What if the media has to take sides?

Since the Pheu Thai-led government launched the rice-pledging scheme, the media have appeared to take the opposition’s side. Unlike the Democrats’ price-guarantee programme, which encouraged rice farmers to sell their harvest to anyone if market prices were above the guaranteed price, the pledging scheme requires the government to buy up every grain of rice grown.

The scheme’s massive loss is the reason why the media should hate it. But the lack of a system to monitor whether millers actually pay the Bt15,000-per-tonne price to farmers is the main reason why the media ignore one fact. Under the guarantee scheme, everyone – farmer or landowner – was entitled to benefit. Under the pledging scheme, only those with output in their hands stand to gain.

Under criticism from academics to economists including Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra’s adviser Virabongsa Ramangkura, the government has agreed to cut the price from Bt15,000 to Bt12,000 per tonne. This should lower the annual loss, which was to the tune of over Bt130 billion in the 2011/12 harvest year, and should help Thailand avoid a possible cut in its sovereign rating.

News headlines have however refocused on the farmers, who are totally disgruntled with the revision. All the media ran reports on the grievances of farmers, many of whom came out to complain that their production costs have been rising.

The fact is that the nation will be saddled with huge debt if the price is not changed – something that would weaken the country’s fiscal position in the long run and lead to unsustainable economic growth. A lower price means lower operating costs for the programme. Indeed, exporters are smiling now, as the lower prices make it easier for them to compete with other countries. 

Before the change, the media diligently chased up comments from those taking pot shots at the scheme. Few reporters looked at the original message Moody’s Investors Service sent out, when the Bt260 billion loss figure for the 2012/13 harvest year was first leaked. They fell in love with the warning from economists, who jumped to the conclusion that Moody’s would eventually downgrade Thailand due to the huge loss.

Naturally, they should hail it as a victory that the government eventually caved in to the pressure. Since annual output will not change much, the 20-per-cent price cut would mean a 20-per-cent cut in damages.

But as farmers, who make up most of the working age population, are fuming, the media have jumped on the bandwagon to report their views now. All the facts they had chased after were forgotten. Even a Facebook red-shirt fan page said that farmers should not be pleased with the switch and that farmers are just being used as a political tool against the Yingluck government.

If national interests are at stake here, we should applaud the government’s action. The media should then force the government to find ways to help farmers cut their costs and improve rice quality.

Better rice breeds could help, if they increase yields. Better breeds could help if they reduce the dependency on pricey fertilisers. Better breeds could help if they could raise the quality of our rice, so that we won’t need to compete with other countries.

At its own will, the media can avoid landing itself in a new dilemma.