However journalists at iTV, which has been renamed TITV, were stretching the truth when they portrayed themselves so touchingly as champions of broadcast media freedom in a heroic struggle against the military-backed Surayud government, which is supposedly bent on snuffing out "the country's only independent" television network.

It is understandable that a large segment of Thai society was swayed by the high drama conjured up by iTV journalists before they won their 11th hour reprieve when the Council of State ruled that the PRD could legally run iTV and that the station was allowed to continue broadcasting without interruption.

Earlier the government planned to pull the plug on the network temporarily as the PM's Office sorts out complicated legal issues involving the transfer of ownership of broadcasting equipment and assets, as well as a large number of related contracts that became void following the termination of the concession it had granted to iTV Plc.

By successfully dramatising their dire situation to gain public sympathy, the television journalists must have given one another congratulatory slaps on the back for their remarkable powers of persuasion. The outpouring of sympathy from many of their loyal fans had a lot to do with Thai people's inclination to side with the underdog regardless of the real issues or underlying principles at hand. The remarkable short memory spans of people in this country also helps explain why these journalists were not subjected to candid and potentially uncomfortable questions. When the euphoria subsides, these journalists must be confronted with some inconvenient truths and asked the tough questions that need to be asked.

Let's make it clear from the outset that iTV was not the only television station that has been subjected to political interference. All other television networks - Channels 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 - have always been treated by successive governments, including the current Surayud government, as part of the state apparatus with a specific function as government mouthpieces. iTV was created in the aftermath of the May 1992 bloodbath with the sole purpose of providing the Thai public with accurate, truthful and timely news and current affairs based on strict journalistic objectivity and professional media ethics.

During the May 1992 bloody crackdown on unarmed protesters by the then- government of General Suchinda Kraprayoon, all TV stations under government control failed to report on the truth that scores of people were being gunned down by security forces. The public outrage that led to the resignation of  Suchinda as prime minister came only after people learned of the massacre from international news agencies.

In other words, the founding principles of iTV stated that it was to be a television network which the public could rely on as the eyes and ears of the people in a vibrant democracy to make sure the government serves, honestly, effectively, and with a high degree of accountability. The rationale was that with iTV operating the way it should, no government would be able to conceal its excesses, corruption scandals or atrocities, such as what happened in May 1992.

The sad truth is that many of these iTV journalists, who once distinguished themselves as the standard bearers of independent broadcast journalism, stooped so low that they allowed themselves to be used as Thaksin's propaganda tool to perpetuate the culture of deceit and corruption. It boggles the mind how these same journalists who sat on their hands and watched as Thaksin and his henchmen trampled iTV's editorial independence, and who benefited from it, should now have the temerity to fashion themselves as advocates for broadcast media freedom. What they should be doing is offering the public an apology for betraying their trust and failing to observe professional ethics. They must re-learn media professional ethics and realise that most of the time it is not always convenient or profitable to practise honest journalism, uphold professional standards and preserve self-respect.