Media battle for hearts, minds

Critics call for new ways to address satellite-based, increasingly partisan, media outlets in Thailand

Bangkok Post
Monday, February 2, 2009

By Piyaporn Wongruang

In the cool, air-conditioned studio on the sixth floor of the Imperial World Shopping Centre on Lat Phrao road, the United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship's co-leader Jakrapob Penkair was hosting the news analysis programme World View.

Mr Jakrapob, however, seemed to heat things up occasionally when he veered from his show's subject of the inauguration of US President Barack Obama to attack the Abhisit government.

The media war has been part and parcel of the political struggles of the past few years. Media critics decried ASTV, which mainly serves as an attack machine against Thaksin Shinawatra and everyone and everything related to the deposed prime minister, as press partisanship. With the birth of a contrary voice, DStation, the challenge has become intensified to the point that some critics are calling for new mechanisms to regulate these so-called alternative media.

DStation, as explained by Mr Jakrapob, is an advancement of the People's Television (PTV) set up in 2007 by Thaksin loyalists to fight against the Sept 19 coup makers. The station evolved to become a political operational unit for the group. It often broadcast the UDD's activities to its supporters, now widely called the red shirts.

The group gave a new name to PTV as it felt it needed to expand its political move from anti-coup protests to a dissemination of information and knowledge regarding democracy.

They hope that when the public understands what democracy is about, they will join them in fighting against the current regime, which they view as an aristocracy, according to Mr Jakrapob.

How would Mr Jakrapob reconcile that specific goal with the media's principle of non-bias?

"We no longer care now whether or not we are a member of the mass media," said Mr Jakrapob. "You can define our station whichever way you want to. For us, we only want to have an audience listening to what we have to say. We want to have influence for the sake of democracy."

At present, the pro-Thaksin DStation is operating in very much the same way as the anti-Thaksin ASTV. It broadcasts 24 hours a day by uplinking its content to the satellite, Thaicom-5, for its audience to downlink with the help of a satellite dish -- a technique which circumvents the existing laws regulating the operation of public media in the country.

Mr Jakrapob admits the initial funding for DStation came from Thaksin and overseas UDD supporters. The station's executives said they expected no revenue from satellite dish sales or subscriptions while acknowledging that income from advertising is unlikely either.

Last Sunday, DStation devoted its airtime for a live broadcast of a Thaksin phone-in.

Sathit Wongnongtoey, minister attached to the Prime Minister's Office, conceded that the emergence of satellite-based media has become problematic for the state. He said there is no direct regulations in place to regulate these media outlets. The best the government can do for now is take care of the content using such applicable laws as defamation.

"These media outlets are problematic both in technique and content, though. We are keeping a close watch to see if they violate other rights under the constitution and see what we can do about them," Mr Sathit said.

Supinya Klangnarong, vice chair of the Campaign for Popular Media Reform, said in principle both ASTV and DStation are exercising their freedom of expression. That does not mean their existence does not raise any concern. The advent of both stations reflects how public media are increasingly used for political gain. The trend will not help ease political conflicts and tension, which have divided people in the country.

Although a new law to regulate public media such as TV has been promulgated, it might not cover satellite-based broadcasting. Besides, the implementing entity, the National Broadcasting Commission, is yet to be set up, Ms Supinya said.

One way to cope with partisan media may be for the press corps to come up with a new code of conduct and monitor one another themselves.

"Politics is developing fast, so are the media," said Ms Supinya. "To exercise freedom of expression is a beautiful thing in society but it needs to be done under a set of agreed rules so that the fundamental rights of others are not violated. And there should be a time when all involved come together to discuss this issue."

Panpimol Lotrakul, project manager of the Media Monitor Programme, agreed there should be new rules to help take care of these cross-border media to ensure people's rights are respected. However, she also said it is time for audiences to learn to keep up with and read through these media as well.

Dr Panpimol, a noted psychologist, said the growth of these media is part of the media development which results in an increase in diversity of communication channels to satisfy the more diverse needs of people in society. That is why these new media tend to come up with more specific content and purpose, not generalised ones like TV.

To a certain extent, their existence shows how freedom of expression is encouraged but ground rules are needed to establish proper practices among these relatively new information outlets.

In addition, a new communications platform and channel for the audience to communicate back to the media producers should also be established. Through these channels, the public can have a say about what they expect from the media. They will help both sides learn about and work on sound media development and reform together, Dr Panpimol added.

"Diversifying public communications should not be the work of media professionals only. The audience should take part in the process as well. The time should be over for viewers to be manipulated by the media," said Dr Panpimol.

Date Posted: 2/2/2009