Prayut's media skills need some honing

The sustained “tit-for-tat” between Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha and government-beat reporters on September 25 at the Government House showed a lack of understanding and appreciation of the role of media by the current government. Media encounters with the prime minister these days have become a game to outsmart one another with condescending views from both sides.

If this trend persists, it will be a recipe for disaster as it does not bode well with the government’s oft-repeated promises to respect press freedom which has suffered greatly under the pretext of bringing back happiness and reconciliation.

Rough patterns and tones of discourse have already emerged that could have far-reaching repercussions for Prayut’s leadership and ability to communicate with the Thai people – as well as for the media’s creditability and professionalism.

First and foremost, both Prayut and reporters reveal their unpleasant features. The prime minister has been a military leader all his life, even though he has now taken up a civilian role to lead the country. But he still talks and replies like a soldier. So, whenever reporters ask any question, he feels awkward and it shows. As a commander in the Thai army, he did not have to answer – no questions were asked. Now as the most powerful figure in the country, he has to be accountable for everything he undertakes. That helps explain why sometimes a simple question demanding a simple answer turns into a tit-for-tat of useless news value.

Therefore, a Thai public figure requires an extraordinary ability to engage the media. Among former Thai prime ministers, Chatichai Choonhawan was the  most adroit in dealing with the media. He could be teasing and yet reveal information with good quotes – something Prayut has been trying to do but so far to no avail.   

Anand Panyarachun, Chuan Leekpai and Abhisit Vejjajiva were the three leaders who maintained the highest professional relations with the media. The trio kept a distance from reporters and answered their enquiries with facts – they  never lapsed into a conversation during press conferences. However, the quality of replies dropped markedly under Yingluck Shinawatra as she could not connect the dots or make sense of what was going on during the day.

Second, the reporters following the prime minister and his entourage are rookies and not well trained, except a handful of experienced reporters. In other countries, the most experienced reporters are assigned to cover their leaders and activities at their offices and the Parliament. The opposite is true in Thailand. Nearly 200 reporters representing traditional and new media are young and greenhorn. They are there to get comments, especially negative ones, not the big picture. If there are gaffes made by the prime minister or his Cabinet members, news editors consider it a good day for headline news.

Reporters at the Government House have their own journalistic practices and pitfalls. They often ask questions with cynicism. Once they get the answers they can frame them to match their presumed motives – something the Thai reporters are very good at. Indeed, they need fundamental journalist training and understanding of vital issues affecting the country.

Third, Prayut shows an inability to convey the message that what he is doing is not in “self-interest” but for “public-interest” and could in the long-run undermine his own accomplishments. In his several media conferences, he has repeated the same thing – what he has been doing is in the public interest. Someone needs to tell him that the proof of the pudding is in the eating – not saying the same thing.  Thais and the international community want to see results from his impressive list of reforms. They all want to see him succeed. A good piece of advice for him – seek professional assistance in handling media in ways that would sharpen his message and communication skills.

At his class in political communications in the fall of 2000, Prof. David Gergen of Harvard University stressed that the US presidents he had advised (Gerald Ford, George Bush, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) had to practice regularly in speech making and answering questions. Ability to answer and control  expressions on camera in the 24-hour news cycle and globalised world needs proper and sustained training. There is nothing wrong in getting professional advice.

Finally, it is recommended Prayut transform his Friday lecture on pool TV into a town-hall meeting. It can be a once a month event with dialogue with representatives from all walks of life, instead of a monologue in a studio addressing and pointing fingers at the unseen audience. Prayut is a straight forward and sincere leader – no question about that. The remaining 12-15 months is a short time; he should be allowed to display his charisma and good intentions in a day-to-day setting with the common folk he vows to serve.