'Runway crack' reporter finds redemption

A recent legal victory of a senior journalist whose career took a bad turn following his Suvarnabhumi Airport “runway cracks” story is not just a personal triumph. His case made headlines a few years ago when then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra threatened to sue the journalist’s employer for hefty damages in the wake of the runway report. The legal threat did not materialise but the reporter lost his job and blamed it largely on his Suvarnabhumi work.

The case highlighted the issue of press freedom versus “national interests”. It also touched upon the complexities of media businesses operating under political shadows. That a media activist also faced a civil lawsuit worth hundreds of millions of baht during the same administration for linking government policies to telecom interests provided another example of how debilitating “compensation” demands could hinder journalists’ work, whether they are functioning in a democratic system or not.

The Suvarnabhumi Airport was plagued with scandals during construction and purchase of equipment. There were claims of bribery or “under-the-table” money being paid in several stages of building Thailand’s new international airport. Concerns were palpable at the time over whether substandard materials were being used or whether taxpayers’ money was being wasted along the way. The senior journalist’s report came out amid such public worries, drawing Thaksin’s wrath. The reporter and his organisation later parted ways, on bad terms.

Obstacles to journalistic duties have evolved with time. Subtle deterrence has joined “mafia” violence and straightforward clampdown by the powers-that-be in blocking reporters’ work deemed undesirable by vested interests. Many media outlets have found it hard to be professionally objective when huge chunks of their incomes come from the sources that reporters are supposed to be critical against, namely the government or big corporates.

In the past, ruling dictators sent troops to lock up press equipment. Equally effective these days is a threat to “stop advertising with you.” When such a verbal warning, explicit or not, involves tens of millions or hundreds of millions of baht, media owners virtually have their hands tied. At a time when media outlets have evolved to become “empires”, the need for money grows in proportion with their expansions.

Journalistically speaking, the good old days were when a newspaper’s owner didn’t care who would stop advertising, because the wage bills were small and there were always dignified means to make ends meet. Today, there are so many things to think about, not least how to pay reporters, who have been spoiled for career choices.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the senior journalist, who wanted a sizable compensation from his former employer, acknowledged that he was simply doing his duty. It was a little ironic that the media organisation now needs to pay its former reporter who it allegedly blamed for the legal threat from the Thaksin government. It’s also remarkable that a politician’s legal threat eventually pitted a media group against one of its own reporters.

The court ruling upholds what has become a widely-accepted value. That value practically says that public interests are of utmost importance in journalists’ work, and if those interests conflict with interests of organisations that employ the journalists, then so be it. The ruling represents a triumph of that value and should serve as a warning to all parties concerned in an era where media businesses get increasingly complicated.