• 
• 

Published on February 21, 2008

Elaborate on your assigned task in overseeing the media.

As the person put in charge of the media, I would like to stress this isn't tantamount to violating and interfering with media freedom, as some may have thought. Such understanding is wrong and far-fetched.

There are problems with the media structure and it has been around through many administrations. These include a problem with the mission statement of Channels 9 and 11, the Public Relations Department and MCOT radio, along with the state concessions given to private corporations. I will look into these issues and see if they have achieved their purpose or not.

If one looks at the terms of reference of Channel 11, then one will recognise it was meant to become a public broadcaster but it ended up becoming state-owned media. So should this situation continue?

Channel 9 too. It was rather successful under Mingkwan as its director and many improvements were made in quality despite the fact that it was once known as the "twilight zone".

As for cable television, community radio and satellite television, there exists neither a system nor regulation and we must establish both. I must resolve the issue as it's a big matter and I assure you all the steps will be transparent.

 

Will you look into the broadcast media concession?

Perhaps not that far but I will review the objective of the concession to evaluate it. If I dwell on it, some may accuse me of seeking some benefits. But I will review the objectives of Channels 9 and 11 and find why they have strayed away so much from their mission statement. This will also include Public Relations Department radio where some of its airtime was lent out to private firms and when the government requested them to broadcast something, they refused because they had contractual obligations.

 

Some think there is a hidden agenda behind this government. They also expect some counter-reaction and PM Samak Sundaravej said he would rehire former iTV staff.

I don't think so. We won't bring them into becoming part of the government. Do you think someone can just give an order to these former iTV staff?

They have their own free will. They're professional and nobody is ordering or controlling them. And I won't do it. They must talk among themselves first and we must be patient.

Another thing: the [print] media is paranoid about media interference. And people who subscribe to certain media are also affected by it. For example, when ASTV launched a campaign [against Thaksin], people followed. This doesn't mean ASTV was right or wrong but the question is, should the majority of the media be like this? Shouldn't people listen to both state media and ASTV? If one looks back, [the Thaksin government] didn't really have much space on air because much of which was aired was an attack [on Thaksin], although it was not true.

For example, Thaksin sued Sondhi [Limthongkul] because what he said wasn't true and the court had ruled against Sondhi. Let me ask back as to why the [print] media still see Sondhi as ethical and willing to follow him.

Does this mean the media have been having problems for some time?

Yes. There's also the issue of inappropriate and lewd language. The government at that time didn't do anything and left it as a matter of personal rights.

PM Samak said he wanted to modernise Channel 11 like Channel 9 in Thaksin's time. Is this being done in order for the channel to work parallel with TPBS?

No. TPBS operates under a legislature. When time is right, the government will support it. Talks are needed about the matter because nobody should be too big to lower themselves to talk with the government. There should be a talk about what kind of support the government can provide. The government has Channel 11 and if it doesn't improve it, it would be accused of not carrying out its duty. So it would be done even without TPBS.

There seems to be a rush that led to some thinking it was politically motivated.

No. This is because there aren't enough impartial media today. The media tried to survive.

We don't need the media to root for us. We merely want it to carry on its duties as government media. But it wasn't like that in the past.

 

How do you define impartial media?

A simple principle is to allocate equal time [to both sides]. They should give equal time for the government to explain itself as to the time allocated to criticism of the government, even though this equality may not be realised because there are no absolute measurements.

It must also pay attention to the views of the middle class and the grassroots.

Sometimes it looks at problems from the middle-class perspective and forgets grassroots views. This is because media owners are mostly middle-class. But what about others? Can those who want to overcome poverty rely on the media?

 

The PM wants to have airtime to talk to the people. What if the Democrat Party wants some airtime too? Would it be approved? They tried that during the Thai Rak Thai government but it went quiet.

We can't just look at any channel in particular but we must look at the whole picture. If we measure airtime on TV and radio on average by the opposition party, then we will discover they have more news time than that of the government. How else would the people know about the shadow cabinet? Was it not through the media?

The Nation