PM should give reporters the punch-lines, not the punch

The Thai Journalists Association apparently thinks so. TJA vice president Manop Thip-osod issued a statement last week saying that although Premier Prayut Chan-o-cha had not addressed the remark directly to the reporter in question, making it in public to air his frustration at dealing with questions from the media was not appropriate for someone in his position.

The premier wisely didn’t respond immediately – as is his usual practice. He sent his spokesman, Yongyuth Mayalarp, to make it clear that the prime minister had no intention whatsoever to intimidate members of the media.

But was he frustrated? Of course. That, the spokesman says, was  because the premier had given the same information several times and may have felt tired at having to answer the same questions again and again.

In other words, General Prayut was suggesting that reporters weren’t paying attention to what he said. Likewise, reporters who posed the same query more than once might have thought that the premier wasn’t answering their questions.

There is obviously a failure of communication between the prime minister and the Government House press corps: The right questions weren’t raised and the answers didn’t hit the nail on the head.

The current press practice is seriously flawed. Thailand is probably the only country where the premier talks to reporters every day – sometimes twice or three times a day. But frequency doesn’t guarantee quality. In fact, the more often the premier chats with reporters, the less serious communication there is.

Sometimes, the premier goes on a lengthy monologue. Other times, reporters throw random questions at Prayut, not expecting any substantial answers but trying to extract “sound bites” for the evening TV news shows.

For some inexplicable reason, the premier often falls prey to such daily traps. And he gets angry when his sometimes off-the-cuff verbal outbursts gain more publicity than the substance of his responses.

“Ambush interviews” – which constitute the most dangerous traps for public figures unwary of unexpected questions – can take place only if the premier allows them to happen. Instead of allowing himself to be waylaid by reporters and cameramen, the premier could arrange for proper press conferences where substantial questions are posed and real answers can be given.

It is unclear why the premier has felt it necessary to talk about every subject under the sun instead of concentrating on the nation’s major issues, delegating the details of operations to relevant Cabinet members. It is obvious that if the prime minister talks daily to the press, reporters will likely ignore Cabinet members, who might in fact be armed with more relevant information about topics that are of greater interest to the public.

The premier is obviously suffering from symptoms of “over-exposure” because of his indiscriminate bantering with the press. Being accessible to the media is a positive sign, but engaging in daily emotional sparring with reporters is far from healthy for Prayut’s public image as a communicator.

No one expects the relationship between the premier and the press to be totally smooth for that would raise suspicion of mutual cosying up. But both sides can establish a professional relationship whereby mutual respect means tough – even provocative – questions can be raised, and clear and direct answers are expected, so that the public will stand to gain the most from the substance and analyses of both sides.

The premier said the other night in his weekly TV show that his programme had to be lengthy because he wanted to explain things in detail to the public.

“Once the public understands more, I will talk less,” he declared.

The problem is that talking more doesn’t necessarily make for better understanding. In fact, in most cases, the reverse is true.