Are politicians using television shows for personal gain?

It took two months before the pro-Democrat “Lightning Rod” news talk programme, hosted by three key members of the party, gained the full attention of the public. The show, broadcast on the satellite Blue Sky Channel, sparked controversy on February 10 when it suggested Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra might have left a parliamentary meeting for a liaison with a property developer at the Four Seasons Hotel. Later, the trio made their suggestions in a fashion that some people, like veteran broadcaster Somkiate Onwimol, found to be vulgar and tasteless.
There are concerns about the increasing number of politicians from both sides becoming media personalities, though to some politicians like Lightning Rod’s co-host Songkhla MP Sirichok Sopha, such a venture is the way of the future.
“The world has progressed. The fact that politicians, celebrities and public figures are active on Facebook and Twitter, which are also forms of communication, is no different from us doing [a show] on TV,” said Sirichok, who is also an aide to Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva. “It’s normal and we don’t do hate speech.”
Sirichok added that this was generally a good development, but media experts like Piyakul Laowansiri, dean of the Communication Arts Faculty at Hua Chiew University disagree.
“There clearly exist conflicts of interest. It’s a headache to think that political parties and politicians have their own [media machinery] to promote themselves. I can’t say whether it’s right or wrong. I don’t think we should shut them out. Anyone who wants to speak can find ways to speak. What concerns me is that people are so partisan they only listen to what they want to hear and refuse to listen to the other side. This leads to one-sided information. I worry about it,” Piyakul said.
The dean urged the public to consider the good of the society as a whole and not become attached to any one politician. They should listen to differing information and news and digest it first, Piyakul advised, adding that though such advice sounds simple enough, in reality it is difficult because “every” Thai now has a rigid political stance or political colour. She also urged political media to not just say positive things about themselves but also acknowledge mistakes when they are committed.
Even more alarmed by the phenomena is Voice TV host Jorm Petchpradab. Voice TV is funded by Thaksin Shinawatra’s son, Panthongtae, and Jorm readily admits it’s hard for mass media today to survive without political and economic clout. But having politicians run their own talk shows on TV is wrong, Jorm said.
“It’s creating more confusion. Mass media is increasingly being used as a political tool. Politicians moving into the media arena can only induce more conflict,” Jorm said. “Politicians have a clear goal. They work in order to enable themselves to gain [political] power, so they can’t claim to be acting as media professionals. When they speak the truth, it’s only a kind of truth coated with bias.”
Sirichok knew that he and his two colleagues had caused a controversy (over Yingluck), but said it’s unfair to judge the programme by singling just one show out of dozens. “We have been doing the programme for two months. It’s like saying that a two-hour movie is pornographic by viewing two-minutes of footage.”
Pressed further about negative repercussions from the various demagogical political television channels, Sirichok became more reflexive.
“If you want the country to be peaceful then there should be no [political] television stations because people are being agitated into becoming divided. But since a red-shirt TV station already exists, there’s a need to have other channels.
“The difference is that red-shirt channels distort facts and lies. I think it’s a turning point because the reds no longer have a monopoly in television,” Sirichok claims.