He was referring to a Nation front-page headline about a week before the April 2 snap election. The People's Alliance for Democracy was gearing up for what was intended to be the biggest and most significant anti-Thaksin rally to date, and we capped the story with three words in a gigantic font: "One Last Push".

The remark was anything but a compliment. In fact, it ushered in a long and somewhat-heated debate on the role of the Thai media in the political crisis. The senior diplomat wondered whether we had gone overboard with militant, biased or editorialised news content. He expressed concern that with everyone, including the print media, crossing the line, Thai democracy was in danger of slipping into a permanent coma.

Just a few days earlier, a French journalist had visited our office, after attending the biggest gathering of reporters at the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) headquarters. He wanted to know how serious the proclaimed "intimidation" of the press by the Thaksin government really was. I told him much but also admitted that my colleagues and I had never felt our lives were threatened, although we had started to be very cautious, if not downright nervous, when talking on the phone. And I couldn't remember the last proven case of a Thai journalist being murdered or attacked because of political reporting. He tried his best to sympathise with us but could barely hide his confusion.

On the surface, one may be easily tempted to agree with Thaksin Shinawatra when he laments it is he who is always harassed. In foreigners' eyes, when newspapers call a national leader a tyrant and get away with it, press freedom must not be so bad in that particular country. Has the Thai media become a bunch of belligerent, oversensitive and untouchable moaners and whingers?

Critics of the press will also frown upon the statement to be issued today by the TJA to mark World Press Freedom Day. If the original draft is kept intact, the term "climate of fear and hatred" will represent the Thai media's strongest rebuke of a government in modern history. With Thaksin insisting he has been at the receiving end of intimidation, propaganda and conspiracy, who's lying here?

In such a "me or them" national atmosphere, there are two extremely opposite scenarios to ponder. One is of a valiant media up against a corrupt, powerful leader who manages to twist, distort and manipulate in order to make himself look like a victim. The other involves a malicious, powerful and self-pitying media that manages to twist, distort and manipulate in a bid to overthrow a democratically elected leader while making itself look like a victim.

Thaksin's side of the story begins with the "never let go" attitude of the press, which could not forgive and forget his "honest mistake", despite his acquittal on asset-concealment charges by the Constitution Court. Their relentless pressure forced him to sell off his telecom empire to end further conflict-of-interest claims. The Bt73.3-billion sale backfired, because it enabled the media to falsely accuse him of tax evasion, among other things. Concerted attacks became part of a bigger conspiracy that forced him to dissolve the House of Representatives and later announce temporary exile from politics, despite his party winning last month's snap election.

Perhaps we should be through debating whether putting Bt10 billion worth of shares in his servants' accounts and a shadowy British Virgin Islands-registered firm and failing to report these activities to the National Counter Corruption Commission were an honest mistake. And maybe it's time to let go of the question of whether the Bt73.3-billion Shin Corp tax-free sale-off was clean and done in good faith. But here is just a sample of what was taking place while the Thai press was trying to provide answers to the public:

l Claiming they received an anonymous letter, anti-money-laundering authorities launched a probe into the bank accounts of senior journalists critical of the government. About two dozen reporters were laid off by iTV after Shin Corp acquired it. The TJA and the Thai Broadcasters Association have documented more than 20 cases in which news editors and print and broadcast journalists were dismissed or transferred or have had their work tampered with to appease the government. The Bangkok Post was threatened with a Bt1-billion lawsuit for reporting, in the wake of the CTX corruption scandal, that there was a crack on a runway at Suvarnabhumi Airport.

l Civil suits, each worth hundreds of millions of baht or more, were filed against media activist Supinya Klangnarong and the Thai Post for her allegations in that newspaper that Shin Corp had benefited from government policies. Against other newspapers, too, for their reporting on alleged corruption. Government advertising money dried up from newspapers critical of Thaksin. Numerous community radio stations were shut down or threatened with closure, and although the reasons given involved illegal broadcasting, some of them were known to be anti-government.

And the list goes on. But one incident I wish the Western diplomat and the French journalist had known about took place less than two weeks ago. At TJA headquarters, a group of junior political reporters came to defend their petition for "safety" measures. To cut a long story short, they were alarmed by a decision by Kom Chad Luek's editors to reveal the identity of a reporter whose poorly edited report quoting anti-government leader Sondhi Limthongkul triggered charges of lese majeste.

l An extremely hostile mob besieged the head office of The Nation Multimedia Group (NMG) on March 30. They wanted to hear from the reporter exactly what Sondhi said in the interview. In a bid to defuse the potential danger and foil any effort to cook up political violence, NMG editors, with the reporter's consent, let him meet with police in a room where one mob leader was present.

Was it a politically motivated, or even managed, mob? You decide. But the incident prompted calls from the junior reporters that their identities never be revealed in sensitive political stories. In other words, they want to work anonymously when it comes to issues that may draw the wrath of the powers that be. Forget the pride of a byline or the dignity of the profession. Those young reporters have something more important to worry about.

I have never seen anything like it.

 Tulsathit Taptim