And this is especially so if those who have been making headlines in the past two weeks are the heads of the country's three leading media organisations.

It's bad enough already that journalists, whose primary responsibility is to hold politicians and public servants accountable, are themselves being subjected to complaints of alleged conflicts of interest by people in their own ranks. Counter-charges that the whole clamour was just a case of sour grapes or, worse still, driven by those with hidden agendas, has added a twist to the discord.

It all started when the presidents of the three main media organisations - the Press Council of Thailand, the Thai Journalists Association and the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association - were named among the 248 people appointed to the National Legislative Assembly (NLA) two weeks ago. According to insiders, it was a straight deal. Or was it a case of looking out for what you wish for, as some have suggested? The executives of the three media organisations wrote to Gen Sonthi Boonyaratglin, chief of the Council for National Security, asking for seats in NLA. The leader of the September 19 coup, more than eager to be on the right side of the media, quickly granted the wish by naming all the three news organisations' presidents to the assembly, along with several other veteran journalists.

The rest of the media corps had not the faintest inkling of what was going on until the Royal announcement of the appointments. A group of journalists on the politics beat were quick to condemn what they saw as media professionals submitting to the authority of the coup-makers. But the three media appointees were steadfast in their argument that it was in society's interest if journalists were represented in the legislative process and rejected demands that they withdraw.

Their opponents, however, argued that they were compromising journalistic principles by allying themselves with the power that they are supposed to keep a check on. In the absence of constitutional check-and-balance mechanisms, they believe that the media have an especially crucial watchdog role to play.

Even members of the executive boards of the three media associations are far being unanimous in endorsing their representations in the NLA, which its critics see as nothing more than a legislative instrument of coup-makers who themselves have serious legitimacy problem. And for the record, didn't the three media organisations jointly condemn the military coup, whose leaders are the same people who nominated them to the NLA?

Despite the uproar, the three media organisation presidents are convinced they have the support of the majority of media professionals to carry out their legislative role while concurrently pursuing their professional role. The three formally reported for duty at the NLA last week, quashing any hope that they would make a last-minute change of mind to pre-empt a potentially damaging confrontation.

Short of either quitting the NLA or relinquishing their presidency, they are confident they can ride out the storm by pacifying their opponents through dialogue. But we all know that journalists are a sceptical lot. Once they have grounds to believe that something is fishy, getting them to change their perception could be as difficult as convincing them to see former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra as a selfless and incorruptible politician, as his admirers want to believe.

It might have been lost on the three media organisation presidents that those who are opposing them have already made up their minds and no dialogue or any amount of explaining is likely to make a difference. Their critics are not screaming for their heads - all they want now is for the three to show their journalistic spirit by at least leaving their top posts at the media organisations to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

To make matters worse, those advocating a legislative role for the three media organisations are quietly accusing their opponents of sour grapes - a reference to some journalists who they claimed were disappointed at not being appointed to the NLA. And according to these people, there is probably also a sinister plot by some interest groups out there to exploit the ongoing conflict.

Well, doesn't this line of argument sound familiar? Politicians have perfected the discrediting of their critics as a way to avoid the real issue.

Nobody knows for certain how the controversy will be resolved if those representing the media organisations continue to dig in their heels. But what is certain is that it will lead to an unprecedented rift in the media.

Journalists have been covering politics as a matter of routine. But there are certainly many lessons that can be drawn from many of the political conflicts that were reported and analysed. One of them is that perception sometimes is more powerful than reality. Politicians who are perceived as being untrustworthy may in fact be as an honest as any decent journalist.

Nobody doubts the sincerity of the three media organisation heads when they insist that their intention is to be the voice of the media in the NLA. But the problem is the perception that they are confusing their role as journalists. And more importantly, in this case there is also the question of principles involved, making it more than just a normal controversy that can be quietly hushed up.

And as veteran journalists they should know that no politician can escape from scandal unscathed. So no matter how this is resolved, damage to the media as an institution has already been done.

Thepchai Yong