Reporters Without Borders last week placed Thailand far down its press freedom rankings, at 136th place. It is two steps down from the 2015 ranking of the world's media by the same organisation. On the surface, this seems a fair judgement. The military regime has made true freedom of the press impossible. But the situation is not as dire or clear-cut as the European group would make some believe.
Reporters Without Borders, known as RSF from its initials in French, has developed a remarkable ratings system -- so remarkable that it can even be said to be unique. Its rankings are weighted on government actions, with the media itself actually receiving little to no credit or blame. For example, RSF claims there are 24 countries in the world with more press freedom than Australia, 37 outrank the United Kingdom and 40 nations have a media with more freedom than the United States.
In the RSF's judgement, attempts by governments to pressure the media count as negative freedom. That is true no matter what the press itself does about such pressure. If the Australian press, for example, routinely uncovers, ignores and barracks government cover-ups, justifications and blustering, this does not impress RSF. The rankings, then, wind up not so much a measure of media performance, but of government attempts to influence or censor it.
Here is the misleading result of such rankings: The most free media in the world are from -- in order -- Finland, the Netherlands and Norway. Costa Rica and Jamaica are in the Top 10. This is something of a farce. No one can test freedom of the press in Finland, say, simply because conflicts between media and government are so rare. What on Earth would the Finnish government want to censor? It is no doubt comforting to many Finns to live in a centre of so little conflict. Its media, however, is not so much free as starved for contentious news.
Which brings us to RSF's opinion of Thailand. Last year, this country was ranked at 134, and this year it dropped two positions. RSF does not explain the precise reason. It could have been that other countries improved or Thailand got worse, the group does not say.
The section of the RSF report on Thailand begins unpromisingly: "The National Council for Peace and Order [NCPO], Thailand's military junta, exercises permanent control over journalists and citizen-journalists. Ubiquitous and all-powerful, the NCPO ..." It describes Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha as "a new predator of information".
These statements are untrue because RSF cannot or will not -- it is unclear which -- deal with the nuance of the troubling situation. Certainly, the junta is unhelpful to the Thai media and Thai people in general. The military regime's constant, negative and sometimes intimidating attention to the media is well known. But here's an important point: The actions of the regime are well known precisely because the Bangkok Post and all other media outlets have pointed out every detail.
RSF paints a picture of a cowed Thai media, held at gunpoint and kept from reporting facts, let alone criticising the military junta. Let's be clear about this. Editors and reporters have been summoned for talks with the junta. At least one reporter and one cartoonist have been detained for one or more nights. But through this intimidation, the regime has not yet prevented the publication of any story or analysis, including extremely critical opinion columns, which appear on a daily basis, on this very page.
A group carrying "Reporters" in its name owes its fellow journalists and media workers more respect. Much as the military regime deserves strong notice for its real and attempted censorship, Thai media outlets deserve support for fighting these attempts at censorship every day.