The Bangkok Post:

The government plans to establish an independent media monitoring organisation as part of the road map.

It says the changes are aimed at preventing the media from being used to create social divisions.

PM’s Office Minister Sathit Wongnongtoey has said the body would not interfere with any media outlet’s operations. The government hoped media outlets would censor their own reporting to avoid the need for changes to the law.

The public should also know it can have faith in state media. The law prohibits the media from fanning the flames of public disorder or trying to undermine the state.

Before the government acts, media outlets should assess their role in coverage of the protests, and ask whether they did not step over the line in allowing some agitators too great a say.

Michael Sheridan and Nate Thayer in The Times (UK):

The government seized control of television news, suppressed photographs of dead civilians and frantically blocked websites, leading a commentator in Thai Rath, the nation’s most popular newspaper, to say that “few truthful accounts were published or broadcast”.

The spin has not worked. There is mounting evidence that the 52 dead and 407 wounded victims of the latest spasm have created a groundswell of hatred, leaving Thailand’s reputation as a kingdom of Buddhist harmony in ruins.

The Globe and Mail:

It’s likely to be an extremely charged affair. British reporter Andrew Buncombe, struck in the right leg by a shotgun round while still inside the temple grounds, was visited in his hospital room Thursday morning and quizzed about who he believed fired the shot. A translator employed by The Globe and Mail – also caught in the crossfire inside Wat Pathum – was asked to discuss the incident on Thai television, only to have the invitation revoked when he refused to limit the discussion to the government’s role in rescuing those inside.

BP: Is this an instance of self-censoring to avoid creating “social divisions”? Last week on ThaiPBS, they had four rescue workers/paramedics on TV discussing their role. As two colleagues had been killed, the host asked a question along the lines on who they thought killed them? None of the four answered. It might have been because they had not formed an opinion or because well, it could create problems for them if they were to voice their opinion.

Given the recent strong criticism directed at the international media, no one has really sought to answer the question on why many Thais are watching the foreign media in the first place to obtain news about Thailand. Even for Thais abroad, it can’t be because of lack of access to Thai language material because with the internet there is so much material available. A knowledgeable reader passes on these comments:

Why did so many Thai citizens and residents feel so compelled to watch events unfold on foreign news channels? Should it not have been showing on Thai TV first?

If there is any criticism to be done, it should start at home. On many occasions, during critical periods of the recent crisis, I would flip to one of the main Thai terrestrial channels and find a soap-opera or game show playing. If these events were so crucial to Thailand’s future, why hadn’t Thailand’s TV stations gone to full 24/7 news coverage as they would in foreign lands?

Could it be that Thais do not trust their own media? If so, something should be done about it!

BP: This is a good point. The State of Emergency Decree blocking such “terrorist” sites as Prachatai surely doesn’t help. Will Satit’s media reform help or hinder?