Inside THAI Society
By: BOONRAK BOONYAKETMALA
Prime Minister Abhisit Vejajiva’s critique of the “danger” of mixing fact and opinion together in the form of “news” by the so-called “television news chatterers” is evidently being completely ignored, not only by the numerous practitioners but also by professional associations theoretically enforcing ethical standards upon such people, and the consumers themselves.
Someone’s watching: While we all blindly consume, Uajit Wirotetrairat keeps an eye on the mass media.
Her company, Media Monitor, has produced much research regarding Thai television over these past three years. In the meantime, facts and opinions continue to be gleefully synchronised in a variety of formulas on our television screens day in and day out, as if this was the reality of our age.
What are the central repercussions of such a phenomenon on our television journalism and our social understanding?
Do we have to live with the anarchy imposed upon us by the mushrooming TV news chatterers for the unforeseeable future?
First of all, it should be noted from the outset that our good prime minister did not elaborate on what he refers to as the “danger,” assuming perhaps that it was a self-evident statement. Far from it. Since no relevant authorities, including the many schools of journalism in our “universities”, have voiced any meaningful reaction to the amazingly short-lived controversy, this may imply that very few people actually understand why facts and opinions should be properly separated in TV journalism.
After all, it is fun to mix them. Who would want to hear only the dry facts?
True, an ongoing trend anywhere in the world is for “reportage,” a blend of fact and opinion in journalism, a quiet but steady upsurge explainable by the self-serving expansion of the media, which has practically become the sole authority for our “daily truth”.
The conscious blurring of fact and opinion represents an intentional overtaking of power on the part of the media to define what is true and false, and, therefore, right and wrong. Watching TV reporting is consequently an end in itself, and the reporter now poses as a god who knows everything.
Actually, many TV journalists do not know that much. For example, very few such people have written anything that requires any serious learning. So, what could be the legitimate intellectual basis for their instant “judgement” on the meaning(s) of a particular piece of news, often rooted in a series of complicated social processes? What if their interpretation of the news is shallow, simplistic, misleading, and anti-democratic?
Who could hold them responsible for what they do?
Isn’t the search for meaning a field more properly cut out for the other members of learned society who are more qualified to make deeper judgements about the facts, however seemingly unimportant as they surface in the news?
With self-appointed gods posing as TV anchormen, there is thus no need for news consumers to think for themselves any more, much less to explore the true implications of accepting the opinionated “facts” at their expense. In this way, the future of participatory democracy is thrown into a black hole.
Once the TV news chatterers are allowed to “judge” the meaning of news for the audience, there is little space left for alternative interpretation. Without room for independent thinking on TV, democracy might not work any more.
Worse, once TV news chatterers mix fact with opinion so casually, this seems to eliminate the need for any meaningful opinion forums on TV. Consequently, our TV news industry is monopolised by a few dozen playful reporters posing as celebrities, casually telling you how to think about the news every day.
For this reason, there is little left to be analysed by anyone else.
Without serious opinion forums on TV involving the best minds among us – such as the public intellectuals, top university researchers, independent thinkers, local philosophers and other worthwhile voices – audiences are unfortunately deprived of any opportunity to learn from the truly learned.
Consequently, our TV is dominated by the mediocre, average views heard over and over again, without any potential to ignite new thinking and approach to public issues and policies.
That television is predestined, under capitalism, for the unthinking masses is probably too true for television’s own good. If the TV industry does not believe in the ability of its audience to think, it does not have to think itself.
This statement, scary as it is, may actually account for much of the monolithic, predictable views we hear on TV every day, not to mention the tired programme formats forced upon us by the industry’s producers whose origins trace back to only a few dominant groups, with a very small space left for the new, emerging production forces, whose creativity might be just what the industry needs to revitalise itself.
Note that our TV industry is crippled in its potential to contribute new ideas to resolve any major problems that have arisen in our society.
The noticeably few opinion forums that are in existence are operated by those who are seemingly unaware of the scope and implications of the issues under discussion.
The guests who are invited to speak on such programmes are arguably too few, thoughtlessly selected, and sometimes intellectually unqualified to say anything on the topic in question.
Historically, serious opinion forums are few and short-lived on our free TV. For this reason, TV has failed miserably to contribute meaningfully to the search for solutions for the most pressing questions of our time.
For instance, there has never been a fruitful discussion of the problematic lese majestic laws, which could be quite instructive about some of the root conflicts in our society. With the discussion on political reform, when and if they are discussed on TV, the views presented are limited in terms of sources and vision.
Naturally, many key issues facing our society are never meaningfully discussed on TV. For example, the dire need for quality political leadership in our society is never treated on television. What kind of dynamics do we have to put in place so that good and effective political leaders can naturally emerge on the scene?
Without the right mould for breeding political leaders, Thailand’s chance in the constantly changing global system is near zero. As a matter of fact, one very powerful way of explaining our current crisis is precisely the absence of an effective system from which charismatic leaders can surface continuously.
There are, of course, many other issues on the wish-list that we would hope to learn from television. The declining quality of our university system, not to mention the rapid irrelevance of such an education, has not been sufficiently examined on TV. The steady deterioration in the competitiveness of our export-oriented industries is also another topic which requires serious attention from TV for obvious reasons.
The sad neglect of our agricultural sector and its consequences on our economy and politics, is also in need of explanation.
Likewise, the bottomless decay of cultural values, demonstrated in the widespread premature, promiscuous sex, violence, and irrational consumerism among our youth, is another subject that demands a full understanding through television.
Given their relevance, if and when such sample issues are adequately discussed on TV by those in the know, the educational value and policy implications of such programmes will be immense.
Needless to say, the reporting on TV is more destructive than we may have been led to think. Prime Minister Abhisit might agree that with a more disciplined TV news industry, wherein facts and opinions are properly separated, more valuable news-oriented programming possibilities will emerge.
Without TV news presenters playing god, the audience will have to think for themselves about the meaning of the news.
Ultimately, such a process is conducive to the development of a democratic citizenship. Under such circumstances, top-class opinion programmes that are truly educational could mushroom on TV.
The fresh competitiveness in such programmes would one day lead to genuine quality a’ la the BBC’s Hard Talk, paving the way for those who are really in the know to make their debut on TV – a phenomenon that would be welcomed by all.
(c) Dr Boonrak Boonyaketmala. Dr Boonrak is Associate Professor at Thammasat University and author of many books on media, culture and society.
Email: responses1234@yahoo.com
