The controversy surrounding TV Channel 3's decision to pull the plug on a drama series without any clear explanation has unmasked an age-old blight that plagues the media, both print and broadcast - self-censorship despite constitutional recognition that censorship is not permissable.
The fact is, Channel 3 shot itself in the foot with its decision to abruptly pull the final episodes of Nua Mek 2 soap opera scheduled to be aired last Friday evening.
All hell broke loose when fans of the primetime drama bombarded Facebook social network with messages crying foul against the TV station, and with the anti-Thaksin camp pointing their accusing fingers at the government and the "Man in Dubai".
The TV Channel 3 website was hacked on Jan 7, 2013 by a soap opera lover who posted the message "Where is my Nua Mek?" across the homepage.
The decision by the TV station, owned by the Maleenont family, possibly unwittingly provided a channel for the opening of a new round of the war of words with the reds.
Was there political interference in the decision by Channel 3? Take a look at the result of an opinion survey by Bansomdej Poll: 83% of the respondents believed the ban was politically motivated; 77% believed that the government might have a role in it; 92% said it was unreasonable for the station to pull the soap opera off the air; and 96% wanted the series to be resumed to the end.
So the suspicion of political interference is already there in the minds of many people, and it remains there. But I bet you will not hear anything from the management of the TV station, because they will not say anything if there actually was political interference, and certainly not give names. Besides their PR machine earlier "explained" (if that is the correct term) - that the series was taken off air because it was deemed a breach of Section 37 of the broadcasting law.
Do you really believe that?
A member of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC), Supinya Klangnarong, said earlier she did see the Nua Mek 2 content to be in violation of Section 37.
NBTC, the broadcasting regulator, has categorically denied it had any role in banning or censoring the series. It also said that censorship is unconstitutional. However, a panel has been set up to look further into the issue before the commission will make any decision about it – a very typical Thai-style of procrastination on a touchy issue because they may step on Somebody’s toe if it does not tread carefully.
Likewise, government ministers and mouthpieces for PM’s Minister Varathep Rattanakorn, who oversees Mcot, the TV Channel 3 concessionaire, and PM’s secretary Suranan Vejjajiva have all denied they had anything to do with the decision.
Personally, I also don't think they had anything to do with the ban because it would be the stupidist thing that a sensible politician could do.
So, the buck appears to stop at TV Channel 3. And I repeat, the truth will never be told or disclosed.
The latest report from the management is that Nua Mek 2's remaining episodes will be deep-frozen and "Raeng Prathana" (Desire) will take its place in this coming Friday, Saturday and Sunday primetime slots.
The station abruptly cancelled its press conference scheduled for Monday.
And that is another bad move by the station!
I do not want to touch on the barbs being traded on the social media between the reds and the non-reds, or between the anti-government and pro-government camps, pertaining to this and other controversies, which will surely go on and on endlessly.
This controversy is just a small part of an ugly issue long associated with the Thai media, both print and broadcast, and not known to many outsiders – that is self-censorship, either enforced or voluntary.
I believe the TV Channel 3 furore is a case of "enforced" self-censorship if there was really political interference, because there is no reason at all why the drama should be pulled off the air now just as it is nearing its end. Anything wrong with its content that might infringe the law should have been detected long before, since the series was completed before the first episode was shown on the tube.
"Enforced" self-censorship is not new here. This usually happened when the editor or owner of a newspaper, owner of a TV or radio station received a phone call from some powerbroker not to publish this or that story in the case of the press or a programme in the case of the TV with a veiled threat that their business could be in trouble if the request was not heeded. Then the editor or the media owner submissively obeyed to protect their business interests.
I had a bad experience with this kind of self-censorship during my brief tenure as the editor of the Bangkok Post. Whenever "enforced" self-censorship was applied, it really hurt the feelings and sapped the morale of the editorial staff but, as employees, they could do little. The best they could do was to hiss in anger, and vent their frustration by using four-letter words to describe the powerbroker.
Then there is another form of self-censorship which seems to be voluntarily or instinctively accepted as a norm for the mainstream media in general here – that is, they do not and will not report on anything negative or taboo about some institutions.
So anything controversial about them is limited to gossiping among close friends and colleagues and never goes into print for outsiders to read. But with the onset of online social media, which is borderless and difficult to control, things have changed. That juicy taboo news which was formerly just gossiped among peer groups can now easily be posted on the social media network, and it spreads quickly like a contagious disease.
Focusing on the TV Channel 3 case alone would be superficial. There are related, larger issues which need to be addressed too - and they include self-censorship, both enforced and voluntary, free expression and its restrictions.