It was quite a shock when the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) unanimously voted 7:0 to indict a media company, the country's most famous TV news presenter Sorayuth Suthasanachinda and other executives for allegedly accepting advertising money greater than the amount the company signed in its contract with the Mcot Plc, causing damage worth 138.79 million baht, noted Thai Rath. Some mass media reported the news, while others chose to keep silent, including the media regulator and the most popular TV station.
News anchorman Sorayuth Suthasanachinda, one of the most high-profile television figures in Thailand, has come under pressure to resign from his programmes on ethical grounds.
Thai Rath posed the question of whether it was appropriate for media professionals who are supposed to monitor and investigate corruption to commit fraud themselves? To shed light on the issue, Thai Rath interviewed Dr Somkiat Onvimon, the pioneer of modern TV news presentation in Thailand.
As someone in the media profession, can you distinguish between personal misconduct and the company's alleged fraud in this matter?
One must understand that he is a businessman and the owner of the accused media company, but he also works as a news presenter. Therefore, the [alleged] fraud committed by his company and the government's own media organisation cannot be separated because it is all about fraud. I also own a media company and must pay correct tax. Even if I didn't own a company, I also must pay income tax as an individual.
If fraud is committed, there is no need to talk about professional ethics because it is illegal and the government's media organisation must take its own action because the NACC has already done its duty by indicting the media company and its executives.
But if one is to ask whether a famous news presenter commits any professional fraud in carrying out his professional duty, he hasn't because he is not accused of hiding the truth, twisting the truth or inserting untrue propaganda into his news talk show.
In short, when he was working with the government media organisation, there were no reports of unprofessional media conduct in presenting news, but as an owner of a media company he is accused of committing business fraud against his employer.
Since he personally did not demand tea money and did not distort news, he cannot be accused of transgressing professional ethics.
If a politician is indicted by the NACC, it is common practice that he ceases his official duties. In this particular media case, quite a few people are wondering why there is no similar action or reaction.
Professional ethics depend on conscience. They are not legally binding. The law can mete out punishment if fraud is proven in the court. However, professional ethics depend on an individual to think about himself. But in principle, he should resign because he has damaged the reputation of the media profession even though it involves his company but not himself directly. If he upholds professional ethics, he should resign. Nobody can force him to. Not even the Press Council of Thailand can force him to resign. There has been a precedent. A certain newspaper even ignored the Press Council's resolution.
I think that person must decide by himself if he cares for this profession which has given him a great opportunity. For the general public, we as news consumers must boycott, must not watch the said TV programme, must publicise in all outlets that we will not consume his news talk show. Most important of all, the advertising industry must boycott his news programme. If all sectors of society do this, he will automatically fade away if there are no adverts and no audience.
What about the TV station?
It must begin with BEC World Public Co Ltd which hired him to do the news programme. Whether he is also an executive of BEC I don't know but if he is, it spells trouble. BEC must decide whether to retain the tainted news programme and it should not accept him and his news programme.
BEC should take action before the public begins a boycott because if the public does this, and the ad industry follows, BEC is finished. He does not have to decide. BEC does not need to decide because the people have already decided. The intelligent way is to cite professional ethics with a personal conscience and decide to resign. There is no need to take leave. Just resign and fight the fraud case in the law courts. The TV station, the audience and the ad industry will all feel relieved.
What does the most famous Thai newsman being indicted for fraud show?
Being famous is ordinary. A lot of people are famous in their own individual ways. Being famous does not guarantee that a person is good or bad. A famous person is one who appears often in the mass media, which is the case if he is the owner and the news programme presenter. I was also famous during my time, wasn't I? He is an ordinary famous person, a public person who people happen to see often. This does not mean that either I or he are good or bad men.
Being famous in the public eye is both good and bad. Good in that people praise you, cherish you anywhere you go. Bad when you do something wrong and when you are in the media profession, your bad reputation will travel far and fast. Being famous is not always good.
Is it enough to say that the money has already been returned?
To proceed in court depends on both parties. He does not have any choice because it is a matter of justice. If Mcot decides to sue, then it is a matter for the courts. However, the [alleged] fraud happened and tainted his professional reputation. Whether he or his company has broken the law is yet to be judged.
Even though the NACC has already indicted him, the case is not yet finalised. But don't forget that ethics come before law. Ethics govern professional conduct. It is a way of life. There is no need to wait for the conclusion of the legal process and society does not have to wait. If society does not accept you or I, it immediately passes judgement. It does not wait for the police or the state attorney to decide whether to prosecute or whether the judge will accept the case for consideration.
If he does not show responsibility by resigning or taking some action, will people believe his news presentation?
In fact, his news content is unreliable. It does not matter whether he is involved in fraud or any other behaviour. His news programme is for entertainment. He does not even claim the reported events are true or false. He just reports what he feels, remembers or believes. He just prattles on live about whatever he remembers. Sometimes there might be reports from the field or reading from newspapers. His news talk show is unreliable from the very beginning. An audience can consume his news presentation for fun, for entertainment. There is not even a need to follow it every day as there is little meat or content. His programme is dangerous if one takes it seriously as being newsworthy.
Can we call him a news broadcaster? Yes, we can, because he delivers news and information to the masses but without any oversight or fact-checking. It is one-dimensional broadcasting as he presents news from his memory or from what he saw with his own eyes, such as with his reporting on the floods last year. What the public consumes could be sometimes true and sometimes false, mixed together. It is entertaining but not a real news programme.
What will the public do from now on?
As an individual, just refuse to watch or join a group to openly boycott it as a public duty. People must react; show that they don't approve. There is no need to join a protest against the programme. Just say we won't watch it. The advertising industry should withdraw ads from the programme. Then the issue is resolved. If the public is strong, the issue will end sooner. If the TV station owner is decisive, the issue will be resolved even sooner and the station will earn praise. I sincerely warn that the longer he stays, the more damage the station will incur.
It is a TV axiom that no one can stay on forever. No matter how famous he is or I was, we cannot last forever because society changes. If there were no incidents like this, he might last awhile but some day he would leave as well because audiences never stick to one programme for 50 years. Just accept the fact. Imagine if he interviews a tainted politician about corruption and the politician retorts about his own [alleged graft]? It would be really fun.