Report accuses NBT of bias
Written by Admin on Saturday, September 6th, 2008
Report accuses NBT of bias
WORANUJ MANEERUNGSEE
The state-owned broadcaster NBT has devoted more time to covering the continuing political standoff than any other free-to-air television station, but its impartiality is open to question, concludes a report by the independent watchdog Media Monitor (MM).
The three-year-old body, financed by the Thai Health Promotion Foundation, has been monitoring TV coverage since Aug 26, when the anti-government People’s Alliance for Democracy seized Government House and invaded NBT, formerly known as Channel 11. On the same day, thousands of protesters also gathered in front of the Finance and Transport ministries.
MM’s monitoring of six stations for 24 hours on Aug 26 found that NBT aired news and programmes related to the demonstration for 12 hours and 32 minutes. Thai PBS (Thai Public Broadcasting Service) devoted nine hours and two minutes to the protests, while Modern Nine TV covered the situation for six hours and 20 minutes.
The army-run station Channel 5 came at the bottom of the table, broadcasting only one hour and 13 minutes. Commercial TV stations Channel 3 and Channel 7 ranked fifth and fourth from the bottom, with two hours 35 minutes and three hours 15 minutes, respectively.
However, MM researcher Time Chuastapanasiri said that though NBT actively reported the conflict, it gave news time mainly to government and NBT officials.
”NBT is the government’s mouthpiece, but it was set up to provide news and information to the people. It is not a political tool. It belongs to the state, not the government,” he said.
With the exception of NBT, he said the other channels had generally provided fair and balanced coverage.
Unfortunately, MM found that reporters on the scene generally reported what was happening at that moment, without providing essential background such as the beginning of the conflict.
Somkiat Onwimol, a veteran TV journalist and former senator, agreed with Mr Time, adding that journalists needed more training. Yet he also saw a welcome development in TV reporters being eager to report live from the scene.
He said their reports developed new angles from the main situation and said he had seen several talented reporters. However, he said he was keen to see TV investigating another crucial topic: ”What is democracy?”
”If the focal point is the resignation of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, in the end, we will learn nothing about democracy,” he said.
Mr Time said that he was delighted that media professional associations strongly disagreed with Mr Samak, who had called on the media to take sides in the political confrontation.
He added that Media Monitor was planning to release another series of its reports investigating the current political turmoil and the role of TV journalism in the near future.
