Thailand's Press Freedom Bill Raises New Issues Of Concern

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Press freedom bill raises new issues of concern

By The Nation

Proposed committee to decide what constitutes a media organisation leaves many journalists observers sceptical about the bill's stated intent

When a government, especially one in a developing society struggling with institution building and defining the extent of free expression, talks about "press freedom", it is usually a cause for concern. Just recently the Abhisit Cabinet approved a draft bill that was designed to protect press freedom but immediately provoked scepticism. People in the industry aren't too happy because, despite some positive clauses, there are also signs that are not so encouraging.

The draft bill fashions a supervisory committee that would, among other things, have a say on which organisation can be classified as "media" and which cannot. That alone could deter the willingness of Thailand's diversified media industry to take a leap of faith. Judging from the mindset of the Thai powers-that-be - their attitude and understanding of what freedom of expression is and should be - alarmists fear the bill does not represent real change from the belief that a "good press" is one that praises the people in power.

The stated aim of the draft bill on "protection of media freedom and liberty and promotion of journalistic standards" is just as its name implies. And the draft was made with media experts and professionals providing key input. As the bill heads to Parliament, debate will go on about whether this piece of legislation is to be trusted. It is something made out of good intent, but will the seemingly minor shortcomings eventually lead us on a wrong path?

The ambivalence for some is understandable, given the circumstances. The bill was drafted when two issues were prominent in our turbulent society - the political intimidation of journalists and journalists pursuing (allegedly) dubious political agendas. Both issues exist, and which gave birth to which is contentious. Did unethical journalism cause the need for dictatorship, or vice versa?

Because of the clashing ideologies, what we've got is a bill on "freedom protection" that sparks fears it will end up restricting freedom instead. Apart from having the power to practically determine who are media journalists and who are not, the proposed supervisory committee is to be set up through a largely political process that is funded by government money. This committee is obligated to report to Parliament - a requirement that is not so comforting because of the possibility of political interference.

What qualifies as a "media organisation" anyway? One thing that the current political crisis has done is to give rise to a number of media outlets affiliated with political groups. We can say the same thing for the Internet, bloggers and the concept of citizen journalism. What roles will they play under the new law? Will their lives be easier or more difficult?

Some can argue that reality requires some form of criteria to identify media organisations for functional purposes. Within the UN system, such criteria are used to admit media organisations into UN meetings, and for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to be advisers to the world body. Some sort of benchmark is needed, so that people can't just walk into press events having stated opinions in a couple of dozen blog entries.

On the issue of financing, state funding for a media supervisory body is not unique. It's done in several Western countries. Yet where the money comes from here will raise questions about the integrity and independence of such a committee - unless, of course, legislators can come up with a way to fund it in a less controversial way. But the reality is that there still must be some form of criteria to identify media organisations.

Where is the middle path, then? How far can we trust this bill? In a society where fingers are being pointed all over the place - at politicians for restricting freedom, at journalists for using half-truths to benefit a biased cause, at some in the public for thinking a good press is one that says what it likes, and at vested interest groups disguised as journalists - something needs to be done. Is this bill an answer, or just a start?

In the end, a good system can only help, and more importantly, foster a collective good conscience. There is no absolute winning formula. A number of open societies have developed mechanisms where public spending is channelled to media outlets to produce healthy journalism. Private organisations funding quality journalism is not unusual, either. With conventional sources of financial support for journalists uncertain at best and dwindling at worst, it's perhaps "survival", not "ideology", that will have more influence on media evolution in the long term.

To really help the media industry, everyone involved with, or affected by, the bill will have to be most realistic and least political. Its strong points must be embraced, while questionable ones must be addressed in an open-minded manner. The bill's name seems to sum up Thailand's situation - how to enhance media freedom and to ensure freedom is exercised with great responsibility. The bill's own problem is how to convince the people it seeks to protect of its sincerity.

-- The Nation 2011-01-13