Horror video puts media ethics back in the spotlight

Horror video puts media ethics back in the spotlight

A closed-circuit television clip that shows in graphic detail a brutal, cold-blooded homicidal act committed by a man who shot his bride-to-be at point-blank range and then chased after his future mother-in-law and killed her in the same manner has been widely circulated on the internet. This could not have been possible if the media had not earlier revealed the clip on air to the Thai public.

A news programme of a popular television station played the entire two minutes of the CCTV record that captured clearly the tragedy, without concern or any sensitivity. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that the Thai media has "entertained" us with this kind of news report. It is now time to call into question media ethics which, here in Thailand, are frighteningly lacking.

The world of the Thai media is a strange place. Self-censorship is present, on top of the long-endured state censorship. But when it comes to what needs to be censored, the rules are often lax. Often, answering the question of what can be shown and what cannot, it comes back to the editor of a given TV programme. And the decision can, of course, be prejudiced or based purely on a commercial mindset, not ethical considerations.

But "ethics" is a big word. It can be powerful, yet hollow at the same time. What seems to be ethical for one person can be totally insignificant to another. The problem with defining "ethics" opens the door for the media to exploit the process for its own benefits. While such benefits usually come in the form of commercial profits, some reflect the political interests of the media which blur the line between what is meant to be a report of a factual event and mere propaganda.

For example, some media outlets were willing to broadcast clips that revealed the violence committed by red-shirt protesters at various times. Yet most of them refused to carry the news about political prisoners charged with Article 112, their plight in detention and the violations of their basic human rights. Some Thais admit they have not even heard of Ampon "Uncle SMS" Tangnoppakul,who was sentenced to 20 years for lese-majeste{aac} and died in prison last year.

Returning to the graphic footage of the man killing his fiancee, one would certainly find it compelling to watch. Unfortunately, footage of a crime in action makes good television. And this was simply behind the executive producer's decision to let it be shown at prime time.

While society has much to complain about with silly soap operas with storylines typically imbued with the theme of love, hatred, competition, revenge and violent catfights, viewers are surprisingly silent while they watch new reports accompanied by horrific footage. From this perspective, the viewers are to be blamed as much as the TV producers.

The situation in Thailand is not unique. Elsewhere in the world, the media is found to be immensely manipulative. Some use news report to influence the public to believe in certain messages. News stations can choose and ignore some news based on whether they could yield benefits to their political standing. Some report news for the sake of sensation, and possibly veer away from the truth.

Frequently, the media pretends to understand the interest of the audiences. In this process, many media outlets have adopted an authoritarian attitude in determining what should be in the interest of the public. Keeping a government's secret for the sake of political stability could be one explanation of the existence of such behaviour. But again, "public interest" is hard to define; this allows room for manoeuvring by the media to further manipulate the viewers.

Self-interest and double standards are also rampant in the profession. In a political move to discredit an opponent who happens to be a public figure, for example, some media personalities are happy to dig deep into that person's private life, based on the argument that a public figure's life must also be public. Yet in a contradictory situation, when forced by society to disclose the dark side of public figures who happen to be allies of the media, the rule of respecting privacy immediately reigns. Privacy and freedom of the media are two intertwining concepts. But what makes these concepts even more complicated is the fact that the media has its own interests and practices double standards.

The recent screening of the murder is just another example of excessive media sensationalism.

Killing scenes could create a fantasy. Mixed at the right proportion, fantasy and truth could turn a news report into a must-watch. After the man in the CCTV footage killed the two women and walked away in a happy mood, the story fortified different kinds of fantasy among viewers at home. It stirred up a sense of anger, disbelief and trauma among the viewers. Reporting this sort of story may tell a lot about the "taste" of the media. The taste may have been bad, but it drew countless viewers. This is called a success.

Another important point is that today the easily accessible social media acts as a source of repeated stories first broadcast on television. This situation permits the possibility of reproduction on a massive scale. If you missed the news report of the man murdering his girlfriend, don't worry, look for it on YouTube.

Media ethics remain a tough issue. There are no fixed regulations that put the media in the basket of righteousness without any questions. Ironically in Thailand, labelling what is good and bad is a routine job for most people in society; they often perceive themselves on the side of goodness. Similarly, the media is working to brand itself "ethical" even if in reality their behaviour often suggests otherwise.


Pavin Chachavalpongpun is associate professor at Kyoto University's Centre for Southeast Asian Studies.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (1)