NBTC must provide an outline but then allow media to self-regulate: Supinya

In response, some prominent media figures and organisations have renewed their efforts to improve media ethics, while the National Broadcasting and Telecommunica-tions Commission (NBTC) has announced that it plans to set up regulations to develop a new code of ethics to better regulate media practices in the future. 

 

WHAT LED THE NBTC TO COME UP WITH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT?

Fundamentally, it is stated in our auction licences that broadcasters have to abide by the media’s code of ethics and conduct. 

In the announcement, we followed Article 27 in the 2010 Act on assigning radio frequency and regulating broadcasting and telecommunications service.

We’ve also followed Articles 39 and 40 in the 2008 Act on the radio and television broadcasting business. All these articles empower the NBTC to make media practitioners to set ethical standards and also have them practice self-regulation pertaining to their profession.

It can be said this was triggered by two highly controversial cases – the insensitive coverage of late actor Trisadee Sahawong’s funeral, and Channel 3’s apparent defence of its convicted TV host Sorrayuth Suthassanachinda at the start of the case. 

These incidents have stirred social calls for tangible development of media ethics against morality issues at the earliest – and the NBTC thought that it’s about time to level up.

 

WHAT DOES THE ANNOUNCEMENT AIM TO PRODUCE?

It aims to set new ethical standards for media organisations through NBTC-introduced procedures. The organisations, as designated in the draft, will be required to register and get approved by the NBTC. This can ensure, to a certain extent, that organisations will have to comply with the new requirements, for example, publicising their budget and annual reports, as the draft says.

Under this draft, media organisations will also have to set up an ethics regulation committee consisting of media veterans, academics and outsider experts. 

The committee will help protect consumers and the public by accepting complaints against the media, seeking compensation for those who have suffered as a result of media practices, as well as sanctioning wrongdoings by media practitioners.

WHEN I HEAR THE WORD “SANCTION”, I THINK OF THE STATE AUTHORITY’S CONTRIBUTION TO THIS, INCLUDING THE ROLE OF THE NBTC AS YOU MENTIONED. DOESN’T THIS GO AGAINST THE THREE ARTICLES THAT SUPPORT MEDIA SELF-REGULATION?

Such sanctions will be decided on wholly by media organisations, which in turn could become soft as some support is cut. As for the NBTC’s position, I may say it could actually be something between a facilitator and a regulator.

It’s true that we will have to use authority to enforce this draft, but I plan for the NBTC to only draw outlines for media affairs and not step into the decision-making field at all. 

The NBTC could step back when media organisations have settled down, meaning they can eventually regulate themselves effectively and sustainably. 

 

BUT AREN’T LEGITIMATELY FORMING MEDIA ORGANISATIONS AND SETTING UP ETHICS TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS?

 Media people haven’t been able to solve their ethical issues yet and you’re trying to introduce a new structure as a solution. 

Those are all correct points, but how can we make media ethical standards concrete without creating more legitimate bodies to shape them up? They just need to be done together. 

 

HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THE ETHICS ISSUES WITH OTHER NBTC COMMISSIONERS?

Yes, and I think they might observe the matter from a rather legal perspective, seeing things only in black and white. Their approach is that either the NBTC should have greater control over the media platform or it should not bother about it at all. If you ask me, I think ethics has grey areas and a lot of discussions are required to push it through. 

 

WHAT ABOUT EXISTING MEDIA ORGANISATIONS? THEY SEEM TO GO FOR SELF-REGULATION WITHOUT THE NBTC’S PARTICIPATION?

I talked to digital TV broadcasters last month and we concluded that companies will regulate themselves. If there are unsolved problems, they will be passed on to the NBTC, which will offer solutions. 

If the problem is still unsolved, existing media organisations will be in charge and if problems are still there, it will eventually be the NBTC’s job to solve them. 

The NBTC looks forward to talking with the rest of the media organisations, with the exception of online ones, by the middle of this month in relation to the draft. Hence, details of the draft are subject to change depending on future conclusions. 

If all organisations decide to reject the draft, so be it. I am a commissioner who stands by the media and respects their voices after all.

 

HOW WOULD YOU PERSUADE MEDIA ORGANISATIONS TO ENGAGE IN THE DRAFT THEN?

I would say that coming up with a legitimate, clear ethical line that everyone can agree upon would be for public benefit. This will also cut out unnecessary arguments on what is good and what is not. 

I would also say that the NBTC needs to be present to merely put things in order, as it is being long urged by social pressures. The issue of media ethics had better be organised as soon as possible or the state may have an excuse to interfere in harsher ways.