Ethics and the law play second fiddle

Shortly after the father of a young actress from a hit TV show held an “urgent” press conference to acknowledge that his daughter had used an illegal drug, the news media rushed to publish with no compunction about printing the 16-year-old’s name. 

Her father had extended an apology to society, admitting his daughter “tried it once”. His words were amplified first on the mainstream media and then on the social media. Images from his press conference photos were published and broadcast alongside the previously leaked photo that sparked the commotion, in which the girl was seen with equipment needed to smoke “crystal” methamphetamine. 

The story spread like wildfire, and few were concerned about naming the girl despite her status as a minor. At 16, her identity is protected by the law and cannot be publicly revealed amid criminal accusations. But the public was only interested in sharing a “sensational” story as quickly as possible. 

This can be viewed as another failure in terms of media ethics. It could also be a real setback for the child-protection law implemented two decades ago.

The story reaffirms that the Thai media still have a long way to go in developing ethical standards that meet the expectations and intentions of the law. Although such infringements of rights occur less frequently than they did in the past, the media have failed again. Tempted by such a “newsworthy” story, four newspapers published photos and the name of the actress. 

Warnings from groups including the Press Council of Thailand seem inadequate in preventing the publication of such details when they stories are deemed lurid enough. The attitude of the media seems to be, “If we don’t do it, someone else will.” 

Few news outlets honoured the rights of the actress the first day, and on the second day things got worse when she and her father visited the Office of the Narcotics Control Board. Police General Pongsapat Pongcharoen then took them to meet Labour Minister Chalerm Yoobamrung, who “paraded” them in front of cameramen. Acting as director of the government’s effort to stem the trade in illegal drugs, Chalerm told the press, “She’s clean.” 

The story was soon on almost every TV channel and in every newspaper. Some blurred her, image but everyone could see a girl sitting there sobbing. Meanwhile Chalerm managed to blow things further out of proportion by declaring illogically that she hadn’t in fact taken any drugs and her father had overreacted. Either way, non-governmental groups condemned Chalerm for failing to observe the girl’s rights. 

Chalerm and Pongsapat are just the last examples of Thais who still do not understand why children’s rights need protecting. Despite being police officers themselves, they failed to uphold the law. Mind you, it’s not much of a law. While promising blanket protection to children, with violators liable to six months in jail or fines up to Bt60,000 or both, the law has not once been evoked in 20 years. So figures in authority like Chalerm and Pongsapat – and the media – can continue making excuses for infringing on rights. Yet there is still no justification for doing so. 

It is time the public, the authorities and the media showed a greater determination in protecting the rights of youngsters, and similar restraint in exploiting them in cases such as this.

This case will not be the last. It will take a supreme effort to prevent another sordid spectacle of the kind we have seen over the last few days.