But flying the flag of media professionalism to generate public sympathy for what is purely a business undertaking - and obviously a dubious one, too - is something one finds hard to digest.

The ongoing iTV saga, despite its history as an independent TV station, is all about commercial interests. The TV management is simply fighting for business survival. The journalists who came out to plead for "fairness" from the Surayud government were only sugar-coating it.

What happened at iTV was probably the most blatant example of what is described as the "arrogance of power" that came to mark the deposed Thaksin administration. Through his family-owned Shin Corporation, businessman-turned-politician Thaksin Shinawatra in 2000 took over the financially-ailing iTV in defiance of protests from media organisations and academics and in one stroke put an end to the country's only independent TV station known for its aggressive and in-depth reporting.

The biggest irony about iTV is that it was a product of the endeavour to plant democracy in Thailand in the aftermath of the bloody May Uprising of 1992, only to end up serving as the political mouthpiece of an authoritarian leadership. Indeed, it was the first casualty of Thaksin's well-orchestrated assault on the fledging democracy, starting with the media.

Most of the iTV journalists who turned up at Government House last week to submit a petition asking Prime Minister General Surayud Chulanont to intervene in the legal tussle between the station and the PM's Office were there when Thaksin added the station to his telecommunications empire. But none raised their voices - some even rejoiced at the prospect of the new owner with his fat purse bringing them better financial benefits.

They were also there when the iTV management began interfering with editorial decisions. They had no qualms about following orders to slant their news coverage in favour of Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party, which was on the verge of winning a landslide election victory in January 2001. And with Thaksin in power, many even competed to internalise the political demands of the ruling party. There were a few who felt their independence was threatened but had no choice but to grudgingly play along.

When 20 of the staff were kicked out for standing by their journalistic principles, none of their colleagues stood up to defend them. Worse still, some even testified against them in court. Luckily, through their sheer determination and support from media advocacy groups, the so-called "iTV rebels" were able to beat the political pressure and won their case - much to the dismay of many of their former colleagues who saw them as "outcasts".

Meanwhile, iTV's management moved swiftly to exploit the political order of the day by getting an arbitration committee to consent to its demands to have the concession fees it is required to pay the PM's Office slashed significantly and its programming requirements relaxed to allow more airtime for money-making entertainment content.

Considering the political influence of the powers-that-were at the time, it came as no surprise that the PM's Office, which owns the concession, came up with only a pretence of resistance to iTV's demands. And again, none of the iTV news staff felt the arbitration committee's ruling in favour of their management was a betrayal of the station's founding principle of public-mindedness. They were all probably dreaming of better pay and hefty bonuses.

It must have come as a shock to them when the Central Administrative Court, probably the only independent body that managed to survive political interference under Thaksin, nullified the ruling of the arbitration committee early this year. The court's decision was not so much a rejection of the much-criticised settlement by an arbitration tribunal as a slap in the face of the political power that made public interest secondary to family business interest.

Now iTV, which is majority-owned by Temasek of Singapore, is being charged with a breach of contract and saddled with a bill of almost Bt100 billion in overdue confession fees and fines. The iTV management is contesting the charge on technical grounds.

After receiving the petition from iTV staff last week, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont said his Cabinet would try to settle the dispute with fairness. But it's difficult to imagine a "fair" solution that doesn't hold the iTV management accountable for what happened and without taking public interest into consideration.

The iTV staff tried to give the impression last week that the uncertainty over the future of the station was putting their professionalism at stake. They came up with the slogan "Help save iTV" in an attempt to enlist public support for their fight. But help save iTV from what? The station today is just a ghost of its former self as an independent TV station that had the public interest at heart.

The iTV staff may be reacting six years too late. Where were they when Thaksin took over the station and turned it into a political PR machine? And where were they when 20 of their colleagues were axed for trying to defend their professionalism? And it wasn't until the last minute that iTV's usually pro-Thaksin news coverage made a major turn-around to reflect the changing public mood towards his scandal-tainted administration.

If iTV is to be saved, it should be saved from the hands of those who betrayed the democratic spirit that gave birth to the TV station. Thailand doesn't need "another" TV station that thrives on soap operas and game shows and is answerable to the political power of the day.

There is no room for compromise in dealing with the iTV problem. Its management has blatantly breached the founding principle of the TV station and has been raking in money by doing it.

The only fair solution is the one that sees iTV once again become an independent media outlet that lives up to the spirit of the May Uprising. And the Surayud government can start moving towards that by first revoking the current concession and having it returned to the PM's Office.

 Thepchai Yong