Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva reads history. He is heeding the advice of the fourth US President, James Madison (1751-1836), that "a popular government without popular information or the means to acquiring it is but the prologue to a farce or tragedy." No wonder, he listed the role of media as a pivotal element in his national reconciliation road map outlined last week. But he did it with words of caution.
He is sanguine about the media's power and influence at this critical juncture. In his road map, the media must be free and operate constructively as part of the reconciliation process. Thai society, he believed, would be able to overcome conflict and return swiftly to normalcy and harmony if the media could operate in a constructive manner. But he ventured to say that media freedom should be regulated by an independent mechanism in order to ensure that such liberty would not be abused or misused to instigate hatred and conflict, inevitably leading to violence.
The idea of an independent mechanism or watchdog organisation is not new.
During the Banharn Silapa-Archa government (1995-1996) more than a hundred publishers and editors from all media communities got together to reject the official plan to establish a council to oversee media operations and policies. Instead, they joined hands and set up the National Press Council of Thailand as a self-regulatory body and a media watchdog.
Since its establishment in 1997, the council has settled hundreds of cases related to media sensationalism and bias - these were non-controversial and minor complaints - as well as a few cases related to media professionalism. But the council has yet to come to grips with the new media phenomenon in the country in the past three years, especially media reports driven by emotion and hatred from vested political groups.
The government's earlier decision to shut down dozens of satellite and cable TV and community radios further added salt to the wounds. The combination of cheap information technology that links with the existing worldwide web has obviously created new borderless opportunities for Thai people to exercise their rights and express themselves. But somehow, these new communication platforms have generated hatred, misinformation and societal divisions among Thais more than ever before. These media operators are not professional journalists. Their tell-it-like-it-is rantings are becoming news spinners and manipulators.
TRAVESTY OF DISINFORMATION
In the past months, apart from harsh criticism levelled against Abhisit, he also has had to confront the travesty of disinformation, instigation and literally all forms of media spin and mudslinging from the burgeoning new media of satellite, cable TV/ radio stations and fringe media outlets. Some even encouraged the viewers to kill the prime minister. Internet-based TV and radios active in communities in North and Northeast have been the most hostile towards the government and its leaders.
The best way to deal with the current media situation is to understand the trends and its future bearings on the Thai society.
Three kinds of journalism are being practised: print, electronic and online. The first group belongs to the mainstream media, which comprises major print outlets and territorial TV and radio stations. They are generally free from any governmental intervention. Their political views, albeit harsh and sometimes half-truth, are welcome as part of the democratic practice as well as the checks and balances system.
The Abhisit government, like the previous Democrat-led government, has adopted the attitude of tolerance towards the media as the party's philosophy. But the current political crisis, coupled with the emergency decree, has turned this long-standing approach upside down. International-based media freedom monitoring organisations have universally condemned the government's action of shutting down TV and community radio stations.
Throughout the crisis, the mainstream media did an effective job in covering the developments on a day to day basis. Their reports are completely event-driven coupled with fragmented and compartmental views. Their coverage reflects the prevailing sources of information, as well as media culture and editorial environments. One of the biggest media symptoms in Thailand is the reporting of the same story in a uniform manner. Thai journalists thrive on herd mentality, both in printed and electronic media, that has effectively reduced critical thinking.
LACKING PROPER CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS
To be fair, a few journalists with critical eyes are out there but they somehow lack proper contextual analysis. Historical, social or economic background is often omitted to give way to generalisation or black and white dichotomy.
Therefore, it is essential for the mainstream media organisations to promote the highest standards of professionalism through strengthening the capacity of journalists to understand multi-layered problems emanating from an evolving crisis. Awareness-raising activities, especially those pertaining to new political and social issues among mid-career or new editors are also indispensable.
The second group is the so-called extremist or militant media. This is a new phenomenon because of its meteoric expansion. The government has confessed that it has no control over the scope and operation of these media. Existing media legislations guarantee the operators the freedom of expression as long as it does not impinge on another's freedom. These militant media groups, often linked to influential politicians and tycoons, are pseudo-journalists and have their narrow and focused agendas without heeding or protecting public interest.
Of late, what is interesting is the proliferation of these extremist views in the mainstream media. Since the satellite and cable TV and radio are completely not legally bound, they could indulge in propaganda or misinformation whichever way they choose. Some of their spin, which used to be confined to certain groups of followers, are now become more widespread and entering the mainstream media.
From the government's point of view, the ordinary approach of taking them to court would be time consuming, even a useless exercise, as it would further allow them to perpetuate their message of hatred. That helps explain why the Centre for the Resolution of the Emergency Situation decided to use the power under the emergency Decree to shut down these extremist media outlets.
Finally, the last media group is the anti-monarchy online websites, which have increased nearly 150-fold from the few dozen sites in 2003. This is the biggest headache for the Thai authorities. The more the closures, the more the increments. Most, if not all, are based in Europe and the US, operated by individuals who are either Thai citizens living abroad or naturalised American or European citizens with or without links to Thailand or its personalities. The authorities have spent hundreds of millions of baht monitoring, tracing and shutting down these sites but with little result.
The Abhisit government must understand the media frailties and their environment. Increased websites and media closures would worsen the media condition in Thailand.
Only better journalists and media operators with own watchdog tools, can play a constructive role as envisaged by Abhisit.