When we talk about freedom and responsibility for the media, it is important to distinguish between the two, and take stock of where we are before talking about what we should do.
In Thailand, the opinions on this issue seem to be dominated by two extremes. One extreme says: the media should be free to report whatever it wants and however it wants; the public will capably sort out the wheat from the chaff.
The other extreme says that the media in Thailand is already "too free", hence they should be more responsible. Those who say this turn a blind eye when the so-called "irresponsible" media or journalists get their freedom taken away over one instance of careless or callous reporting.
But freedom is one thing, responsibility another. No society should punish irresponsible media by entirely taking away their freedom, just as no society should grant the media boundless freedom without demanding that they behave responsibly.
A vendor sits behind rows of newspapers at a stall. Mainstream and social media are both under increasingly intense state surveillance. (Photo by Panupong Changchai)
In Thailand, the term "media responsibility" is so broad and loaded that it can be defined to mean just about anything. For example, Prime Minister and military leader Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha repeatedly says that a journalist's responsibility is to support the government's affairs, help the public understand the government's policies, and reduce conflicts in Thai society.
I doubt his view is in line with what journalism schools teach their students.
Instead of the term "responsibility", I prefer the term "media ethics" or code of conduct, because at least we can all agree on what that means. The term "responsibility", or lack thereof, is too often used here as an excuse for abusing the media.
In Reporters Without Borders' latest World Press Freedom Index, Thailand fell four places since 2014 to rank 134th in the world, out of 180 countries, with a score of 40.07. Compared with 65th out of 134th place in 2002, the first year this index was published, Thailand dropped from being roughly in the first half of the world, to the bottom third in terms of press freedom.
This number is not surprising. The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) has gagged reporters, bloggers, academics, opposition politicians, news media, intellectuals, and anyone they view as critical of government. Events or seminars relating to politics face the risk of being banned, because one never knows which event the junta or police may view as "potentially sowing disunity in Thai society". Even a prominent political cartoonist was summoned for "attitude adjustment".
The Internet Law Reform Dialogue (iLaw), a civil society group that tracks junta orders, reports that in the first year after the coup, between May 22, 2014 and May 21, 2015, there have been at least 751 people summoned, and at least 71 public events have been intruded upon. Thai Lawyers for Human Rights reports that between the day of the coup and Sept, 30 2015, at least 1,629 civilians have been tried in military courts.
The government also wants to control online media. Facebook was blocked briefly within 10 days of the coup. The draft cybersecurity bill and "single internet gateway" policy would allow the NCPO to order internet service providers and everyone else to cooperate with blanket surveillance of online activity without any oversight, nor any prior justification by the courts. Fortunately, both of these plans were delayed after a massive public outcry.
Recently, WikiLeaks revealed that the Thai authorities have acquired surveillance malware sold by the Italian company Hacking Team. More than 100 emails between Hacking Team and the Thai police and army indicate that at least half a million dollars were spent in 2014 on purchasing its Remote Control System (RCS) software. This software would allow the government to intercept communications, remotely activate a mobile phone's microphone and camera, and access all of its content including contacts and messages.
Compared to the insidious practice of influence-through-money, such as buying ads and bringing journalists on trips of the past governments, what the current military dictatorship is up to has a far wider chilling effect.
But the Thai media also has itself to blame.
We are seeing more self-censorship, more lopsided reporting, and more tasteless focus on sensational news or "drama" in social media. This situation results from a combination of oppression by the state, the media's own polarisation, and declining revenues coupled with a weak attitude towards taking risks.
I agree with Reporters Without Borders' recent report on the state of media freedom in Thailand, which says "[this] report raises questions about the role of the Thai media, whose polarisation between 'red shirt' and 'yellow shirt' supporters makes it much harder for them to act as a 'fourth estate' capable of standing up to the junta and prevents the unity that would enable them to resist censorship and pressure from the various political and financial interest groups".
The key question remains: is the Thai media reporting stories in a fair manner and which the public should know about? Another important question that emerges is whether Thai media is defending freedom of speech for everyone, not only those "professionals" under their own roof who tout the same ideology?
I think the answer is increasingly "no", and that is why mainstream media is losing credibility, why more and more people look for news online, from various social media platforms.
But of course the internet is a jungle where information, misinformation and disinformation are all mixed up. People have a harder time separating facts from fiction. But then, having a mixture of fact and fiction is still better than not reading or hearing about it at all from the news.
More and more people spend more time in this cyber wilderness, which of course is harder to control than traditional media. Hence, an increasing tendency to persecute and control online space. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the internet in Thailand is ranked "not free" by Freedom House in their Freedom on the Net report for 2014 and 2015, falling from "partly free" in 2013.
Last Wednesday, the National Reform Steering Assembly announced that they would work on media reform proposals along four agendas laid down earlier by the National Reform Council: "freedom based on responsibility", preventing media intrusion and control, effective oversight, and amending the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission law.
With generals and police at the helm of media reform committees, we can foresee the shape of things to come.
What should the media do? There is no "quick fix". At the very least, Thai media should come together in a show of unity to defend freedom of speech, not just for their own journalists but for everyone including non-journalists. Because everyone is online now; we are all in this boat together.
As for responsibility, Thai media should resist any attempt to frame "media responsibility" in such a way that hampers media freedom.
Meanwhile, they should seriously discuss how to improve the sorry state of media ethics, which look good on paper but are patently not effectively enforced.
Sarinee Achavanuntakul is co-founder of ThaiPublica and Foundation of Internet and Civic Culture (Thai Netizen Network).