Thailand Press Censure Debate

[george]

Govt sets agenda, `chooses what media runs', critics say

Press falls silent as big-business interests come to power, threaten to pull advertisements

BANGKOK: Something is missing from freedom when the press can write anything it wants _ as long as it says nothing bad about the government.

A constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, freedom of the press and the people's right to use broadcasting frequencies means the charter recognises the media as another watchdog outside institutions such as the Constitution Court, the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Election Commission.

But those promises are only good on paper.

Academics, journalists and activists agree the media's scrutiny power has weakened, ironically, at a time when the country is supposedly enjoying a blooming democracy brought about by its best constitution ever.

They do not expect radio and television to look out for government mismanagement because they are owned, run and controlled by state agencies, but at the same time privately-owned print media are of little help.

Pibhop Dhongchai, adviser to the Campaign for Popular Democracy and the Campaign for Popular Media Reform, said newspapers could not survive without income from advertisements and that explained why they had become mute after big business groups ascended to political power.

``Newspapers in our democratic society are silent, just like the press in socialist countries,'' Mr Pibhop said.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra did not support public participation via the media, did not listen to the media and even told people to believe only in the government, he said.

``That makes the people unable to rely 100% on newspapers to speak for them,'' he said.

Ua-jit Wirojtrairat, an independent academic who founded the Civil Media Development Institute, said articles in the press reflected lax scrutiny, because critics and thinkers were driven underground by the wrath of a government that could not tolerate dissent.

Wilasinee Pipitkul, of Chulalongkorn University's faculty of communication arts, said the government was able to dictate to the media what they must report.

``The government is now in effect choosing stories for the media,'' Ms Wilasinee said.

She said the government exhausted the media by bombarding them with its new projects and new policies every day, leaving them with little time for investigative reports.

``A nationwide aerobics dance, the declaration of victory over drugs... that is control of news content, a form of censorship.''

Ms Wilasinee said the media was to blame for half-hearted attempts to check the government and abdicating its watchdog role to civic organisations.

Bakban Boonlert, spokesman for the Thai Journalists Association, said the media failed to investigate government executives or check if their policies really helped because they could not keep up with the government's ``marketing strategies'' and carry out in-depth inquiries into those populist packages.

Mr Bakban urged the media to unmask the people who stood to gain from populist policies.

``For example, the media should find out where the money from the one-million-baht village loan scheme went _ on mobile telephones, motorcycles _ products owned by some people in the government?

``If someone in the government ended up benefiting, that is policy corruption,'' he said.

Mr Bakban said business allies of the government were always ready to pull advertisements from newspapers that had developed a prickly relationship with the government.

That happened to at least three newspapers which ran hostile reports about the government, which made other newspapers think twice, Mr Bakban said.

Newspapers also could not do a good job examining the government because they could not present views differently.

Whenever the government was criticised, it would hit back at its critics.

Surapol Nitikraipoj, dean of Thammasat University's faculty of law and a constant critic of the government, was now the only dean of this institution not given a seat on the Council of State, the government's legal arm, and who was removed from other boards of state agencies, Mr Bakban said.

``That has silenced criticism. It limits freedom of expression and prevents the media presenting opinions different from those of the government,'' he said.

Thai Rak Thai spokesman Suranand Vejjajiva, however, denied the government was muzzling the press.

Mr Suranand said the media was free to investigate the government, but the government itself should be able to defend itself when it was misreported.

He said he would call newspapers which carried stories damaging to the government, not to threaten them but to explain the truth since headlines could be sensational, misleading and unfair.

``We certainly listen to the media. If not, we wouldn't bother correcting misunderstandings,'' Mr Suranand said.

He also denied the government was pulling advertisements to gag the press or manipulate its contents.

Mr Suranand said he believed several newspapers could depend on themselves financially without having to rely on big business groups.

He urged editorial departments to start erecting ``a big wall'' between themselves and advertising departments.

``Editorials must let salesmen know that money cannot influence the way they write their stories,'' he said.

--The Post 2003-12-10