PERHAPS it's a bit late for Premier Abhisit Vejjajiva to declare his readiness to allocate a time slot on government-run Channel 11 for the opposition to air its views to the public.
The real reason for the opposition's lack of enthusiasm to be seen on Channel 11, however, is probably more down-to-earth: They don't need a state-run media outlet to reach out to their own supporters when they already have their own 24-hour news station that presents nothing but their own version of the "facts".
If Channel 11 tells you what the government wants you to know, then the "red" station gives you everything you need to know about what's wrong with the government - lock, stock and barrel, unabridged and at full throttle.
In fact, for any opposition chief or red-shirt leader to agree to speak on the government station would now sound too tame and formal. They might not be able to win the hearts and minds of those determined to see the end of the Abhisit's administration.
What I have come to call "militant journalism" - practised by both the yellow and red camps - has been employed by rival parties in this running political conflict to communicate directly with followers. Objectivity and impartiality - or the standard practice of providing the public with various versions of a story and all sides of an argument - simply aren't considered part of the policy of the partisan media that has flooded the market over the past few years.
The premier seemed well aware of that trend when he said in his speech to mark the 22nd anniversary of the founding of Channel 11 last Friday: "I believe we can all predict what television channel a certain person normally watches if you know which daily newspaper he reads - and you can also tell which website he will check for news and views. And for him, 'the set of facts' on a particular situation in the country would be totally different for another person who reads another newspaper, watches another TV channel and follows a different website."
As a result, it is becomingly increasingly rare and difficult for those two citizens to agree on anything. They follow news and arguments from separate media sources - sources that tend to confirm their thinking and convictions rather than exposing them to divergent views.
In other words, the worrisome trend in a significant segment of Thai society is that citizens, especially those trapped in a confrontational mode, will watch what they want to see, peruse what they want to read and listen to what they want to hear.
Abhisit said part of his media reform plan would be to push for the return to the "golden age" when those with opposing views could use the same radio and television stations to communicate with the public. This, he said, should replace what he sees as a "very sensitive trend" in which some media only reflect one side of the story, turning them into political propaganda tools rather than serving as mass media.
It's a sad state of affairs when everyone simply wants to read what he feels comfortable with, and watch programmes that only confirm his political thinking.
But if you trace the story back just a few years, that trend began when Thaksin Shinawatra took over ITV and his government turned Channel 11 into a full-blown government propaganda machine.
Sad to say, the Abhisit government has changed nothing in that respect because every politician seems to think the same way: If you keep telling the same stories, day in day out, on TV and radio, the people will think they are true.
Now, the yellow, red and blue stations are all following the Channel 11 model: Give them nothing else but your version of the story. Do it long enough and they won't watch or listen to anything else.
That, to me, is how this country's growing divisiveness all began - and how Thai "democracy" was hijacked from the rest of us.