EYE ON ETHICS

Mr. Anderson, born in Olean, New York in 1944, is the Thailand representative of American Citizens Abroad and a U.S. Peace Corps volunteer to Thailand from 1965 to 1967. At the time assigned to a community development role, he then worked in Thailand as a freelance writer and TEFL teacher before transferring to Iran and Saudi Arabia with his Thai wife. He founded northeast Thailand’s first local English language newspaper, The Korat Post. He also writes under the pen name Brian Knight.
________________________________________________________________________

A society that claims to have draped itself around a religion now two and a half millennia old is bound to be somewhat—what is the word?—inflexible when it comes to self-analysis.

Indeed, Buddhism, the religion Thailand adopted so long ago, admonishes what some of its masters call a “passion for analysis and discussion.” This is a perfect fit for Thailand’s social value system that generally encourages obedience, acquiescence, feigned acceptance, repetition, and overall, a lack of innovation or legitimate inquiry.

Buddhist tracts perhaps unintentionally point out a fallacy by stating “If people are ignorant they cannot reason correctly and safely.” To the non-Buddhist-trained mind, this latter statement undermines the very doctrine of teaching as viewed in the west—to wit, that the ignorant really cannot be informed. As an extension of this, there is an implication that teaching of Buddhism per se would be rather fruitless as those ignorant of the Buddha’s admonitions and lessons could not safely or correctly analyze the material contained in the teachings of the Wise One. The assumptions are perhaps a perfect fit for a country like Thailand that is so steeped in deep patronage the very idea of reform, and not just in media ethics, is tantamount to attacking desired reality. And yet the conflicting, contradictory and confusing laws and regulations relating to seemingly all aspects of Thai social behavior scream for immediate redress.

Thailand’s journalists, reporters, TV anchors, radio broadcasters, and even government public relations people are constantly bombarded with a uniquely Thai—some would say ‘defeatist’—Buddhist approach to self-analysis, debate and query that seemingly stifles the very concept of ethical reform in Thailand’s Fourth Estate. Any concerted attempt to bring about media ethical reform in the Land of Smiles is, if not doomed, certainly seriously handicapped.

But there are also winds of change blowing that threaten Thai institutions, and even the traditional Thai way of thinking, with demands for something apart from what has molded the country and its culture over the centuries. Broadcast media and other journalists are increasingly aware of these winds of change, and have often used them in battles ranging from human rights abuses to freedom of speech.

The Thai media have raised vital issues despite restrictions on questioning such taboo subjects as the role of the revered Thai monarchy, or, indeed, the question of whether the monarchy should continue to exist or be set aside as is the way of democratic governments. But because Thai culture is molded by centuries of patronage and feudalistic thinking, such questions are usually raised in subdued terms and are often quick to be shoved to the back shelf in the light of unfavorable social views. These attitudes by the Thai public at large severely inhibit protracted efforts at identifying social problems, discussing them in public, and allowing qualified reform groups to enact changes for the better. There is just so much pressure against this kind of open and participatory reform that when we envision ethical reform in the Thai media, we have to look at external (outside the media) influences much more than internal (inside the media) efforts toward reform.

At the moment the Thai government, through the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), working together with Thai government agencies like the Royal Thai Police and Army, virtually control almost all of the information that reaches Thai audiences on TV and radio, as well as the print media and online. The only Thai TV station that is known as anti-government and is highly critical of Thai political figures is run by media mogul Sondhi Limthongkul, who runs the ASTV network via satellite broadcast from Hong Kong. The network continues to operate because Thai courts have allowed it to continue despite government efforts to close it down. The station provides such a contrast between state-controlled versions of news and events and that of ASTV that anyone watching ASTV for the first time is immediately taken aback by the severity of its criticism and its detailed reporting of corruption and government wrongdoing.

The Thai government censor has a long arm in quashing rumors, denying well-researched reports and punishing those responsible—to the extent of shutting down programs and newspapers, openly insulting legitimate press queries and blatantly refusing to answer most others that are deemed to be less than benevolent. In short, this single source of external pressure against media is a built-in impediment to media reform.

A second but no less powerful influence outside the Thai media that affects media reform—is the country’s version of Buddhism, as cited at the beginning of this article. Thai Buddhism has been generally treated as a non-interfering and non-participative part of social intercourse, with hitherto limited indications by religious figures either for or against particular politicians and government or anti-government groups. That is changing, however. Of late, Thai politicians have gladly used local Buddhist abbots and leaders to convince the electorate to vote for the party the abbot or religious figure claims to recommend. Anti-government groups such as the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), have also been using a well-known monk or two to deliver sermons onstage during the political group’s daily activities. The presence of a monk on a political stage would never have been tolerated in times past.

Despite whatever beneficial teachings might come out of the Thai Sangha, however, the Thai government has created an impediment by placing the administration of religion throughout the country at least partly under the Ministry of Education. With powerful centralized government policies in the country, any such Ministry control and guidance of religious affairs means covert government influence.

A third, and perhaps the most important element that inhibits reform in Thai society and in the media is the revered monarchy. Privately many Thais, even those in higher social echelons and among academia, local political leadership and the general public, admit that a discussion on the role of the Thai monarchy is long past due. The reason is that many recognize that while the traditional nature of the monarchy must be preserved, its very nature—that is, its being a feudalistic patronage system —precludes any discussion of reform.

Because the government, the monarchy and the country’s religions (notably Buddhism) are viewed as essential and nearly beyond question, media inquiry across the three areas is seen as a challenge not just to tradition, but to the Thai character itself. This puts a tremendous burden on members of the press.

For example, a Thai reporter wanted to investigate financial dealings at a local temple where a popular abbot has been accused of wrongdoing. But the abbot was being protected by several local personalities, including those in the police, Army and religious circles. As a result, the reporter felt he should not undertake the investigation although it could well be warranted, not only because of social backlash, but also because of threats or actual exposure to violence.

This type of intimidation arises from a society that has not yet come to grips with underlying weaknesses in its value system, even in most academic settings primarily because the government is in charge of education curricula. The Thai social value system lacks consistency and transparency in issues relating to truth, in areas such as investigative reporting and politically unpopular causes such as human rights, environmental protection and freedom of speech. Because of this lack, the reform process is not seen by general members of society so much as a noble pursuit but more of an affront against an established and highly nationalistic way of dealing with issues in general. Even if members of the media themselves yearn for change and expound it through various seminars, publications and other venues, the overall impact of their actions is minimal at best. They are fighting the proverbial city hall.

The question then arises whether it does any good for the media to institute internal ethical mechanisms when correspondent government, commercial and private agencies are not likely to support such efforts, and might even oppose them. If no one else is reforming ethical procedures, why should the media be so concerned about them?

The reply might be seen in an online story by Bill Moyers titled, “Is the Fourth Estate a Fifth column?” Moyers cites an old Native American story told by a tribal elder to his grandson. The old man described two wolves that exemplified a battle the old man was having within himself. One wolf was evil, mean, vile, jealous, greedy, a liar, an egomaniac and more. The other wolf was good, kind, virtuous, humble, selfless, and so on. The grandson asked the old man which one would win, to which the elder replied, “The one I feed.”

Indeed, the act of feeding—in this case, the participation of media or lack of participation of media in ethical reform, in pushing others to excel in positive ways, in generating expectations for noble excellence and in demonstrating such virtues—determines which wolf wins. For some Asian cultures and societies, it translates into defeat in the face of apathy, or victory because of selfless and honest participation. The rewards affect us all, and that is the reason why we should be concerned with ethical procedures in the media and elsewhere. Ethical means that we are more than merely honest or fearful of punishment if caught. It means that we respect the principles that ethics expounds no matter what the subject matter, no matter what the venue, no matter what the age or ‘situation.’