Politics In Media: A Fact Of Life?

[webfact]

Politics in media: a fact of life?

Kornchanok Raksaseri,

Somroutai Sapsomboon,

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation

Legal loopholes make enforcing constitutional ban on media ownership by office-holders impractical, critics say

BANGKOK: - It is beyond doubt that many "political" TV channels operating at the moment exist in violation of the Constitution, which clearly prohibits politicians from owning media organisations. The question is not whether they should all be taken off the air; it's whether the prohibition is realistic in the first place.

A Nation survey of opinions found that the majority of people either welcomed the existence of the "political" TV channels or accepted them as an unavoidable fact of life. This begs the question of whether the current attempts to exploit loopholes should be allowed to continue, or legal changes should be introduced to legitimise political connections to the stations.

(click for large image)

Blue Sky Channel director Takerng Somsup said the law goes against the nature of both human beings and of political parties, and should therefore be abolished.

Article 48 of the Constitution prohibits political office holders from ownership of mass media, directly or indirectly.

Although incumbent politicians do not directly hold such shares, it is widely known that political parties have channels of their own. The most obvious examples are Asia Update, which is linked to the ruling Pheu Thai Party, and the Democrat Party-linked Blue Sky Channel.

"It's the nature of politicians that they want to directly communicate with people. But when they feel that the mainstream media cannot pass on the message as they want, they find other ways," Takerng said.

"Nowadays, political parties have rallies, leaflets and websites; although they cannot own mass media, they still pass on their thoughts via mass media," he said. "If the opposition does not have a television channel, it holds rallies to talk to the people."

While admitting that TV channels with political party ties can worsen divisions in society, Takerng said they are not the core of the problem.

"Even if there were no [party-linked] media today, the conflicts would still persist. As long as the main conflicts remain, even if you stop the media, it will come out in one form or another," he said.

Voicing a similar idea but from the other side of the political divide, Pheu Thai party-list MP Jarupan Kuldiloke - who once held some 10,000 shares at Democracy News Network (DNN) before she became a politician - said politicians and political parties should be able to own and run mass media, including television channels, so long as they don't rely on taxpayers' money.

Jarupan said political parties could then inform the public about the budget used in a clear and transparent manner.

As for concerns that the polemical information spread by both sides of a politicised media would widen the rift in society, Jarupan said she believed members of the public are mature enough to be able to think for themselves and distinguish fact from opinion. What's more, she believes that these channels act as an outlet for people to let off political steam.

"It will reduce violence," she claimed.

Noppadon Pattama, personal lawyer of ousted, now fugitive, former premier Thaksin Shinawatra, once held shares at pro-red shirt Asia Update Satellite TV. He said these TV stations should be given the opportunity to prove themselves, but some organisations such as the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC) should look into whether such media engage in propaganda or cause rifts in society.

Veteran media entrepreneur Somkiat Onwimon has the same idea. He disagrees with prohibiting politicians from owning shares in the media, saying it opposes democratic principles.

Somkiat said such a prohibition means barring media professionals from getting into politics.

"There's no such thing anywhere in the world. It's against democratic principles," said the former news anchor and reporter, who also served as a drafter of the 1997 Constitution.

However, Somkiat stresses that mass media should not be used for public relations purposes. "They should not blame or accuse anybody," he said, adding that it is for the mass media to scrutinise and play the checks-and-balances role.

"But the media of the two colours [blue and Red] are never examined. They only talk but didn't provide any information. They spoke only with feelings and opinions; they are groundless."

"People must learn that they cannot rely on political parties' media as they only attack their opponent without providing the truth," he said.

Pirongrong Ramasoota Rananand, a journalism lecturer at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Communication Arts, has a different view.

She said the media used to be regarded as the Fourth Estate, providing checks-and-balances on the other three - the king, the lords and the commons in the past, and the administrative, legislative and judicial branches at present. Therefore, they must be independent from the other three.

"Being the media for public relations is somewhat acceptable. But considering the potential of television, nobody will do just that. Otherwise, if there is no drama, nobody will watch," she said, adding that political parties have had their public relations media, such as websites, for a long time. Nobody complained, as the websites do not provoke people.

"The problem is incitement, political slander, hate speech and propaganda. Party politics are about winning, and defeating each other. If the media is associated with party politics, it is impossible that the public interest will be at the forefront," she said.

Adisak Limparungpatanakij, President of Nation Broadcasting Corporation, a sister company of The Nation newspaper, said there's no stopping politicians from running television stations through proxy shareholders and it might be best to legalise ownership of channels by politicians.

"I think let's do it in the open. It's best, because we can't bar anyone in reality and so the public will at least know who the real owners of these stations are. Constitutional prohibition is impractical," said Adisak, adding that it is futile to try to sue any politician for violating the Constitution through alleged mass-media ownership.

Adisak added that there would be balance, however, as the public have the choice of watching a pro-Democrat Party TV station or a pro-Pheu Thai Party TV station.

"You can say they are partisan, but nothing can be done about [these TV stations]. I am not too worried about that because neither side is being censored."

NBTC member Supinya Klangnarong expressed doubt that it could ever be proved that politicians are the real owners behind these satellite TV stations. "Is it practical [to bar them]? It's not practical."

Supinya said she wasn't sure if the law should be amended to allow politicians to legally own television stations or not.

Common rules that apply to all are needed, nevertheless, and Supinya said the commission would soon introduce guidelines covering these stations that would hopefully make them more responsible.

Election Commission member Sodsri Satayathum, in charge of political party affairs, said she agreed with the ban on political parties owning media outlets, as such organisations are provocative.

However, she said the law should be modified to close loopholes so that it can be properly enforced. Otherwise, political parties that do not currently have media of their own would try to set them up.

Blue Sky Channel executive Vittayen Muttamara is not opposed to the law. He said that in principle, political parties and the media should not be involved with each other. But he added that the law should be enforced in practice, and at the same time mainstream media should do its job properly by providing all the facts. If the mainstream media do so, the market mechanism will do its job and there will be no room for alternative media, as people can already easily access the mainstream media.

-- The Nation 2012-07-21

[Unkomoncents]

It won't matter whether the channels are owned by politicians or not; in fact, knowing that they are "connected" to politicians only helps those interested in the truth tune those channels out. The public in Thailand is too ignorant and the body politic too secretive and disingenuous to allow for a media that does anything but proffer information for manipulation.

[chotthee]

What about the Yellow Channel.

Suwannaphum TV Channel

ASTV NEWS1

TAN Network

INN

DMC

etc

[tomross46]

TAN Network has been taken off the air and the web has been closed. What happened to press freedon?

In the USA there is the same thing, CNN, MSNBC, NBC are left wing and than we have Fox as right wing.

[Unkomoncents]

TAN Network has been taken off the air and the web has been closed. What happened to press freedon?

In the USA there is the same thing, CNN, MSNBC, NBC are left wing and than we have Fox as right wing.

Yeah, but in the US there is at least some widely-accepted public acknowledgement of this fact. In Thailand/Asia (with a couple exceptions, Singapore, being one), it makes more sense to make an unenforceable law and then pretend like the truth is at the community news spigot.

[bigbamboo]

There is nothing wrong with politicians owning or operating their own TV channels as long as they are self funded and the public is made aware of who is behind them. Berlusconi has been doing it for years but it didn't stop the Italians from knowing that his media were owned and run by a corrupt politician.

You could have the Red Channel or the Yellow Channel or the Pink Channel and Thailand already has 'The Yingluck Show'. As long as everything is open and above board it doesn't matter. TV channels are two a penny now.

[Unkomoncents]

There is nothing wrong with politicians owning or operating their own TV channels as long as they are self funded and the public is made aware of who is behind them. Berlusconi has been doing it for years but it didn't stop the Italians from knowing that his media were owned and run by a corrupt politician.

You could have the Red Channel or the Yellow Channel or the Pink Channel and Thailand already has 'The Yingluck Show'. As long as everything is open and above board it doesn't matter. TV channels are two a penny now.

Yes, but in Italy, like in Thailand, the concept of la dolce vita is in play.

[Pseudolus]

As they don't shoe Korean dramas or re runs of Man Utd games from 7 years ago I doubt they get many viewers anyway apart from mom and pop salivating that their little Somchai is on TV again although this time not for assassinating a copper outside a soapy.

[rubl]

What about the Yellow Channel.

Suwannaphum TV Channel

ASTV NEWS1

TAN Network

INN

DMC

etc

What about VoiceTV with k. Thaksin's son dabbling a wee bid in multimedia, truthful news and providing interesting news items like "Abhisit on holiday while country flooded" ignoring the shiny new passport the MoFA gave his father ?

[Thai at Heart]

They can't even stop horror movies at 5pm and get the main channels to show anything more worthwhile than soaps. In done ways the addition of political channels is an improvement on the normal pap.