Media in spotlight over its coverage of lecturer saga

The Thai Journalists Association and other media organisations issued warnings to the journalists and media executives asking them to stop their live coverage and be considerate.
Media Ethics Facebook page posted: “He might have changed his mind if he were not in such a stressful situation. On one hand, the media were doing their job, on the other hand, they are human who are supposed to emphatise with fellow human beings. ... The advanced information technology with this capacity for live broadcast has become the finger that has triggered the media’s guns, hastening the man’s last breath to come sooner.”
Anotai Sakunthong: “All media practitioners know well what the duties of the media are. But they must be based on morality, ethics and accountability. Don’t be carried away or use only your emotions and feelings. Otherwise, you should go back to square one and take a journalist training course again.”
Sataporn Pongpipatwattana: “PPTV is clear that we will not violate any journalistic ethics. We do not shoot pictures and do not broadcast live when it violates the rights of privacy. We considered “what if” violence occurred during the live broadcast, what to do? PPTV is a small TV channel, but we are clear about being socially responsible.
Sumeth Somkanae: “Will the pictures of a man committing a suicide be so precious, boost viewer ratings that will open a chance for the government to expedite issuing laws to control the media?”
Chairith Yonpiam: “TV channels that broadcast the suicide should be strongly condemned.
“From only 1-2 channels that showed the man putting the gun to his head without censoring, many more channels joined in next three hours. Academics, psychiatrists and the Thai Journalists Association asked them to stop. A TV anchor replied: ‘We accept that it was not appropriate for the youth. But we have to broadcast as the audience are following it and want to give moral support’. That’s crazy!”
Piyaporn Wong: “For four to five hours, two incidents happened at about the same time. Charter drafters tried to clarify to political parties with the hope that they share with the people correct information before the national referendum. A few blocks away, a PhD lecturer found he was at a dead end and was about to shoot himself. Many media chose to report the desperate man’s suicide.”
However, Sompop Lee posted that the media have to always follow and make use of technology. They also have to keep up and compete for timeliness. Meanwhile, the broadcast of the incident was good because people could monitor the police’s conduct towards the man. Critical journalists should stop preaching and let the audience decide by themselves what they want to support.”
Preeya Luck shared Sompop’s post and wrote: “No matter what, a news channel must broadcast live the event. Otherwise, it would lose to both competitors and social media. It is how they broadcast, whether they were carefully broadcast, whether the journalists were obstructing the officers and whether they air graphic pictures, those are the issues.
“Some people did not want to watch or feared that children would imitate while many other channels did not broadcast the siege live. They can choose. Parents can guide.
“To fellow media who do not give priority to broadcasting this event live, good. Please maintain your ethical standards. But please do not insult your friends. That’s not nice.”
Apple Sarunya posted: “The news was over, but journalists don’t let it end. In the field we are competitors. After work we are friends, brothers and sisters. Those who are narrow-minded and cannot accept the truth should get out of journalism. Our job is to present the facts. We are not amateurs that cover only opening ceremonies of events.”
Reacting to the live broadcast, some social media users shared advice on what the police should do and what to avoid in case of such negotiations, others wrote against the media’s conduct and gave advice for parents and children.