Thai Media Hindered By Legal Barriers And Political Bias.

[Lite Beer]

Legal barriers, political bias and other problems hinder mainstream media

By PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK.

The mainstream Thai mass media faces a complex set of challenges ranging from legal barriers and political bias to other internal problems that prevent it from protecting the public interest and advancing freedom and democracy, Thailand's first Asian Media Barometer report has found.

The report, presented on Friday by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, highlighted several challenges including the Internal Security Act, the lese majeste law and the Computer Crime Act, all of which lead to self-censorship. Other constraints include the undue influence of advertisers, the Army and media owners.

"Thai citizens and journalists still assert their right to freedom of expression - but with a certain and palpable degree of fear," the report concluded.

Ten media professionals and experts, including this reporter, were invited in December to meet and discuss the Thai media in order to produce the first Asian Media Barometer (ANMB) report for Thailand.

The report said both citizens and journalists think twice about criticising powerful institutions such as the judiciary and the monarchy due to treason and lese majeste laws.

"This submission to the powers that be includes citizens being afraid of powerful media institutions or local mafia, and in the Deep South, of insurgents and the Army," it said. "It includes media professionals being afraid of media owners. And it includes a witch hunt in the new social media networks, where people expressing their opinions are harassed by the state or those from the opposite political camp."

Former senator Jon Ungpakorn, one of the contributors, said on Friday that the mainstream media, especially the print media, "heavily censored itself" from saying anything critical of the monarchy. Jon criticised the lack of local reporting about the Computer Crimes Act case against Jiranuch Premchaiporn, the editor of the Prachatai website, while Western papers such as The New York Times and the Guardian paid attention.

Jiranuch was charged for being too slow to delete comments made on the Prachatai web-board by 10 anonymous posters allegedly defaming the monarchy. Experts see the case as having deep repercussions for online freedom of expression. "Why don't they report? They're so docile!" said Jon.

Prasong Lertratanawisute, head of the Thai Journalists Association, speaking in a personal capacity, said Thai media had been taught not to report anything critical of the monarchy. He said it was Thai editors and not editors of The New York Times who risked being placed behind bars for lese majeste. "I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it. But in order to avoid the problem I'd rather not touch it," he said, adding that those advocating critical discussion about the monarchy "shouldn't express their heroism".

The report also concluded that few civil society organisations exist to advocate freedom of expression, with some groups finding it acceptable if media from the opposite political camp are suppressed. It also touched upon the widespread problem of gender stereotypes, bias and patriarchy.

"Media organisations have no policy to promote gender sensitivity or equal employment opportunities. There is also little effort to give equal and fair representation to ethnic minorities or people with disabilities."

The process of self-regulation was lacking or ineffective. "Media owners interfere both discreetly and openly when the gathering of news or political commentary results in exposing business affiliates or may threaten the generation of advertising revenue from the state or private companies.

-- The Nation 2011-02-27

[zydeco]

"Media organisations have no policy to promote gender sensitivity or equal employment opportunities. There is also little effort to give equal and fair representation to ethnic minorities or people with disabilities."--

Yep. Don't want to have any nasty old political bias, do we?

[dominique355]

There is one other piece of legislation, which is very powerful in suppressing the freedom of expression and thus the freedom of the press: the Thai law about libel.

As far as I understand, the defendant in a libel case cannot argue that his words are the truth and thus justified. All that matters is how the plaintiff perceived the words.

Moreover it is an "ex officio" crime and is not limited to expressions made in Thailand. A newspaper article written and published abroad can also make the author liable to a libel lawsuit in Thailand. Nasty surprises may expect him when coming to Thailand for a holiday.

[AZBill]

"Media organisations have no policy to promote gender sensitivity or equal employment opportunities. There is also little effort to give equal and fair representation to ethnic minorities or people with disabilities."--

Yep. Don't want to have any nasty old political bias, do we?

At least they share the media bias issue with the US as well. Obama could blow up an orphanage and the mainstream media wouldn't report it! Anyway, baby steps.

[AZBill]

There is one other piece of legislation, which is very powerful in suppressing the freedom of expression and thus the freedom of the press: the Thai law about libel.

As far as I understand, the defendant in a libel case cannot argue that his words are the truth and thus justified. All that matters is how the plaintiff perceived the words.

Moreover it is an "ex officio" crime and is not limited to expressions made in Thailand. A newspaper article written and published abroad can also make the author liable to a libel lawsuit in Thailand. Nasty surprises may expect him when coming to Thailand for a holiday.

To bring a libel claim in the States is a complete waste of time. The law has no teeth and you can say pretty much anything you want about someone without recourse as long as you couch it as an opinion. If you are a public person you basically have no protection from libel because the level of proof is so high. Not so here. The Thai skin is not as thick as I see this libel issue all the time here. Maybe it's the whole saving face thing.

[jayjay0]

"Media organisations have no policy to promote gender sensitivity or equal employment opportunities. There is also little effort to give equal and fair representation to ethnic minorities or people with disabilities."--

Yep. Don't want to have any nasty old political bias, do we?

At least they share the media bias issue with the US as well. Obama could blow up an orphanage and the mainstream media wouldn't report it! Anyway, baby steps.

Beg to differ.

If it would sell news papers they would. If they could print it knowing full well it was not true they would do it. Selling news papers is what they are all about. The media is the same the world over.

If facts will sell papers that is what they will write. If nonsense will sell papers that is what they will write. They will write any thing that sell's news papers and does not get them in trouble.

On the issue of lack of freedom of speech in the Thai. papers. Without the the lese majeste law there would be a lot more freedom. I am not going to try to make a statement on it but I was speculating that if they did not have it how many weekly gossip papers would spring up.:jap:

[zthyadat]

There is one other piece of legislation, which is very powerful in suppressing the freedom of expression and thus the freedom of the press: the Thai law about libel.

As far as I understand, the defendant in a libel case cannot argue that his words are the truth and thus justified. All that matters is how the plaintiff perceived the words.

Moreover it is an "ex officio" crime and is not limited to expressions made in Thailand. A newspaper article written and published abroad can also make the author liable to a libel lawsuit in Thailand. Nasty surprises may expect him when coming to Thailand for a holiday.

Yes, the libel law should be renamed the "Losing Face Law". If your statements cause the other guy to lose face, you go to the slammer. Makes sense in a society where not being publicly caught out as a fool or an incompetent or a thief is almost as important as life itself - and if someone is exposed as such, it is the fault of the guy who pointed out the elephant in the room, not of the incompetent thieving fool. "He made me blush! Crucify him!!"