It was an unplanned reunion with old colleagues - most of whom had been there from day one of the country's first independent TV station. My purpose was to do a live TV interview with some of the news executives and newsreaders for Channel 5. There was clearly a sense of  desperation among the staff as they waited for the midnight deadline, which was only hours away. They lamented the fate awaiting them but took comfort from the growing moral support from viewers, which they hoped could somehow change the course of events.

In the interview and subsequent private discussions, the executives offered a spirited defence of the need for iTV to continue broadcasting.  Words like "media freedom" and "serving public interests" popped up as they argued against the decision of the PM's Office to pull the plug on the station after it failed to pay the hefty overdue fees and fines. Not once did any of them point an accusing finger at their management, which was primarily responsible for the whole mess.

One outspoken veteran anchorwoman was more direct. She chose to see the pending demise of iTV as an attempt by the powers-that-be to dismantle what was considered to be a legacy of deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. To her, iTV and its staff were a victim of a power play between the new and old orders.

While the iTV journalists might deserve some sympathy for their predicament, their overzealous attempts at self-preservation have inevitably raised questions about their principles. And while they celebrated the 11th-hour reprieve that allowed iTV to continue to broadcast under a new name - TITV - as a triumph, they should also ask themselves whether they too played a part in bringing the whole thing on themselves.

Long before they were caught in the ugly struggle, there were times when the iTV journalists should have stood up to defend their editorial independence, probably altering the course of the station's brief history. If freedom to report was truly their concern, they should have been up in arms when Shin Corp took over the station back in 2000.

I was the news director of iTV back then and tried to sound the alarm. But only a handful of my colleagues took notice.  Those who are championing the cause of independence now were the same journalists who eagerly embraced their new boss. It didn't matter to them that Shin Corp was the business arm of tycoon-turned-politician Thaksin, who was on the verge of becoming Thailand's next leader.

The prospects of conflict of interest and potential editorial interference were apparently outweighed by their hope that Thaksin would provide the debt-ridden station with a financial lifeline. My warning that Thaksin's buy-out was only his first assault on the media was dismissed as being premature.  Though there were voices of concern among the rank and file, they were quickly drowned out by senior staff members who wasted no time in closing ranks with their new employer.

But it wasn't until several months after I was forced out of iTV that it became clear to many of the journalists there that Thaksin's takeover was no ordinary business deal. By then it was more than obvious that Thaksin had every intention of turning the once independent station into a political machine for his Thai Rak Thai Party.

Twenty-three reporters and news producers had the courage to stand up to what they unmistakably saw as interference in editorial decisions by the new management. Again, practically all the senior journalists and news executives who have been making headlines the past few weeks with their pleas to the government to ensure their editorial independence stood by six years ago as their rebellious colleagues got the axe. Worse still, some later even testified against the so-called "iTV rebels" in the Labour Court.

The much-publicised ouster of the 23 dissidents in early 2001 effectively put an end to any resistance to political interference in the newsroom. From that point on, dancing to Thaksin's tune seemed to be the order of the day for iTV journalists. Its executives and its more famous announcers voiced no protests about internalising Thaksin's political demands and reflecting them in their nightly news reports.

iTV rallied behind Thaksin to the last minute. Aggressive and in-depth news reporting that was once iTV's hallmark was totally absent when it came to holding the Thaksin government accountable. Even when the former prime minister sold his stakes in Shin Corp to Temasek of Singapore, the iTV journalists kept silent.

So, it was ironic that, on the eve of iTV being brought under the umbrella of the PM's Office, the same group of journalists made a public demand that they wanted the government to guarantee their "independence". And even more inexplicably, that they demanded justice from the government - not from their employer, who blatantly violated the concession terms and triggered the crisis.

iTV as an independent station was history the day it was taken over by Thaksin. For the general public, it makes almost no difference whether it continues to broadcast or not. Call it iTV or TITV, it is just a ghost of what it used to be.

Thepchai Yong