The Public Relations Department's latest arrangement to have all mainstream TV stations cover a different minister during next week's mobile cabinet meeting will turn the broadcast media into the government's publicists. This may be a one-off "request" but it sets alarm bells ringing about the regime's directives on how the media should work and be regulated.
On Wednesday, the department's acting director-general, Sansern Kaewkamnerd, requested cooperation from the TV channels to provide sufficient publicity for all ministers during their field trips to several northeastern provinces next week. His request secured the commitment from 16 TV channels, each of which has been assigned to cover one minister. His department also makes a copy of ministerial "scoops" available for each outlet.
Lt Gen Sansern, also a government spokesperson, asked journalists and editors at a Wednesday meeting to immediately pick a different minister each. While he described it as "cooperation", working journalists see it as interfering in what and how the broadcast media should report.
From next week, the Thai TV audience will be forced to watch a series of "scoops" about the ministers on state-run NBT produced by different channels. One story per minister. No diversity. This arrangement is no different from asking them to cooperate in spreading government propaganda.
Lt Gen Sansern complained the media have focused exclusively on Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha during previous trips to the provinces, overlooking the work of ministers. But this rationale does not hold water: If officials do something of note, the media will cover it.
As the government's lead publicist, he should have offered the media tantalising details about what ministers plan to do during their upcoming trip, and let journalists decide how or whether they want to cover them. If certain ministers are known for their hard work and recognised for their leadership and vision, they will make headlines. The reason why they have not received sufficient coverage should speak for itself.
Lt Gen Sansern's vision of how the media should operate reflects the controlling nature of the military regime and Thai bureaucracy. This is more worrying as a bill on media regulation, proposed by the now-defunct National Reform Steering Assembly, is yet to be approved by the government. The bill has been criticised for paving the way for tightened state control of the press as it proposes a new national council to regulate the media.
If approved, high-ranking state officials will serve in the council during the five-year transitional period following next year's general election.
Lt Gen Sansern should be reminded that whatever "cooperation" these TV channels provide, this must not become the norm for how the media coverage of government affairs is governed.
By restricting the activities of politicians and activists, the regime has already gained leverage in influencing the public because the media can only cover what public figures are allowed to do. In fact, the National Council for Peace and Order's daily TV programmes, including Gen Prayut's weekly talk, which is aired on all TV channels, have given the government a tool to promote its policies.
The politically divided Thai society does not need one-sided information fed by such state-run programmes, which should have been scrapped long ago.
Respecting diversity in terms of content and news sources will keep the audience sufficiently informed and help forge understanding and tolerance in society.
Lt Gen Sansern's request for cooperation in this context need not be revisited. If it pops up again the public should prepare for a diet of state propaganda, not news, from the media.