Open and shut media policy
Open Radio flourished in the little extra space which was created by the surge of political sentiment after the attempted Matichon buy-out, Sondhi's crusade, the Temasek deal and the People's Alliance for Democracy demonstrations.
Last week Grammy announced it was shutting down Open Radio, a 24-hour news-oriented station that has been broadcasting since early this year. The station operated on a frequency that the Army had rented to Grammy. Of course, there were good commercial reasons. The station was operating at a loss. Grammy is an entertainment company and wants to use the frequency to broadcast more entertainment.
We could take this commercial justification at face value if the closure did not fit into a dreary pattern. Since this government came to power in 2001, radio stations have been closed down, specific radio programmes taken off the air, television presenters and editors sacked, community radio stations harassed and outlawed, cable television channels disrupted and websites blocked with a relentless regularity. As in this case, there is often an intermediary to act as the hatchet man and a rationale which has nothing to do with politics, but the pattern tells us we should have no doubt who is behind all of this and what it represents.
This closure also signals a dismal return to business as usual. Open Radio flourished in the little extra space which was created by the surge of political sentiment after the attempted Matichon buy-out, Sondhi's crusade, the Temasek deal and the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) demonstrations. Even mainstream television participated a bit in this miniature Bangkok spring. In March viewers were shocked at the sight of intelligent people discussing the issues of the day on their television screens No such sight had been seen for five years. Even critical views were aired. Opposition figures were allowed to talk at some length. Some programmes even allowed debate. Newscasters began self-consciously allowing the opposition a balanced share of air time, and some of them even restrained their instinct to portray every action critical of government as something close to high treason.
The closure of Open Radio is a signal that spring is over and government is intent on shutting down the little space that was briefly allowed. In the television channels, a couple of editors and presenters who were over-enthusiastic about this mini-liberalisation have been quietly reassigned. The news programmes are almost imperceptibly backtracking towards their old rigidly pro-government format.
What is truly telling about the closure of Open Radio is the fact that the station's content was relatively mild. The station was not following Sondhi's model of raking up dirt and challenging the government to react. The station did not thump a tub and demand Thaksin disappear from the political scene. Open Radio simply had regular news broadcasts which covered a lot of what has been going on through the tumultuous events of the last few months. It strove to be neutral and balanced by airing all sides. Its team of well-informed and highly experienced analysts quietly helped listeners to unravel some of the intricate legal and constitutional technicalities framing recent events. For anyone wanting to relieve the acute stress of trying to understand what the hell was going on, this station was a source of both knowledge and comfort.
Despite this relative mildness, a prominent pit-bull terrier of the Thaksin regime was muttering that Open Radio ought to be closed down. This demand was anything but mild. Such wild dogs like to snarl and snap at anything which verges on reasoned, intelligent commentary and debate.
This outburst was not isolated or unusual. This regime has got so used to acting without fear of scrutiny or criticism that it lashes out against any sign of independence. Recently a minister complained that it was "unfair" when people were able to use the media to criticise him. Once you control 100 per cent of the air space, even dropping down to 99 per cent seems "unfair". Another of the regime's wild dogs was so incensed by criticism delivered in the form of a poem that he let loose his goons on the critic in the television studio.
The siege of the Nation building, the disruption of Democrat Party public meetings in Chiang Mai and PAD meetings in the Northeast, the bomb at the Democrat headquarters, the assault on demonstrators outside the Election Commission (EC), the calls for a state of emergency to clear the PAD off the streets, the attempt to sneak a ban on all public demonstrations into the Highway Bill and the avalanche of defamation suits are all part of the same pattern. Deny by law if possible, by executive power as a good second best and by vigilante violence if all else fails.
The focus of this policy is the electronic media, television and radio. These are the channels through which the vast majority of the people get their news and opinions. From the beginning, this government has allowed a lot more flexibility to the English-language press. This is a brilliant touch which ensures foreign observers have no idea how bad things really are. Thaksin has even occasionally presented himself to the foreign press as a misunderstood martyr lacerated daily by a hail of journalistic barbs.
Since the Matichon affair last year the government has lost much of its control over the Thai-language press, but the recent moves show that it has no intention of releasing its grip on the air waves. An election is looming. The political landscape is possibly more complex than at any point in the last 30 years. There is a real chance that the Thai Rak Thai's ambition to create a virtual one-party state is about to fragment. It is no surprise that in such circumstances the little public space created during the Bangkok spring is now being closed down. Information is powerful stuff. In the affair of the EC, the ruling party has shown its intention of fighting serious allegations by smothering them.
Closing down rabid critics is an obvious move, but closing down media which are trying to be open, neutral, reasonable and balanced is much more subtle, much more insidious and much more revealing.
Chang noi
Disclaimer
posted by Chazzsongs at
4:33 AM
