Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha seemed to be annoyed when he was asked by a reporter at Government House on Monday to comment on the recent movements of fugitive former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
Thaksin and his sister, former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra together with her son, were in Japan and China last week on leisure visits. Group photos, one showing them surrounded by children, were prominently displayed on the front pages of most Thai newspapers, including the mass circulation Thai Rath.
The prime minister asked why the Thai press attached so much importance to Thaksin, a man he said is a "fugitive". He said if the Thai press stopped reporting about Thaksin, stopped using photos of him, there would not be any issue about Thaksin to talk about.
While admitting the press was only being persistent in its freedom of expression, Gen Prayut appealed to to the media to refrain from giving the fugitive press coverage, adding that otherwise he might have to invoke his powers to put a lid on the stories.
It is understandable why the prime minister feels disturbed by the continuous coverage of Thaksin’s activities by the Thai press, even if most of his activities are insignificant, personal or in fact downright unnewsworthy.
Is a photo showing Thaksin and Yingluck surrounded by children newsworthy, does it qualify for use on the front page? Their supporters may think so.
One of the pictures that annoy the prime minister: Fugitive Thaksin Shinawatra and his sister Yingluck in Japan, Oct 22, 2014
As a veteran journalist, I feel that if the purpose of printing the photo is to convey a message to their admirers that they are fine and happy together, the appropriate place should be on the social pages, and even then just a few column inches of space should suffice.
But any idea of wholly or partially muzzling the press, or the media in general, in its coverage of Thaksin amounts to shooting the messenger and would backfire on the prime minister himself.
The press would, undoubtedly, fiercely defend their right to freedom of expression, even though the judgement of the editors who decided to publish Thaksin’s photos may be questionable.
It could even be argued that the press may have a point in maintaining their coverage of Thaksin – to remind the government why the fugitive remains free and no action taken against him despite several court warrants for his arrest.
It is an open fact that the colour-coded political divide is infectious and both the print and electronic media, and the social media, are not immune to infection. Despite the coup, there are still pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin camps among the ranks of reporters and the media, and a neutral camp. This political standpoint is often reflected in their presentation of anything associated with the fugitive former prime minister.
We should not lose sight of the fact that most media owners are businessmen, and profit is their religion. Which explains why some newspapers often change their colours, like a chameleon, and cast aside their responsibility to act as a watchdog and to monitor the irregularities of the powers-that-be -- all in the name of "lord money" and fat advertising income.
Readers can send a message to these wayward newspapers. Stop buying them and switch to other papers, if they still want to read newspapers.
Don’t be too worried, too distracted by Thaksin’s shadow Mr Prime Minister. There are many other far more important issues and problems waiting to be dealt with and rectified.