EDITORIAL
The media's role as public watchdog

Thaksin's repression of journalistic responsibilities belies his assertion that reporters actually repress him
Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, commenting yesterday on Thursday's siege of the Nation Multimedia Group by an angry horde of vociferous protesters, claimed he had never harassed the media, but rather it was they who had intimidated him throughout the years since he became premier in 2001. He used the word kukkham, which carries a strong connotation of a life-threatening situation. Indeed, that is preposterous.But we remain curious how he felt about Thursday's blockade of our head office. Was he pleased that the followers of his populist policies, the Caravan of the Poor, barricaded a group of journalists in their offices? As media, we do our best to inform the public about Thaksin's populist policies and his Cabinet's performance. The Nation Multimedia Group has done its job without fear or favour since 1971, and we vow to continue pursuing the truth for our readers. Our public esteem, which spans nearly four decades, stands testimony that we have never shied away from reporting the truth during these past five years. Of course, Thaksin, who does not value dissenting viewpoints, believes the group's publications harbour ulterior motives, but in fact our journalists are only performing their role as watchdogs, which of course can at times become rather vigorous. It cannot be emphasised strongly enough that Thaksin is the only Thai leader who has never given any sort of tangible commitment to promoting and protecting freedom of expression. On March 3 at his Sanam Luang rally, he became the first Thai leader to proclaim, "The media interferes with me." It is beyond us why the caretaker premier would utter such a thing. He seems to have completely forgotten that he is a public figure and must therefore be open to scrutiny 24 hours a day as long as he is running the country. All media, in his opinion, should be tame and follow his administration's agenda and instructions, like his government-affiliated television and radio stations. So who is the real intimidator here? Anti-press activities have taken place all throughout his reign, although he has been smart enough to disassociate himself from such misconduct. Over the past five years, press officials connected to government-run media organisations have shut down community radio stations and anti-Thaksin websites and removed news editors. Other intimidating tactics have included using anti-money-laundry laws against The Nation's editors three years ago, pulling advertising and making a seemingly endless effort to damage the credibility of the Nation Multimedia Group. His latest comment is equally malicious, because it shows how he views the media and their journalistic responsibility. Under Thaksin, the Thai media has suffered so much. He does not realise that he is the one who has destroyed the overall atmosphere, which was nurtured for decades, that was conducive to freedom of expression. Before he came to power, the Thai media was one of the freest in the world. Every major press-freedom index rated the Thai media highly. New York-based Freedom House, for instance, ranked the Thai media 29th in 2000, but that was downgraded to 95th last year. Such a quantum leap in deterioration was made possible courtesy of the government's dirty hands. Populist policies need complete pro-government media coverage and support. And that is exactly how he wants to see the Thai media proceed in the future. He has used his friends and cronies to take control of media interests through the stock market and other means. In the past few months, the increasing political uncertainty has resulted in a higher demand by the public for information and analyses. And it is our solemn duty to provide the people with reliable information and fair analyses of what is happening in society, including what their leader is doing outside Government House these days. Only a contemptuous leader like Thaksin could perceive this as intimidation. It simply shows what kind of statesman he is when he blames his deepening misery on a watchdog that is not even allowed the fullest liberty to perform its public duty.
|