Just a thin line between caution and paranoia

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide of TV Channel 3 continue to baffle us. According to reports, the latest self-censorship by the TV station has some parts of dialogue “silenced” in a romantic comedy when it comes to corruption by a fictional agricultural business giant. But just when we start wondering again if Channel 3 has turned into an oversensitive media outlet, when it comes to the powers-that-be, some evidence of the station’s “insensitivity” hits us right between the eyes, virtually every day.

Perhaps the time has come for Channel 3 to clear its identity. It can choose to be an open-minded media corporate that has decided to give embattled Sorrayuth Suthassanachinda a chance, presuming him to be innocent until he is found guilty, or it can present itself as extremely paranoid. The double personality is not making it easy for anyone, and the confusion is compounded by station executives’ habit of keeping their mouths shut to wear off criticism.

The latest issue involves “Paen Rai Pai Rak” (which means a malicious plan is defeated by love), a romantic comedy that happens to venture into dangerous water in the eyes of Channel 3 management. The plot mentions corruption by an agro-business giant and the rest, as they say, is history. Viewers have noticed that parts of the dialogue have been taken off the air to blur the fictional identity of the firm. They couldn’t help wondering why.

This follows an abrupt decision to take a whole episode of the soap opera “Nua Mek 2” off the air despite the fact that the drama was ending. “Nua Mek 2”, like “Paen Rai Pai Rak”, touched on the issue of corruption, and featured an evil telecom empire. The ban sparked a public outcry, which was met with characteristic silence by the station’s management.

The self-censorship is quite different from the case of popular news-talk host Sorrayuth, although TV Channel 3’s image has barely recovered from its controversial decision to protect him. That decision drew heavy criticism from one side of the political divide and praise from the other. Whether the decision is good or bad, or right or wrong, he has had his journalistic responsibility seriously hampered by the scandal involving his own media company. Channel 3 never really explained why his daily news programme was not removed.

Channel 3 is facing a real-life case of alleged graft and fictional ones that its content providers wanted to put forth. Presuming Sorrayuth to be innocent is a bold move, although, having said this, removing his programme could have also been a blatant step. Banning a soap opera or censoring the name of a fictional company can never be described as bold.

What is Channel 3 afraid of? Lawsuits by all telecom and agricultural giants? If one can successfully sue for fictional materials, countries may collapse under the weight of defamation cases. Why does Channel 3 obstruct artistic intention to highlight one of Thailand’s biggest problems – corruption?

Barring the ethical questions stemming from the Sorrayuth controversy, the TV station’s treatment of news is commendable. There is quality coverage and good professionals who work for public interest. This makes the station’s oversensitive attitude toward the content of soap operas even more puzzling.

Some say no organisation can get really big without getting controversial. Channel 3 is a leading media institution and, therefore, every public decision is being scrutinised inside and out. However, there should be limits to how controversial a big media company can get. The station has encountered conflicts of interest, and the way it has dealt with them can hardly be described as having viewers’ benefits in mind.