Thai media need soul searching - again

First of all, no journalists with the right mind would use the news programs to defend his or her record, especially when the allegation came from the country’s anti-graft agency after nearly five-years of judicial process. If Sorrayuth wants to come clean, he can do it quite easily in a press conference or briefing so that reporters can ask questions liked he often does in his programme. However he chose the unprofessional way to tell his side of story. His action has brought disgrace to the Thai broadcasting profession.

In addition, what is the most intriguing is the attitude of Channel 3, which allows the news anchor to continue his news programme as if nothing happens the next day. Under this circumstance, what the TV station should do is to temporary suspend him from regular news broadcasting until he successfully defends his alleged wrongdoings in court. After all, that is supposed to be a standard procedure. The station’s recalcitrance demonstrates how commercial interest trumps media accountability and public interest.

As a leading media personality, Sorrayuth’s news program generates big advertising revenue for Channel 3. Any suspension, even temporary, would have a severe impact on the earning as well as the overall rating. The TV executives fear that if he is off the air, the morning news audience would falter. It would translate into shrieking advertising revenue and lower rating. Morning and evening news programmes bring in TV stations’ largest shrunk of income. At the moment, competition for rating among the morning news slots are the fiercest within the electronic media. Each program has to come up with new ideas to attract early bird viewers. Most of the news anchors now adopt the style of story-telling on key news items and sprinkle them with comments and satirical remarks. To light up news programmes, Sorrayuth was also among the first news anchor to introduce a comedian as part of the news team during the broadcast. This formula proves extremely popular and captured bigger audience for Channel 3.

Meanwhile, the National Press Council of Thailand and Thai Broadcasters Association are investigating a group of 39 journalists both printed and broadcasters of their malfeasance. They spent a week under the auspice of the National Assembly’s House Speaker Somsak Kiartsuranand under the so-called study tour of UK, France and Belgium. As it turned out, it was a fun trip and reportedly cost the Thai taxpayers an estimated Bt7 million (US$233,333). This is not the first time that journalists are caught red handed in non-journalistic sojourns. Every year, journalists have joined junkie tours at their own perils. Often times their offices are not notified as they are invited as an individual. It is a well known practice among the country’s MPs and bureaucrats that before the annual budget expires, they would plan overseas trips disguised as study or fact-finding tours with “blah-blah” objectives. Paris, London, New York and Tokyo are some of the preferred destinations. For them, it is a must to tag along favourite journalists as a form of reward for them.

Today media ethics are not seriously enforced. The proliferation of digital media, citizen journalists, bloggers, tweeters and social media have also confused the media community inside the country about what are proper ethics of journalism. So, it is understandable whenever the media professional organisations come out with verdicts using peer pressure, journalists do not pay much attention to the recommended sanctions. Last year, Matichon Group angrily withdrew its membership from the NPC after its journalist was named on a bribery case to protest the landmarked decision. It is interesting to note that mainstream media establishments have been able to make quick adjustments to the new mixed media environment under the Yingluck government, which has been generous in providing large budget for media publicity of government success and policy announcements. Advertising and public relations agencies are busy screening after favourable media outlets for ad placements.

In more ways than one, Sorrayuth’s case and the media freebies epitomized the overall Thai media malaise. In the former, the news anchor is one of the most powerful news agenda setters inside the country. He knows how to spin news whether they are related to personalities or issues. Like it or not, his views matters. During the great flood last year, he became the news maker himself after he went out to help the flood victims and reported on his activities for weeks. Nobody questioned him. Some even praised him for his public service works by raising money for charity and help flood victims. That helps explain why he did not feel any shame when he spent over six minutes of his morning programme to defend the corruption allegation against him.

In a similar vein, some 150 journalists following the Government House and National Assembly beats – the two most sought after routines reporting – understand their media power well. But only a few dozen would stand out and marked for special treatments by the power-that-be for news scoops (or trial balloons?) and preferences to accompany the Cabinet leaders during overseas trips. Since the expenses are being paid by the government, press officials often choose who can go. During the first Thaksin administration, only selective friendly journalists were allowed to board the Air Force One – the practice discontinued after 2006.

Thai media need another deep soul searching particularly at this juncture. Within the media community, there is a strong sign of media fatigue and full of empathy. Unlike the past, journalists were full of zest taking up the watch dog role unwaveringly. These days, the watch dogs are not barking any more.