Stay Tuned for Media Reform

BANGKOK: -- The government's media reform committee is the final remaining panel to have a chairman named by Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. Early rumblings were that Chulalongkorn Dean of Communication Arts Dr. Yubol Benjarongkij was to be sought for the post, a choice that would have lent the committee a validity based on Dr. Yubol's expertise and notoriety in the field as well as the trusted status of Chulalongkorn University. Validity, however, does little to address the questions in many people's minds as to why the nation's media needs reform, what type of reform does the government mean, and why does it feel entitled to instigating the reform?

If any media outlet were ripe for change, it should be the state's own that should be prioritized. The government's National Broadcast Television has been a point of contention with the public for many of its incarnations. The state's media arm has always swayed to the whims of the administration in office and has continually undermined its own trustworthiness in the public eye. During the recent turmoil seen in May, use of state media did little to calm citizens on either side of the conflict. Biased or distorted facts and frequent appeals to emotion stood in the place of actual reporting on the unfolding situation angering people already wary of the administration and offending the intellect of citizens with a need to know. If PM Abhisit wishes to convince the public that media reform is essential to his reconciliation plan, he must first start with state press.

Efforts to alter Thailand's media landscape have taken place before, with a clearer and more commendable instance being during the administration of General Chaovalit Yongjaiyuth. The panel handling the matter during General Chaovalit's push stated that state media should work in the best interests of the state, not the government, clearly defining the two as having different agendas. The committee at the time outlined mechanisms and policies that would safeguard state media from political intervention, suggestions that were ultimately shot down by career state employees fearing a break from tradition.

It is questionable if PM Abhisit gave any thorough thought to what he meant when saying “media reform” beyond the controversy, and thus interest, it would draw from the public. Newly appointed Prime Minister's Office Minister Ong-art Klampaiboon, tasked with overseeing changes to Thai press, has stated that “reform” will ultimately be left to members of the media themselves, likely not realizing that being left alone is the change Thai media outlets are wishing for.

Kom Chad Luek Editorial, June 23 2010

Translated and Rewritten by Itiporn Lakarnchua

Please note that the views expressed in our "Analysis" segment are translated from local newspaper articles and do not reflect the views of the Thai-ASEAN News Network.

-- Tan Network 2010-06-24

When it says "reform," does that mean to make it better, or to offer validity of showing a bunch of soap operas and talk shows while bullets and bombs are being spent around Bangkok, and the reason why I have to go to the Washington Post or LA Times to get decent news about Thailand?

can the sink the voice better on shows. 555555

Media reform???

The footnote caught my attention!

...Please note that the views expressed in our "Analysis" segment are translated from local newspaper articles and do not reflect the views of the Thai-ASEAN News Network....

The footnote caught my attention!

...Please note that the views expressed in our "Analysis" segment are translated from local newspaper articles and do not reflect the views of the Thai-ASEAN News Network....

Well let's hope that the substance of the article pointing out government hypocrisy and muddled thinking relating to its own politically biased propaganda arms also caught your attention

When they get rid of the dumb ass censorship it will be a true media reform.

It's a tricky proposition right now - I'm sure Abhisit has mulled the concept of full privatisation of the state TV channels in the same manner that Thatcher privatised state enterprises in the 1980's UK. However, he will be fully aware of Thaksin's spending power and that his arch enemy also bought a Thai terrestrial TV station immediately prior to his initial appointment as PM.

Of course, in the spirit of true privatisation and conversion to a public company status, he could mandate a share ownership limit per individual or organisation, but use of proxies is exactly how the Shin/Temasek scandal came about, therefore it would be a risky ploy.

My take on it would be to have a very short list of banned coverage topics - mainly ultra-high level state security topics that the media within the kingdom must not cover except through government info releases. Then another very short list of topics where "best editorial judgement" should be used. After that, open season. This is essentially what most developed countries have in place.

Stories about topics on the banned list have to first be passed through a government news centre for clearance (e.g. gag orders), whereas the sensitive list is judged by editors and publishers using a balance of "public best interest" and normal press priorities.

These restrictions apply even in the most "free press" nations, and would be eminently suitable in Thailand. They would also allow the extremists enough rope to hang themselves when broadcasting / publishing viewpoints damaging to the genuine national and public interest. This situation would effectively let the extremists do the authorities work for them. That risk brings tempering (generally but not always) to what is publicly announced by extremists, and causes a self-moderating of their stance.

Utopian? Not really, just look at where this has been used effectively in other countries over the last half century.

Foggy

edit - typos (too much blood in the caffeine stream)

Edited June 24, 201016 yr by Foggy Bottom

The footnote caught my attention!

...Please note that the views expressed in our "Analysis" segment are translated from local newspaper articles and do not reflect the views of the Thai-ASEAN News Network....

Well let's hope that the substance of the article pointing out government hypocrisy and muddled thinking relating to its own politically biased propaganda arms also caught your attention

Yep, good guess, the not too well hidden anti government rant and the hypocrisy of it as well...

Some of Thailand's most honest, caring, patriotic minds are exiled or in jail, while terrorists sit in seats of power.

Under these circumstances there canNOT be reform or reconciliation.

I've asked before, did any of these scapegoats ever try a 'freedom of religion' defense?

I don't know the exact terminology, but speaking the truth with a good heart is a precept of Buddhism and the Government is the protector of the state religion. They should protect their people's right to speak to improve Thailand, instead of throwing them off the bus.

It's is also the signatory treaty right of immigrants and travellers in Thailand to engage in free speach.

Edited June 24, 201016 yr by eggomaniac

Some of Thailand's most honest, caring, patriotic minds are exiled or in jail, while terrorists sit in seats of power.

Under these circumstances there canNOT be reform or reconciliation.

I've asked before, did any of these scapegoats ever try a 'freedom of religion' defense?

I don't know the exact terminology, but speaking the truth with a good heart is a precept of Buddhism and the Government is the protector of the state religion. They should protect their people's right to speak to improve Thailand, instead of throwing them off the bus.

It's is also the signatory treaty right of immigrants and travellers in Thailand to engage in free speach.

reform? like shutting 43,000 web sites? there is no free speach here - period

Just fast forward to the last sentence.

belive it when i see it,

o look pigs are flying

can the sink the voice better on shows. 555555

huh?

can the sink the voice better on shows. 555555

huh?

Think he means "Can they synch the voice track better to the video on TV?"

can the sink the voice better on shows. 555555

huh?

Think he means "Can they synch the voice track better to the video on TV?"

My copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary is from the early 90's. I guess all of the improvements due to the need to cram as much as possible in as less space as possible AND still be intelligable were present in the quoted sentence

When it says "reform," does that mean to make it better, or to offer validity of showing a bunch of soap operas and talk shows while bullets and bombs are being spent around Bangkok, and the reason why I have to go to the Washington Post or LA Times to get decent news about Thailand?

Thailand Change is an oxymoron.

The oddity of the army owning parts of the media has to stop.

This is the purest and simplest reason why there will be no significant reform of the media in Thailand for a long time. You can argue that there is a place for government owned TV, but how it can still be in the 21st century that the army owns TV channels I don't know.

Well ya got the word right REFORM ,pity it isn't applying to the whole of Thailand.

That change (phasing out the dominance of military-owned TV networks) would be a good starting point.

So would de-criminalizing the libel/slander offenses, and instead making them subject to civil litigation and penalties.

So would giving some legal free speech protections to working journalists and media outlets, so they can at least try to function professionally without constant interference and suppression (regardless of what government is in charge).

The oddity of the army owning parts of the media has to stop.

This is the purest and simplest reason why there will be no significant reform of the media in Thailand for a long time. You can argue that there is a place for government owned TV, but how it can still be in the 21st century that the army owns TV channels I don't know.

Some of Thailand's most honest, caring, patriotic minds are exiled or in jail, while terrorists sit in seats of power.

Under these circumstances there canNOT be reform or reconciliation.

I've asked before, did any of these scapegoats ever try a 'freedom of religion' defense?

I don't know the exact terminology, but speaking the truth with a good heart is a precept of Buddhism and the Government is the protector of the state religion. They should protect their people's right to speak to improve Thailand, instead of throwing them off the bus.

It's is also the signatory treaty right of immigrants and travellers in Thailand to engage in free speach.

Noticed these "honest, caring, patriotic minds" effort of media reform when they had TV3 set on fire with everyone inside.

If it means the of Internet Censorship and a faster Internet I am all for it!

reform? like shutting 43,000 web sites? there is no free speach here - period

Sadly, I have to agree.

Thailand wants to see itself as a mature country with more or less the same size and number of people as France. They also think they're superior to a number of ASEAN countries.

But both "ideas" are based upon strict enforcement of powers and control of all media.

I have personal and private information from an Asian news source that they were (temporarily) banned because they reported unbiased about Thailand.

The odd thing is that they were attacked by both the reds and government for being not biased enough towards either one of them...

Thailand is still a third world country but as long as you keep your mouth shut, it's a nice country..

"There is no free speech here - period.".....Indeed

LaoPo

Edited June 25, 201016 yr by LaoPo

TV in Thailand.... Garbage . seems thats what they like

Thailand must kick out BBC/CNN first.

CRES and NBT is good enough for Thai & Farangs alike.

Why do they call them state TV stations when they are run by the Military??

Why are they run by the military?

Is so they can influence opinions when need be?

So many questions with no real answers.