 3, 5 and 7. Each of these network operators pays a concession fee that is only one-third or less the amount iTV was originally asked to pay the PM's Office.

Whatever option the PM's Office takes, iTV, which stands for "independent TV", must be restored to its original state and its founding principles when it first went on air in mid-1995.

The second Anand administration created iTV to make sure that television, the most powerful communication tool, would never again be used by politicians as a propaganda machine to manipulate the masses or to perpetuate misrule and corruption. The new network was originally run by a consortium of news agencies, of which the Nation Multimedia Group Plc, which owns this newspaper, was a member. From the first rush of enthusiasm, iTV went from strength to strength and won accolades for its aggressive, in-depth reporting with editorial independence and high standards of professionalism to match.

That was until broadcast media freedom was snubbed out when then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's Shin Corp Plc took over the financially ailing iTV in 2000. This occurred despite strong protests from media organisations, civil liberties advocates and academics. The Shin takeover marked a precipitous decline for iTV, which had been a product of the country's effort to rebuild democracy in the aftermath of the bloody May uprising of 1992. The station ended up serving as a political mouthpiece of the demagogic populist Thaksin. He used it to consolidate his power, along with vote-buying backed by virtually limitless power of patronage, then proceeded to brutally suppress civil liberties, undermine the rule of law and systematically subvert democracy itself. It is not too far off the mark to say that the acquisition of iTV by Shin Corp marked the beginning of Thaksin's ruthless scheme to run down the mass media, which formed the first line of defence for Thailand's fledgling democracy.

The rest was history.

It is worth noting that many iTV journalists- who were once freedom-loving but who have since been cowed and conditioned to unquestioningly take orders from their political master and his henchmen - are now demanding "fairness" from the Surayud government on behalf of their opportunistic employer.

The question that needs to be asked is: Where were they when iTV management began interfering with editorial decisions and the network's news programmes were distorted to provide a flattering glow to an all-powerful PM and his Thai Rak Thai Party. Right up to Thaksin's ignominious end, they played an instrumental role in his propaganda war that led to divisiveness and the potential for violent confrontation.

The iTV that will eventually rise from the ashes must have demonstrable editorial independence backed by a good business plan and a concession agreement that offers commercially viable terms. The new entity that is selected to operate the new iTV must subject itself to public scrutiny and live up to the highest professional standards.