Thailand In Bottom 10 On Press Freedom

[jumnien]

It's amazing how some people will go to any length to justify the military junta and the censorship and oppression that goes with it.

[Bottlerocket]

I agree... unless they can cite more specific examples in regards to Thailand.... their assessment doesn't seem to reflect reality.

The reasons referenced to other countries, eg. "a massive crackdown on the private press by shutting newspapers and jailing editors" certainly isn't occuring here.

They don't have to do that because the people here are good little lemmings and do what they're told to do by the higher-ups. The military is approving the news that is fit for broadcast or it's being severely edited before making air. Just because they're not jailing people doesn't mean there's press freedom.

[sriracha john]

I agree... unless they can cite more specific examples in regards to Thailand.... their assessment doesn't seem to reflect reality.

The reasons referenced to other countries, eg. "a massive crackdown on the private press by shutting newspapers and jailing editors" certainly isn't occuring here.

They don't have to do that because the people here are good little lemmings and do what they're told to do by the higher-ups. The military is approving the news that is fit for broadcast or it's being severely edited before making air. Just because they're not jailing people doesn't mean there's press freedom.

What I'm questioning is that out of the 200-plus countries in the world, whether placing Thailand in the top 10 as the least free is justified. Using CPJ's own references on the other 9 countries, it certainly doesn't seem like it would apply to journalists in Thailand,

A sampling:

"Imprisonments rise from two to 18. Dozens forced into exile, authorities ban eight newspapers, expel two foreign reporters, Editor Deyda Hydara murdered, a leading newspaper is targeted by arsonists and closed by the government, eleven journalists murdered in the last five years; no cases solved, imprisoned journalists rise from one to three, two journalists slain since 2005, attacks increase from three to nine, criminal libel cases rise from none to nine. imprisonments climb from three to 11, 29 journalists imprisoned in massive crackdown, 4 foreign journalists expelled, 10 foreign journalists barred entry into the country, 8 journalists killed and at least 15 journalists abducted, top editor Abdel Halim Kandil abducted and assaulted."

And why do they justify the inclusion of Thailand into the same group as above?

"Nationalizes Thailand’s only private television station and orders radio stations to broadcast military-prepared news. Foreign news broadcasts blocked when former prime minister is mentioned."

The first one is laughable given iTV's history and the remaining ones were only done immediately after the coup and haven't occured since then as far as I know. Which is why I was asking if there were any OTHER specific examples for them to cite Thailand in the list of the World's 10 Worst. Because if there isn't, then it just doesn't seem justified.

===============

*Edit. To their credit, at least CPJ got the correct real reason YouTube is blocked posted, unlike the dubious USA for Innovation.

Edited May 3, 2007 by sriracha john

[andy1308]

As has been stated earlier, the list is about those countries that have declined the most - not the worst.

There's another report which is due out later this year called the World Press Freedom Index - that shoule be more indicative of where Thailand is against other countries.

[jumnien]

Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will, regardless). The original article did not say that Thailand was amongst the least free 10 countries in the world regarding free press. I think most of you missed the point. The original article suggested that Thailand was considered amongst the 10 leading "backsliders" in press freedom - that is, countries that had been relatively open, but recently had slipped towards more repressive regimes.

[JR Texas]

I agree... unless they can cite more specific examples in regards to Thailand.... their assessment doesn't seem to reflect reality.

The reasons referenced to other countries, eg. "a massive crackdown on the private press by shutting newspapers and jailing editors" certainly isn't occuring here.

They don't have to do that because the people here are good little lemmings and do what they're told to do by the higher-ups. The military is approving the news that is fit for broadcast or it's being severely edited before making air. Just because they're not jailing people doesn't mean there's press freedom.

What I'm questioning is that out of the 200-plus countries in the world, whether placing Thailand in the top 10 as the least free is justified. Using CPJ's own references on the other 9 countries, it certainly doesn't seem like it would apply to journalists in Thailand,

A sampling:

"Imprisonments rise from two to 18. Dozens forced into exile, authorities ban eight newspapers, expel two foreign reporters, Editor Deyda Hydara murdered, a leading newspaper is targeted by arsonists and closed by the government, eleven journalists murdered in the last five years; no cases solved, imprisoned journalists rise from one to three, two journalists slain since 2005, attacks increase from three to nine, criminal libel cases rise from none to nine. imprisonments climb from three to 11, 29 journalists imprisoned in massive crackdown, 4 foreign journalists expelled, 10 foreign journalists barred entry into the country, 8 journalists killed and at least 15 journalists abducted, top editor Abdel Halim Kandil abducted and assaulted."

And why do they justify the inclusion of Thailand into the same group as above?

"Nationalizes Thailand’s only private television station and orders radio stations to broadcast military-prepared news. Foreign news broadcasts blocked when former prime minister is mentioned."

The first one is laughable given iTV's history and the remaining ones were only done immediately after the coup and haven't occured since then as far as I know. Which is why I was asking if there were any OTHER specific examples for them to cite Thailand in the list of the World's 10 Worst. Because if there isn't, then it just doesn't seem justified.

===============

*Edit. To their credit, at least CPJ got the correct real reason YouTube is blocked posted, unlike the dubious USA for Innovation.

JR Texas: The fact is that there is no press freedom worldwide (especially the USA).......so what we have here , in Thailand, ss a rapid drop from a bad situation to an even worse situation.

If facts are needed, the person to consult is Ben Bagdikian. He has worked on the issue of press freedom for a long time. His work is respected by most academics, but now the "media" is trying to paint his work as misleading.

Here is a link to an interview with him: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sm...bagdikian1.html

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

--from the movie Cool Hand Luke

[sriracha john]

As has been stated earlier, the list is about those countries that have declined the most - not the worst.

There's another report which is due out later this year called the World Press Freedom Index - that shoule be more indicative of where Thailand is against other countries.

In that context of deterioration over the past five years it becomes more understandable, but then they could have cited more valid reasons for its inclusion in their Backsliders section, than what they did. Certainly the annual reports prepared for each country in their general section more accurately reflect Thailand's decline, eg. 2005 Thailand report:

"Press conditions worsened markedly, reflecting the fourth year of deterioration since Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra took office in 2001."

[jumnien]

Sounds like someone desperately doesn't want to link declines in press freedom to the right-wing military junta. Invested are we?

[sriracha john]

Sounds like someone desperately doesn't want to link declines in press freedom to the right-wing military junta. Invested are we?

Nothing desperate about wanting to keep things factual. If the inclusion of Thailand on the list is for 10 greatest deteriorations measured over the past five years, then it's factual that the person who was in charge for 53 of those 60 months is mainly responsible, particularly when the past 7 months alone don't justify the inclusion.

[jumnien]

Yes, we're having a lovely coup aren't we? Pass the martinis, please!

[Plus]

The OP was a bit over dramatic, as well as the topic title, and should be dismissed. The second report appeared more trustworthy until SJ shown us that it was prepared by Thaksin's lobbyists.

Internationally released version that was somewhere in the back pages of Nation's paper edition didn't mention Thailand at all.

[hammered]

As has been stated earlier, the list is about those countries that have declined the most - not the worst.

There's another report which is due out later this year called the World Press Freedom Index - that shoule be more indicative of where Thailand is against other countries.

If that is the case I am surprised by the ommision of the US from the list. That is until I make a cursory examination of the directors of the organization issuning the report and see a whole list of those mostly from one country who happily peddled government lies and propoganda before the occupation of Iraq and totally failed any test of so called free journalism if indeed such a thing actually exists.

Of course Thai freedom of the press has declined over the past five years. Right now we have a military government here and before that a massive manipulator of media. However, whether the backsliding of Thai media freedom is doing the country and indeed the international community a greater diservice than say the failed media industry of the US, which is not in the worst ten, is a moot point imho.

[ColPyat]

When national economic policy cannot be criticized anymore without fear, and when the head of the privy council and his alleged role in politics cannot be debated anymore than this is a clear decline in press freedom in some very elemental aspects, even when compared with the Thaksin administration, which was also not exactly friendly towards critical media.

[Abrak]

Sounds like someone desperately doesn't want to link declines in press freedom to the right-wing military junta. Invested are we?

Nothing desperate about wanting to keep things factual. If the inclusion of Thailand on the list is for 10 greatest deteriorations measured over the past five years, then it's factual that the person who was in charge for 53 of those 60 months is mainly responsible, particularly when the past 7 months alone don't justify the inclusion.

If you look at the CPJ report on Thailand you will see that it refers almost exclusively to what happened after the coup.

http://www.cpj.org/attacks06/asia06/thai06.html

The report is annual and Thailand slipped from 107th to 129th over the course of the year. Thaksin's record in terms of press freedom was pretty abysmal but it is clear that things have deteriorated considerably since the coup.

[Plus]

Yeah, but when Thaksin came to power Thailand was in 20-ies and by the time he was outsted Thailand slipped out 100 already.

[sriracha john]

Sounds like someone desperately doesn't want to link declines in press freedom to the right-wing military junta. Invested are we?

Nothing desperate about wanting to keep things factual. If the inclusion of Thailand on the list is for 10 greatest deteriorations measured over the past five years, then it's factual that the person who was in charge for 53 of those 60 months is mainly responsible, particularly when the past 7 months alone don't justify the inclusion.

If you look at the CPJ report on Thailand you will see that it refers almost exclusively to what happened after the coup.

http://www.cpj.org/attacks06/asia06/thai06.html

The report is annual and Thailand slipped from 107th to 129th over the course of the year. Thaksin's record in terms of press freedom was pretty abysmal but it is clear that things have deteriorated considerably since the coup.

Now are we talking about annual or a 5 year block? I was corrected when I happened to distinguish between the two in that the report concerns only the Backslider section and not the annual reports. So the deterioration is over 5 years in which case, my post above stands.

Have they deteriorated considerably since the coup? The points raised in the Backslider section only point to the 3 non-issues I raised in my post even further back. If they are based solely on what they reported in that section, it's not justified to say things are worse.

In your link of the 2006 annual report, it has: "The media had come under intense government harassment during Thaksin’s five years in power." While it also has specific examples of Thaksin's wrong-doings in the 9 months of 2006 he was in charge, I didn't see too much specifity regarding the coup other than the initial trespasses onto press freedom immediately following the coup.

Edited May 3, 2007 by sriracha john

[Abrak]

I didn't see too much specifity regarding the coup other than the initial trespasses onto press freedom immediately following the coup.

Well there were a good few paragraphs but you are right it would have been good to see the report being a little more up to date...

No mention of nationalisation of ITV (now TIT-v - who thought of that?) or blocking of Youtube and other web censorship.

The World Freedom of the Press Report - is a little more up to date.

http://facthai.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/wo...m-day/#more-118

In point of fact that website is full of interesting information - such as the fact that the number of blocked websites has increased 500% since the coup...

http://facthai.wordpress.com/2007/01/15/th...500-since-coup/

How many further 'awards' will Thailand have to win before you are convinced that press freedom has continued to deteriorate since the coup?

[Plus]

From the original reports on the first page

Thailand in Bottom 10 on press freedom

Thailand has been listed by the Committee to Protect Journalists as one of the world's worst backsliders in freedom of the media in the past five years

Backsliders: The 10 countries where press freedom has most deteriorated

Two Asian nations—Pakistan and Thailand—are among the countries worldwide where press freedom has deteriorated the most over the last five years, a new analysis by the Committee to Protect Journalists has found.

...

The backsliders reflect a mixture of relatively open countries that have turned increasingly repressive and traditionally restrictive nations where press conditions, remarkably, have worsened. Nations such as Thailand and Morocco have been considered press freedom leaders in their regions but have charted sharp declines over the past five years.

To determine trends in press conditions, CPJ analyzed case data worldwide for the years 2002 through 2007.

How many further 'awards' will Thailand have to win before you are convinced that press freedom has continued to deteriorate since the coup?

No one argues that, people, including me, simply point out that the original reports have gaping holes in them and were prepared by dubious people. Censorship rules haven't changed much after the coup - only "no Thaksin propaganda" was added. The number of censored sites reflects reaction to that rule and the increase in anti-monarchy attacks (youtube).

In other respects there's more freedom - no one was fired, sued, had his program taken off the air or license withdrawn - a common occurence under Thaksin. Military has wihtdrawn from TV station offices, orders given right after the coup need not be repeated or enforces, and we don't hear complaints about media freedoms proposed for a new Constitution either.

Overall not too bad for a junta, as I said earlier.

[sriracha john]

I didn't see too much specifity regarding the coup other than the initial trespasses onto press freedom immediately following the coup.

Well there were a good few paragraphs but you are right it would have been good to see the report being a little more up to date...

No mention of nationalisation of ITV (now TIT-v - who thought of that?)

The thaivisa thread is highly recommended as a nearly 200-post, 10 month long discussion that dispels and removes that point:

iTV Court Ruling, verdict

or blocking of Youtube

The thaivisa thread is also highly recommended as a 248-post discussion that should clearly point out the reason for its blockage and that any Thai government would have done the same and has nothing whatsoever to do with government censorship which again dispels and removes that point:

Youtube

and other web censorship.

such as?

The World Freedom of the Press Report - is a little more up to date.

http://facthai.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/wo...m-day/#more-118

I'd point out that your reference, even though it's from a different website merely references the same article by Thaksin-lackie from the so-called Freedom House in post #14 in this same thread and dispelled in Post #27.

In point of fact that website is full of interesting information - such as the fact that the number of blocked websites has increased 500% since the coup...

http://facthai.wordpress.com/2007/01/15/th...500-since-coup/

Such as? To say the number of blocked websites is such and such is one thing... how many are porno and lese majeste?

In view of the thread topic and to keep it on topic... are there ANY press websites that are blocked?

How many further 'awards' will Thailand have to win before you are convinced that press freedom has continued to deteriorate since the coup?

How about some specific examples that aren't so easily dispelled.. or haven't already been addressed and dispelled in this very thread?

Edited May 3, 2007 by sriracha john

[Toptrainer]

Lack of freedom kinda reminds you of someplace else.

[Jai Dee]

Regaining Thailand's press freedom

To describe the present Thai press situation, one needs to borrow a popular adage that goes: "Anything that can go wrong, will - at the worst possible moment."

That is exactly what has happened. Since 2001, press liberty has gone downhill, despite the military-installed government's commitment to broaden the freedom of the press. It is like waiting for Godot.

Unfortunately, right after the coup of September last year, numerous news reports and commentaries - both textual and visual - attracted the worst possible reaction from the authorities, who have no appreciation of this country's long-standing tradition of press freedom.

Earlier this week, two respected organisations, Freedom House (FH) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), both gave very low marks for Thai media conditions in their latest reports. The New York-based FH ranked Thailand 127th out of 195 countries surveyed, the lowest in the country's media history, and down from 107th last year when the country was under the grip of now deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Listing Thailand as one of the 10 worst media backsliders for the first time, the CPJ sought to highlight the deterioration of Thai press freedom as seen from the outside. Both organisations have carried out their annual evaluations for decades.

In the absence of any better free media indexes, they are used frequently to gauge the state of the Thai press and the press in other countries.

Thai officials may continue to dispute what the two organisations have to say, but it will not make any difference because the information and data contained in their reports is factually correct.

Thailand must avoid past pitfalls if it is to regain its media freedom and its international credibility and standing. Most importantly, the government has to discourage the "bureaucratic knee-jerk reactions" that are responsible for all the bad publicity and negative impressions overseas.

In highly publicised cases, both here and abroad, it is customary for the Thai authorities to defend the free press and reiterate that censorship of news and, increasingly, websites is only temporary in nature.

Others would argue that given the unusual political circumstances, recent reactions were necessary, especially those pertaining to anti-monarchy sentiments.

For practical reasons, these perspectives resonate well with the public and local media communities because they understand the official intention and local sensitivities.

While good intention is in abundance, it has yet to produce good results.

Overall, the Thai media today still has room for straightforward reporting and commentary that demonstrates the ups and downs, or rather the lack of consistency, on the part of the authorities.

Thai officials have yet to learn how to respond to negative news, or website postings, without tarnishing the country's generally good record for press freedom. The blocking of CNN, the BBC, YouTube and other websites, even briefly, has backfired and done terrible damage to the country's international standing.

Currently, the anti-Thai government coalition, spearheaded by high-profile lobbyists and public relations companies, is gaining strength at the global level.

The Thai government has been portrayed as a tyrant that does not follow international obligations and norms. Of course, post-coup developments, coupled with the government's own policies, have contributed to the growing sense of unease in some quarters overseas.

To remedy this situation, the government needs to ameliorate its position on international commitments. Furthermore, it must understand the nature of the media and its influence, real or imaginary, and find ways to co-exist. This is especially true of the new media.

Continuing to censor or filter the Internet in any form will do even more harm.

Thailand still has at least 27 anti-free press related laws. The most potent ones are the archaic 1941 Printing Act and the 1995 Radio and Television Act, which continue to be used to harass journalists working in both private and public establishments. While tremendous efforts are being made in the new draft charter to promote press freedom, it would be more effective to abolish all these nasty laws, as official reactions are often based on them.

It is not easy to explain how Thailand's media freedom, as ranked by Freedom House, has dramatically nose-dived from 29th in 2000 to 127th last week. Such a dramatic fall does not do justice to real media conditions at home. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Thai authorities to acknowledge that any action, regardless of its duration, must be in full compliance with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights.

The authorities must now think long and hard before they respond. After all, a "free-press" country cannot have different levels of freedom depending on the form of media. All media must be free.

Obviously, it requires a democratic government coming from a fair and free electoral process to promote and reclaim Thai press freedom, usually regarded as the freest in southeast Asia.

Many "partly free" and "not free" countries have transformed their controlled media environments to become "free press" systems when they joined the ranks of the world's democracies. Thailand must not be the exception to that rule.

Editorial Opinion by Kavi Chongkittavorn - The Nation - 04 May 2007

[slimdog]

Media reps quit bill panel

Four media representatives yesterday cited the need to uphold press freedom as a reason for their resignation from a panel drafting the new press bill last Thursday. They claimed the panel, after eight meetings, did not intend to revoke the 1941 Printing Act.

This was inconsistent with their intention, which was made clear to Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont before they joined the panel in early February, they said. They maintained that the 1941 Printing Act must be completely revoked and no part of it should be a basis for the new law. The 1941 Printing Act contravened the Human Rights Declaration which guarantees freedom of expression, they said.

Full story: http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/04May2007_news08.php

[Plus]

From today's Nation:

Thailand still has at least 27 anti-free press related laws. The most potent ones are the archaic 1941 Printing Act and the 1995 Radio and Television Act, which continue to be used to harass journalists working in both private and public establishments. While tremendous efforts are being made in the new draft charter to promote press freedom, it would be more effective to abolish all these nasty laws, as official reactions are often based on them.

I guess while these laws are in place, Thailand has a little chance to climb very high up the rankings.

Media controls imposed during the coup - armed soldiers at TV stations, CNN and BBC blockage, Sonthi's meeting with the editors - they all played a role in downgrading media freedom but were one off events.

Full article:

http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/04/opi...on_30033346.php

Regaining Thailand's press freedom

To describe the present Thai press situation, one needs to borrow a popular adage that goes: "Anything that can go wrong, will - at the worst possible moment."

That is exactly what has happened. Since 2001, press liberty has gone downhill, despite the military-installed government's commitment to broaden the freedom of the press. It is like waiting for Godot.

Unfortunately, right after the coup of September last year, numerous news reports and commentaries - both textual and visual - attracted the worst possible reaction from the authorities, who have no appreciation of this country's long-standing tradition of press freedom.

Earlier this week, two respected organisations, Freedom House (FH) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), both gave very low marks for Thai media conditions in their latest reports. The New York-based FH ranked Thailand 127th out of 195 countries surveyed, the lowest in the country's media history, and down from 107th last year when the country was under the grip of now deposed premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Listing Thailand as one of the 10 worst media backsliders for the first time, the CPJ sought to highlight the deterioration of Thai press freedom as seen from the outside. Both organisations have carried out their annual evaluations for decades.

In the absence of any better free media indexes, they are used frequently to gauge the state of the Thai press and the press in other countries.

Thai officials may continue to dispute what the two organisations have to say, but it will not make any difference because the information and data contained in their reports is factually correct.

Thailand must avoid past pitfalls if it is to regain its media freedom and its international credibility and standing. Most importantly, the government has to discourage the "bureaucratic knee-jerk reactions" that are responsible for all the bad publicity and negative impressions overseas.

In highly publicised cases, both here and abroad, it is customary for the Thai authorities to defend the free press and reiterate that censorship of news and, increasingly, websites is only temporary in nature.

Others would argue that given the unusual political circumstances, recent reactions were necessary, especially those pertaining to anti-monarchy sentiments.

For practical reasons, these perspectives resonate well with the public and local media communities because they understand the official intention and local sensitivities.

While good intention is in abundance, it has yet to produce good results.

Overall, the Thai media today still has room for straightforward reporting and commentary that demonstrates the ups and downs, or rather the lack of consistency, on the part of the authorities.

Thai officials have yet to learn how to respond to negative news, or website postings, without tarnishing the country's generally good record for press freedom. The blocking of CNN, the BBC, YouTube and other websites, even briefly, has backfired and done terrible damage to the country's international standing.

Currently, the anti-Thai government coalition, spearheaded by high-profile lobbyists and public relations companies, is gaining strength at the global level.

The Thai government has been portrayed as a tyrant that does not follow international obligations and norms. Of course, post-coup developments, coupled with the government's own policies, have contributed to the growing sense of unease in some quarters overseas.

To remedy this situation, the government needs to ameliorate its position on international commitments. Furthermore, it must understand the nature of the media and its influence, real or imaginary, and find ways to co-exist. This is especially true of the new media.

Continuing to censor or filter the Internet in any form will do even more harm.

Thailand still has at least 27 anti-free press related laws. The most potent ones are the archaic 1941 Printing Act and the 1995 Radio and Television Act, which continue to be used to harass journalists working in both private and public establishments. While tremendous efforts are being made in the new draft charter to promote press freedom, it would be more effective to abolish all these nasty laws, as official reactions are often based on them.

It is not easy to explain how Thailand's media freedom, as ranked by Freedom House, has dramatically nose-dived from 29th in 2000 to 127th last week. Such a dramatic fall does not do justice to real media conditions at home. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Thai authorities to acknowledge that any action, regardless of its duration, must be in full compliance with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights.

The authorities must now think long and hard before they respond. After all, a "free-press" country cannot have different levels of freedom depending on the form of media. All media must be free.

Obviously, it requires a democratic government coming from a fair and free electoral process to promote and reclaim Thai press freedom, usually regarded as the freest in southeast Asia.

Many "partly free" and "not free" countries have transformed their controlled media environments to become "free press" systems when they joined the ranks of the world's democracies. Thailand must not be the exception to that rule.

Kavi Chongkittavorn

The Nation