Should 'political TV' make a comeback?

Among the political voices suppressed following the coup in May are some that had become quite familiar. They were controversial, to say the least. Pro- and anti-Thaksin TV stations have been utterly subdued since the military take-over, yet complaints about restrictions on freedom of expression have rarely extended to them – for good reasons.

As long as the military junta remains in power, it's hard to imagine “red” or “yellow” or “blue” TV stations being revived and getting back to their provocative and combatant best. Even the most vocal critics of the coup have found it difficult to oppose the crackdown on the politically oriented TV stations, whose trademarks were hate speeches and no-holds-barred broadcasts of fiery political rallies.

Yet the issue of politically connected stations will resurface as Thailand grapples with its divisive politics and ponders measures to bring about peace and reconciliation. The TV stations, to begin with, had dubious sources of funds. The alleged practice of getting funding from politicians raised strong legal questions. How “fair” was Thai politics to smaller parties?

Since the issue of “political” TV stations is closely related to the matter of freedom of expression and how the powers-that-be have often exploited state mechanisms to guide or control broadcasting, there is no getting around it. Those responsible for “reforming” Thailand must tackle this delicate issue with a clear and unbiased conscience.

The first political station was the Manager Group’s ASTV. It was hell-bent on attacking Thaksin Shinawatra, his family and basically everything they did. However, ASTV was around so long that citizens might have forgotten where the station got its impetus. It came from Thaksin's clampdown on critical TV programmes in the first place.

One thing led to another. A TV station was founded to guard Thaksin against just such attacks and wage war against ASTV. The red shirts' TV played a big role in the uprising of 2010 and, like ASTV before it, displeased the powers-that-be. When the Pheu Thai Party came to power in the aftermath of the red upheaval, another political TV station made a flamboyant bow. Bluesky TV was fundamental in last year's anti-Pheu Thai street campaign, but it, the red shirts' station and ASTV were jointly blamed for the unprecedented climate of hatred shrouding Thailand.

Should political broadcasting even be allowed? Of course it should. Should funding come from politicians? Absolutely not: The negative consequences are all around us. Blatant lies were told. Obscene language was common. Ethics was virtually non-existent. And television’s regulators, the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, could do nothing about it. Politicians want the audience to hate their rivals, but in the process viewers end up hating not just political figures but their fellow citizens. The hatred was real, deep-rooted and, by the time of the coup, becoming dangerous.

Sooner or later the issue of political TV stations will have to be tackled. Whenever suppression of freedom of expression is decried, it's easy to overlook or sidestep the danger of free-for-all political TV. To promote democracy and guard against the uncontrolled consequences of hate broadcasts, we need to strike a firm balance. The funding rules must change and be strictly enforced, and regulations must be set to prevent hate propaganda, outright lies and defamation. 

With freedom comes responsibility. If political TV stations are to be revived, everyone involved must keep that in mind.