Debate media ethics case

Pstbag

Published: 4 Nov 2012 at 00.00
Newspaper section: News

Embattled TV anchor Sorayuth Suthassanachinda and Channel 3 keep on pretending that nothing is amiss even though the National Anti-Corruption Commission decided after a four-year investigation to take criminal action against him for allegedly embezzling 138.79 million baht in advertising money and the Thai Journalists Association has decided that he violated journalistic ethics even though his case has yet to be decided by the courts.

I agree with Securities and Exchange secretary-general Vorapol Socatiyanurak statement displayed on the Post's front page yesterday: ''Ethics is critical for anyone within the media, given its influence within society.'' Yet many sponsors and viewers of Sorayuth's show are pretending that the elephant in the room doesn't exist.

I suggest that to gain the reasoned cooperation of all parties and help us fight corruption in general, the issue should be debated and the debates should be publicly televised. These debates, broadcast live, will stimulate public awareness of and involvement in this crucial issue of corruption, with the agreed-upon ground rule that each side will seek to shed light, not heat, on the issue. On the one hand, those against the motion could point out that prosecutors are still deliberating whether to accept the case against Sorayuth or not, and the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty must hold. But on the other hand, taking precautionary action to limit possible damage is not only legal but common. For example, courts routinely refuse to grant bail; Nike and many other advertisers terminated contracts with Lance Armstrong when they became convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the centre of a doping ring in his legendary cycling team; and Pennsylvania State University fired its then-president Graham Spanier for allegedly covering up the Sandusky sexual abuse scandal despite the jury having not yet weighed in on Mr Spanier's guilt or innocence.

This article is older than 60 days, which we reserve for our premium members only.You can subscribe to our premium member subscription, here.

Forum

Your comments

domdunnn
Post : 1,147
Send message

Discussion 9 : 04 Nov 2012 at 13.369
Post this to my Facebook
Bob Gosling

Doctors, pilots and drivers do kill people by negligence or accident, in contrast in executing people the state makes a concious decision to kill them knowing that history has shown that in some cases it will kill an innocent person and that seems to me to be totally unacceptable.

The modern desire for 'closure' always seems to me to be more about revenge than justice, I understand the desire for revenge and can even sympathise with it to some extent but I cannot support it.
Like dislike 3 people liked / 7 people disliked this comment
domdunnn
Post : 1,147
Send message

Discussion 8 : 04 Nov 2012 at 13.298
Post this to my Facebook
whatajoke D3

Whether the murder was a Norwegian or a Dane makes no difference to the point, stop nit picking.
Like dislike 4 people liked / 7 people disliked this comment
jcwilcox
Post : 144
Send message

Discussion 7 : 04 Nov 2012 at 10.327
Post this to my Facebook
Bob Gosling - you do have a point. The mass murderer in Norway effectively declared war on the society upon which he relies for his very existence, and in the most horrific and cold-blooded manner. It is not a matter of justice but more, 'is there any place in a civilised society for such a person?'. Surely that is the question, not whether murdering a murderer is right or wrong.
Like dislike 6 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment
jcwilcox
Post : 144
Send message

Discussion 6 : 04 Nov 2012 at 10.146
Post this to my Facebook
lucy tan-atichat - it all sounds very noble but corruption here in Thailand is endemic, right through society and it is overt, it is therefore an accepted way of life and not 'under the table' as it were.
Like dislike 10 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment
jcwilcox
Post : 144
Send message

Discussion 5 : 04 Nov 2012 at 10.075
Post this to my Facebook
Eric Bahrt - you are absolutely right - well said. Pro-lifers generally have a narrow focus rather like followers of religions and believers in global warming being caused by human activity. People like to have a little bandwaggon on which to ride and be part of a social group rather than stand alone and think for themselves, deeply and broadly. You and I are social outcasts, non-conformists.
Like dislike 12 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment
kena
Post : 578
Send message

Discussion 4 : 04 Nov 2012 at 09.404
Post this to my Facebook
the mass murderer was a Norwegian, not a Dane. I agree he should be snuffed out a.s.a.p. Keeping him alive is vulgar. Where's the death switch? I'll pull it myself, if given a chance.
Like dislike 6 people liked / 1 people disliked this comment
whatajoke
Post : 1,775
Send message

Discussion 3 : 04 Nov 2012 at 09.003
Post this to my Facebook
Bob Gosling, get your facts right before pontificating, it was a Norwegian not a Dane that you're referring too. In any case, the strongest argument against the death penalty is that the state is murdering someone for murder, a contradiction in terms.
Like dislike 11 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
barryw
Post : 800
Send message

Discussion 2 : 04 Nov 2012 at 06.512
Post this to my Facebook
Regarding executions, I would think that being deprived of liberty and having to spend decades locked up with few comforts of the outside world would be a living hell for most. That, surely, is a far stronger punishment than being executed where the suffering is short-lived.
Like dislike 10 people liked / 3 people disliked this comment
brilliant
Post : 1,467
Send message

Discussion 1 : 04 Nov 2012 at 06.161
Post this to my Facebook
For a person that expects tolerance and understanding from everyone else, he sure is intolerant with no understanding for anyone he doesn't agree with. Sad that he can't practice what he preaches(and we all have to the recipients).
Like dislike 9 people liked / 0 people disliked this comment

Debate media ethics case | Bangkok Post: opinion