The media will take care of itself, if politics is righteous

A small group of red shirts made a relatively polite and low-key visit to The Nation’s head office last Wednesday. The visitors, who were also planning to drop by a few TV stations to give similar messages, said they wanted “fair” and “just” reporting of political news. They were obviously unsatisfied with the amount of negative reports about the Yingluck administration by the targeted media groups.
In times of deep political divide the issues of press freedom and freedom of expression are always in the spotlight. The visitors are not the only ones who have something to say about it. Activists on the other side of political divide have also been critical about political news reporting. For instance, anti-government protesters visited the headquarters of ThaiPBS recently to voice resentment against the airing of a debate on the monarchy. And when Channel 3 resorted to self-censorship to block soap opera content that could have offended the powers-that-be, critics were up in arms.
There are a number of misperceptions when their views of “press freedom” are concerned, not to mention the red-shirt visitors’ misunderstanding that Nation Group must make itself worthy of receiving “tax money”. In Thailand, “fair” reporting is much easier said than done. It’s nearly impossible, in fact, if public opinions are the key measure. The same group of red shirts was obviously not planning to visit other newspaper headquarters, but that doesn’t mean those dailies have set a standard for neutrality. In this strife-torn country, what is good reporting to one side of the divide is almost automatically bad journalism to the other half.
Thai journalists used to give a lot of weight to complimentary feedback when evaluating their own work. Now, praise matters far less than before. At present, many reporters may only feel professionally satisfied with their work when brickbats are thrown at them from both sides. The current working motto is that, when nobody likes what you write, it’s very likely that you are saying or reporting the right thing.
Being disliked by both sides is just one of the troubled aspects. Many journalists are simply confused. They don’t know what they should do under these circumstances. They don’t know what a divided society really wants from them. Should journalists take a stand or campaign vehemently for or against Article 112? How can they be neutral and objective in a deeply divided and highly partisan society? To add to the complexities and vulnerability of press freedom in Thailand, the issue is always deeply associated with how political leaders or partisan activists “feel” about the media, not how the media should behave in the universally professional sense. When Thaksin Shinawatra was prime minister and facing mounting street protests, pro-government protesters “visiting” media offices were generally thought to have been sent by the powers-that-be.
One may say journalists’ work is simple, that all they have to do is be neutral and objective. With the government’s advertising money going selectively to media groups and threats against journalists occurring on a daily basis, perhaps the symptom is wrongly diagnosed. And if one asks three people on the street what “brave journalism” is, you could get three different answers.
To some, brave journalism is fighting tooth and nail to bring “murderers” of the “Ratchaprasong massacre” to justice. To some others, it’s those who are standing up against the Thaksin empire that is striking back. To the rest, it’s those who simply try to stay neutral, whatever “neutrality” means.
Thailand has paid a huge price for its political divide. None of the key institutions has been spared. When the judiciary is branded a part of a conspiracy, Parliament a rubber stamp for tyranny of majority and the executive branch a prime example of mandate abuser, pinning too much hope on journalists may simply mean giving them too much credit.