Fact checking

Jatuporn claimed the government had soldiers wear red shirts and act violently so as to frame charges against the red-shirt movement.

This had not even been a question for reporters before. They had always believed the PM was in the car; because so many reporters witnessed the attack, no other reporters ever thought to question the incident. However, as the red-shirt leaders brought up the new allegation, inevitably reporters could not help voicing their opinions, even doubts, over it.

Without an investigation into the case, many reporters were prompted to make a judgement - the allegation was misinformation aimed at creating an agenda to benefit the red shirts. Some even suggested the Journalists' Association of Thailand issue a statement declaring whether the PM was in the car or not. So far, however, there has not been any investigative report of the case.

This leads to the question: If the media are so certain that the allegation is false, should they still report it to the public?

To media rights activist Supinya Klangnarong, reporters have a right to voice doubt over the allegation. However, as long as the incident remains in the public domain, the media have no right to infringe upon the public's rights to access of information.

Supinya said the media should truthfully report to the public without any filtration. However, this is a more sensitive issue because the allegation is not only an expression of one opinion, but there is a claim of "fact". It is thus the duty of the media to make the truth known.

"As the government is also involved in the case, media organisations are the only outlets through which the truth can be made known to the public," Supinya said.

And after the truth is brought out, the media has the right to state whether the incident was a political game or not, Supinya added.

Journalism lecturer Pirongrong Ramasoota of Chulalongkorn University agreed with Supinya, saying the media's duty is to present the facts to the public. However, to judge whether an opinion is true or not is not the media's task, but one for the public.

"The public use the media as a vehicle to access the truth," Pirongrong said.

However, to Surat Maetheekul, a former Thammasat University journalism lecturer, this serious social rift only demonstrates the fact the media must exercise caution in reporting to the public. The media, Surat added, should remind themselves that the "facts" of this case, mostly taken from key members of the anti-government group and a figure in the government, were not the whole facts.

"The media should report with thoughtfulness and be careful not to be used as a tool in this information war," said Surat.

Although there is no final consensus on the issue, one thing can be concluded: That the media should not let their concerns or their own judgements either consciously or subconsciously cause them to manipulate the "fact". Their duty is not to judge but to present evidence for opinion making on the part of the public.