(TJA/IFEX) – The following is a 30 December 2003 TJA press release: 2003: A Year Thai Media was reined in The Thai Journalists Association (TJA) declared 2003: a year Thai media was reined in. The media resorted to self-censorship and restrained itself from being critical of the government as a result of advertisement pressure from […]
(TJA/IFEX) – The following is a 30 December 2003 TJA press release:
2003: A Year Thai Media was reined in
The Thai Journalists Association (TJA) declared 2003: a year Thai media was reined in. The media resorted to self-censorship and restrained itself from being critical of the government as a result of advertisement pressure from associates of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s government and subtle and systematic interference in media operations.
The annual summary of the Thai media situation for 2003 was released on 28 December.
TJA found that the withdrawal of advertisements in newspapers by business associates of powerful figures in the government was intensified in order to quell government critics.
Government agencies’ public relations budgets have also been increasingly used to reward media that report in favor of the government. “This is considered a violation of Article 39 of the constitution, which bans giving money or assets to support print or private media”, the TJA report stated.
Moreover, critical and balanced reporting was discouraged by the fact that news sources refrained from giving information or being critical of the government for fear of losing their jobs. This gives the government leeway to “monopolize public opinion”, the report said.
TJA said the government has reined in the media by targeting media operations, a more subtle and difficult to understand strategy. This was the case when news broke out that cousins of the ruling Thai Rak Thai party’s secretary-general, Suriya Jueng-rung-ruerng-kij, bought about 20 percent of the Nation Group’s shares.
“Despite their denial of interference in the media group’s administration, this move inevitably demoralized staff and affected their work,” the report said.
The situation was much worse in the broadcast sector. Not only did the government fail to push for broadcast media reform, as prescribed in Article 40 of the constitution, it also resorted to the old tactic of withdrawing or terminating private enterprises’ operating licenses to tame critical broadcasting.
Six years have passed since the constitutional process aimed at ending state monopoly of the broadcast sector was launched. Almost all radio and television stations, however, have remained under state control and a group of members of parliament who support the ruling party tried to submit a broadcast council bill that would allow state control over broadcast media. Fortunately, after a long debate in Parliament and strong objections from media professionals, the bill was defeated.
With respect to media ethical and professional standards, TJA concluded that while the media was better able to perform its job of being a social watchdog in several cases related to the government’s public policy and social injustice issues, there were still a limited number of investigative reports that required both support from newspapers and determination on the part of reporters.
Media outlets were also criticized for being manipulated by news sources as a result of excessive competition among themselves. The media was fed information by sources and failed to be selective or evaluate the news worthiness of the information.
In conclusion, TJA said the government used gradual, subtle and ongoing strategies to tame the media. The government’s aim was to ensure that the media would report in its favor in 2004, the last year of the administration, and ensure its victory in the ensuing general election.
Details of unresolved press freedom violations are as follows:
Print Media
1. Surapong Rithee, a local reporter for the Thai Rath daily newspaper and TV Channel 3 from Phuket province, was shot to death on February 11. This case was believed to be linked to his exposé on illegal business in the province.
2. A senior security officer harassed a female reporter who was part of a press entourage covering a cabinet meeting in the provinces of Phuket and Ubon Ratchathani in May.
3. A former government spokesman’s aide threatened a Matichon newspaper reporter because the journalist had produced unfavorable reports.
Overall, the threats against press freedom decreased. There was one other case where a media outlet was targeted due to a conflict of interest.
Broadcast Media
1. State-owned radio stations refused to renew the licenses of independent news producers. One station owner refused to renew the license of INN news corporation to operate Ruam Duay Chuey Khan, a Bangkok live community radio program broadcast on FM 96.0 MHz. Succumbing to public pressure, it later gave INN a one-year extension of the license. This unscrupulous use of licenses as a bargaining chip to control programs that are critical of the government has forced companies that want to renew their contract to “self-censor” their programs and contents.
2. State-owned radio stations, particularly those in the provinces, were forced to air the Saturday morning talk program “The prime minister meets the people”. This limited the news and radio program choices of audiences in the provinces.
Media breaches of ethical and professional standards
1. Improper exposure of victims’ identity (disclosure of faces, names and address or identity cards) in newspapers and television was still rampant, especially when the victims were children and women, thus trampling on their rights and dignity.
2. The right to privacy was violated when newspapers published an exposé of video cassette recordings showing sexual intercourse among socialites.
3. Abusive and improper headings were used, with wording that sometimes implied that judgement had already been passed on people in the news.
4. The morning radio and television programs that feature “What newspapers today say” often erred when anchors made comments on issues they were not familiar with. This frequently caused confusion among the public who did not know who to believe.
5. Competition among newly formed entertainment newspapers forced them to find stories that infringed upon the right to privacy of movie stars.
Distributed by the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA).
