Thaksin: Accept criticism!

Mukdawan Sakboon, The Nation, Asia News Network, Bangkok

The continuing war of words between Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and the press has clearly shown a widening gap in understanding about the role of the news media.

The most recent case is Thaksin's interview with the Hong-Kong based Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) magazine.

In the interview, the premier accused certain members of the news media of having hidden agendas. He also asked for justice and fair reporting.

In his interview with FEER, Thaksin said that certain newspapers had asked for his sponsorship and when he declined, the papers had "unfairly attacked him".

If the premier is to do justice to the news media in general as he himself had asked for in return, he should name the papers in question. The accusation is a serious one and needs further investigation.

What Thaksin didn't say but which might stir people's attention is what those papers in question might have done if they had got sponsorship from him, and whether he would consider their reports "constructive".

He continued to say in the FEER interview that the local press was biased against him because of his previous business interests.

The Federation of Thai Journalists said in its statement that advertisement fees were paid in exchange for business services and could not be used to make the media beholden through gratitude. In practice, though, it is another matter and members of the federation themselves know full well the influence that advertisements have on their newsroom policies.

What is more important is for whose interests such "agendas" are intended because the answer would determine its legitimacy in the eyes of different groups of people.

Indeed, certain newspapers made no secret at all about their agendas, which are rather open. Take the case of the mass circulation Khao Sod. This paper, regardless of its flesh-and- blood news component, has made a strong position to be on the people's side with regards to several government projects that pose a serious threat to the local environment.

Viewed in this light, should the paper be commended for its agenda or be denounced for taking sides with the people instead of remaining "neutral" (whatever that means), as most of the news media say they do with regard to the way they report news events?

In addition, it is interesting to see that Thaksin came to his conclusion that certain members of the news media didn't do justice to him and subjected him to unfair reporting by citing the fact that the media never write "constructive criticism" about him.

Thus, it is difficult to judge the credibility of his claims.

However, it is the nature of human beings to consider anything good said about them as "constructive".

Therefore, it's important for the prime minister to explain what he means by "constructive criticism", "justice", and "fair reporting", so that the public can have a clearer picture and be equipped with some solid grounds on which to decide if they agree with the premier's accusations against the media.

It is also important because "justice" and "fair reporting" are big words which govern the work of any responsible media and any deviation is indeed unacceptable, even constituting a breach of professional ethics.

However, if history can be of any guidance, we have learnt that whenever these words are used by politicians and the powers- that-be, their real meaning has been distorted to protect themselves or to divert people's attention from their wrongdoing.

In the interview with FEER, Thaksin said he didn't need criticism. Yet, as a premier, he is not immune to criticism whether he likes it or not. What is even more important is that, as a leader, he cannot avoid the watchful eyes of the public, including the media.

The premier must realize that as the leader of the country and as the head of the government, he has been entrusted with a great responsibility and that he and his administration must be held accountable to the public.

As such, he must learn to control his temper, be responsible, and act properly.

The premier said he is not a dictator and that he did listen to people. He admitted that his weak point is that he speaks too much.

It's a pity that he didn't seem to learn a lesson at all.