The power of public indignation

For a short while, it looked like it was going to be a protracted test of wills between the embattled Channel 3 and those demanding that it show responsibility following the court conviction of its star news presenter Sorrayuth Suthassanachinda for embezzlement. For three days, the management of Channel 3 chose to turn a deaf ear to widespread indignation over its decision to keep Sorrayuth on the air.
The executives of Channel 3 were willing to put the station’s reputation on the line because they apparently believed that the public backlash would be short-lived and soon it would be business-as-usual. They thought they could always bank on the belief that Thai people are forgetful.
Sorrayuth was convicted by the Criminal Court and sentenced to 13 years in jail last Monday on charges of embezzlement of more than Bt138 million in advertising revenue while he anchored news programmes at Channel 9 of the Mass Communications Organisation of Thailand (MCOT) about 10 years back. Such charges, not to mention the conviction, would have been enough for any business entity with some degree of good corporate governance to pull the plug on the employees involved. But not for Channel 3.
For Channel 3, concerns with rating and advertising revenue obviously trump every other consideration. No doubt, Sorrayuth, a colourful and versatile news presenter, was a major advertising draw for Channel 3 and losing him would certainly deal it a heavy financial blow. Sorrayuth’s popularity was something that the channel thought would help it ride out the storm. It apparently drew comfort from the fact that even his indictment by the National Anti-Corruption Commission over embezzlement charges two years ago didn’t seem to dent his likeability. Despite outcries from media organisations and bodies concerned with corporate governance back then, Channel 3 was unfazed and Sorrayuth continued to sit at the anchor desk. While a few advertisers did pull out in protest, both Sorrayuth and Channel 3 braved the ordeal largely unscathed.
That probably explains why they remained defiant in the face of mounting calls from journalists’ associations, media academics and anti-corruption organisations for him to stop hosting his news programmes after being convicted by a court. It was a deja vu of sorts. After all, it had been proven before that Sorrayuth’s power to pull audiences could easily keep advertisers in line and silence his critics in no time. And how could they be wrong to assume once again that advertisers care less about public sentiments than ratings?
So they thought they could get away with the excuse that whatever wrongdoings Sorrayuth might have committed took place long before he joined Channel 3 and that the case against him was far from being conclusive, as it will be challenged in the high court. The implication of the stance was that the corrupt practice he was found guilty of by the court had no relevance to his role as a news anchor and that he would stop hosting his programmes only if the Supreme Court ruled him guilty.
But what Channel 3 and Sorrayuth didn’t foresee was the unprecedented outpouring of indignation from large segments of society this time around. The media, both print and broadcast, almost in unison questioned the integrity of both the station and news anchor. The anger quickly snowballed into calls for a boycott of not just Sorrayuth and his programmes but also of Channel 3. Many prominent public figures also joined social media in mobilising support for social sanctions against Channel 3.
Never before had the Thai public reacted to scandals involving prominent media personalities with such indignation. Their argument is that journalists as watchdogs need to have integrity and abide by a code of ethics. And Sorrayuth is no exception. The fact that he was convicted for embezzlement has effectively deprived him of whatever claim to journalistic principles he may have. In most civilised societies, journalists – especially prominent ones – would voluntarily step down once it becomes public knowledge that their integrity is compromised, let alone being convicted for corruption. Otherwise, their employers would take them off the air before there is any public backlash. Either way, it would mean an end to their journalistic career.
There were some expectations, no matter how unrealistic they may have been, that given the severity of the case against Sorrayuth, Channel 3 would seize the opportunity to help set a new standard for Thai journalism by getting rid of its scandal-tainted news anchor. But it came as no surprise that concerns about ratings and advertising revenue got the better of it. It chose to ignore public concerns and instead sided with Sorrayuth, in the process throwing good corporate governance out of the window. What the management of Channel 3 was telling the Thai public was that “we don’t care what you think. If you don’t like us don’t watch us”.
Its defiance was tantamount to drawing a battle line with its critics and Channel 3 apparently believed that it would prevail once again. But it obviously misread the anger generated by its recalcitrance, especially among advertisers. As it turned out, businesses that had been supporting Sorrayuth’s news programmes seemed to attach more importance to principles of good governance than the channel itself. Several of them decided to end their contracts with the programme on the grounds that they could not continue to associate themselves with an anchor mired in corruption. Meanwhile, pressure from media organisations, consumer groups and civil society kept piling on Channel 3 while social media was abuzz with anti-Channel 3 and anti-Sorrayuth campaigns.
But Sorrayuth’s supporters were also making as much noise as his detractors. Surprisingly, a number of well-known media academics and newspaper columnists also joined his admirers in defending him. They described the criticisms of Sorrayuth as an “act of lynching” by the Bangkok middle-class jealous of his success. Some argued that regardless of the court conviction, Sorrayuth should be judged more by his “good deeds”, especially his role in helping victims of the major floods four years ago.
Should Sorrayuth then be commended for deciding to call it quits? Was it a show of spirit, albeit slow in coming? Or was it an inevitability? The short farewell message he posted in his Instagram on Thursday evening may provide some answers.
He said he had decided to end his role as news anchor in order to “avoid creating an impact on Channel 3 and to put everyone at ease”. He then went on to thank the “Channel 3 family” and his fans. What was glaringly missing was any show of remorse. He made it appear as if he was making a big sacrifice.
Would Sorrayuth have backed down had advertisers not started withdrawing commercial support? Both Channel 3 and Sorrayuth had been confident that their advertisers were too loyal to be swayed by public opinions. They were proved dead wrong. Not only did several advertisers announce that they were boycotting Sorrayuth’s
programmes, a network of business companies advocating good corporate governance also issued a statement calling on its members to disassociate themselves from Channel 3. So Channel 3 and Sorrayuth were hit where it hurts the most.
It was obviously not out of consideration for journalistic ethics that Sorrayuth decided to throw in the towel. Given the prevailing sentiment, the news anchor knew he could not continue to dig in his heels. And at that point, Channel 3 was more than happy to let go its most popular news presenter before suffering even heavier consequences.
Channel 3 prides itself as one big happy “family”. One of its executives proudly declared the day after Sorrayuth was convicted that whatever the public might feel, there was an obligation on the “family” to protect one of their own. But the whole saga should have given the management of the Channel a big lesson. Ethics and corporate governance cannot be treated as “family matters”. And a bigger lesson is that Channel 3 cannot take business corporations which finance its programmes for granted any more.
And Sorrayuth?As a journalist and the face of the country’s leading TV station, he must realise that he has to be held to a higher standard than people of many other professions.
He cannot be convicted of
corruption and yet continue to portray the picture of a trustworthy news anchor – no matter how
likeable he may be. His popularity is not a licence for him to take his
audiences for granted.

Thepchai Yong is Group Editor-in-Chief of Nation Multimedia Group and president of the Thai Broadcast Journalists Association