Media groups concerned about proposed reforms

Today, reformers under the media and information technology reform committee of the National Reform Council (NRC) will meet and review all recommendations sent to them after their media reform report and the draft press freedom protection law were well received with a majority vote last Monday. They will try to patch up all the differences over the act that is viewed by some observers as capable of launching or sinking media reforms if not handled carefully.
At least three statements have been issued during the week by some media networks upcountry as well as the Media Reform Working Group, comprising the Thai Journalists Association (TJA), the National Press Council of Thailand, the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association and the News Broadcasting Council.
They principally raised questioned about the implications for them from the new law, a new professional media council structure, as well as its source of funding, saying those could be open to state interference and dominance.
Thepchai Yong, the group’s chairman and president of the Confederation of Thai Journalists, said the group agreed with the committee’s view on problem in the media, especially those concerning lapses in the observance of media ethics.
Thepchai said intense competition spurred by a proliferation of media outlets, especially with the advent of digital television and the growing influence of the new media, has led to sensationalism and inaccuracies with cases of blatant violations of privacy. Besides, political biases and corporate and political interference have also raised questions about media credibility and responsibility, Thepchai said.
He said the group agreed with the committee’s core principles of the draft law, but there were questions on the approach being taken.
“There is definitely a need for a more effective media regulatory mechanism,” Thepchai said. “It’s obvious that the existing self-regulatory system lacks credibility. It needs to be strengthened so that media owners and practitioners will be more accountable through a more effective enforcement of the code of ethics.
“There must also be greater public participation in media monitoring.”
Thepchai said the group supported the core principles of the new media bill, especially the principle of self-regulation and co-regulation. However, there were questions about certain aspects of the power of the proposed ethics council, especially one that deals with licensing of media practitioners.
Of greater concern were the source and the size of the funding for the proposed media ethics council. The draft bill would see the new media council seek some budget from the state, plus a so-called sin tax.
“Our fear is that state financing of what is supposed to be an independent media regulatory body will lead to political interference,” said Thepchai. “Besides, a cash rich regulatory body would invite people with an agenda beyond protecting media freedom and public interest.”
After meeting with committee members on Friday, Thepchai said some members shared the group’s concerns and promised to make amendments based on suggestions by the group.
But he said this is only the first stage of the legislative process. The bill will be forwarded to the Cabinet and subsequently to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) before it becomes law.
“It’s anybody’s guess what will happen along the way,” Thepchai said, claiming they have heard hawkish views about the role of the media from both those in the junta and in the NLA. “We wouldn’t be surprised if there will be attempts to amend the bill to make it more stringent. We need to be watchful.”
Thepchai said the media reform bill should come as a wake-up call for the media. “It’s a reminder that despite their claims of protecting public interest, the role of the media is being increasingly questioned.”
“Continuing incidents of breach of ethics have cast doubts on the credibility of the media,” said Thepchai. “There is no question that Thailand needs serious reforms in many areas in order to move forward. The hope is that those in the media realise that they are no exception.”
Pattara Kampitak, president of the National Press Council of Thailand, shared the view about media problems and the obstacles in regulating the media based on the council’s experiences. He said since the birth of the council 18 years ago, some 46 complaints have been filed with the council against media. The council has managed to adjudicate only one case, which later saw one media organisation resign from the council in protest.
Pattara, while admitting some weaknesses in the existing mechanisms, said the media has actually been regulated by three sectors: the media themselves; the state power via defamation laws; and the public via social sanctions. In his view, there could be better media regulation with the strength of the public sector.
Pattara proposed that instead of concentrating on improving media self-regulation by borrowing the state’s power to regulate each other via promulgation of the law and receiving funding, which in turn places it at risk of interference and dominance, the media should leave this task to the people.
He said this would not only help the media distance itself from the state’s power completely, it could also have room to develop its ethical standards along with the people.
This, he said, “was truly a continuous media reform work that has progressed nearly 20 years since the birth of the council”.
Surapon Naknakorn, president of the Petchaburi Journalists Association, said the media upcountry has also kept an eye on the progress of reforms.
Based on his fellow-professionals’ experiences, Surapol said the media upcountry has been facing a double challenge. Not only do they have to measure up to ethical standards, but working conditions upcountry are still far from acceptable standard, compared with media professionals in Bangkok.
Surapol said upcountry media members had hardly been consulted during the process of reform, and as such the reform in its present form concentrated merely on improving ethics and quality of work.
Based on the experiences upcountry, Surapon said to truly reform the media, the quality of work could not be separated from the quality of life – something that is still lacking upcountry. Most of the upcountry media personnel are freelancers and hardly have any work security. That is why many upcountry media professionals depend largely on local “influence” to survive, he said.
“If we want to reform the media, we have to think about the quality of life of media professionals as well. This is a reality that is happening upcountry where a lot more media professionals work,” said Surapon. “Without work security, they will be prone to side with local investors or those with “influence” and become the political tools of their benefactors. How can you improve media standards if you leave our professionals in such a living condition?”
Wasan Phaileeklee, a committee member, said the panel realised the media has long faced a challenge from political interference, but increasingly, they are now being challenged because of backslide in their ethics and the violation of people’s rights.
Wasan said to regulate the media better, a new law might be needed for a regulatory body to be able to enforce legal commitments upon media members.
However, Wasan insisted that the committee was well aware of the new commitment and was therefore coming up with the principle of co-regulation, by limiting the council’s power to rule on critical offences, and instead seek judgements from other media regulatory bodies such as civil-based media watch groups.
Wasan said the committee would take all recommendations from the deliberations during the week, as well as those of the media associations, for consideration.
“We still believe the media should be put together and linked to each another under one umbrella. But to what degree and how we need to regulate each other is a challenge to be figured out further,” said Wasan.