Broadcasting youngsters' messages of love or dislike of amateur singers is one thing. Screening messages of hatred when, for example, there was an alleged assassination attempt against the caretaker prime minister or when two male teachers were arrested for alleged sexual assaults on their students, is another. We are a bit fortunate that another dangerous fashion - allowing and broadcasting sms voting on sensitive matters or criminal cases - has somehow become a widely opposed trend. We used to see hosts of TV talk shows, after interviewing rival parties in some heartbreaking and controversial case, asking viewers to send in sms votes to say which account they believed more.

The use of sms voting brings handsome returns to TV producers, which sometimes clouds their sense of professional responsibility. It's true that public interaction on certain issues is welcome, and that the relentless surge of the new media has forced the mainstream ones to adapt and cope. In a normal situation, it would be great to know what people think of, say, the unpaid tax in the Temasek deal or whether the government should rush to open the new airport. The problem is our country's situation is very far from normal. Our deep South is burning. Most messages on the issue that are broadcast call for an end to the violence, but messages of anger or hatred slip in more often than not. On the day the car-bomb suspect was arrested, with the government jumping to conclude it was a plot to kill caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, his opponents decrying it as a hoax and the police calling an end to public speculation, we hoped for a temporary halt to SMS broadcasts on the topic. But the producers couldn't care less.

One may argue that it is "democracy", that it's no different from the immediate public reactions posted on websites when something happens that attracts much interest. But first of all, TV has a far larger audience and the ability to create immediate impact and thus issues such as the rights of suspects or potentially explosive political incidents should be given extra consideration.

Suspicion has also been prevalent that sms votes or opinions have been abused to serve political interests. Anti-government people believe that their views are censored by programme producers while those condemning the administration's opponents are allowed much greater exposure. With the print media now accused of anti-Thaksin bias, it is understandable that the alleged use of state-controlled broadcast outlets to protect him has intensified. This media "war" has mocked calls for national reconciliation.

Beneath the SMS controversy lies the fundamental issue of media independence. While the anti-Thaksin content in the print media seems to be a collective effort, each newspaper has acted autonomously. The broadcast media, on the other hand, is owned by the state and virtually all stations are being used to defend a beleaguered leader.

Society has accused the media of trying to act as judge long before the emergence of new media. Now, somewhat ironically, society itself is taking part in that controversial process. While we can't help but enter the brave new world, in certain aspects we really need to draw the line. After all, that questionable yet highly popular Academy Fantasia has taught us a very good lesson in mass psychology: popular vote or opinions aren't necessarily right. If better performers can lose out to lesser ones who only happen to have greater personal charms, nobody knows how much more distorted popular views could be on more complex or sensitive subjects. Leaving aside views aired through outlets controlled by one single entity, that is.