Clash coverage reveals need for media reforms

The first thing I did when arriving home late on Saturday night was turn on the television in the hope I could get an update of the situation at Ramkhamhaeng where students and progovernment ralliers were clashing.

Sketchy radio reports I listened to while driving said one student was dead from gunshot wounds and several were injured, with a few serious cases. Traffic to Ramkhamhaeng became paralysed as a result of road blocks. There was turmoil. I hoped at least one TV channel was reporting the incident. If complete coverage with recent images wasn’t available, I hoped that at least running commentary was.

But I was let down. There was nothing. Every TV channel ran its scheduled late night programmes. I had to turn to social media and news websites to find the up-to-date information I needed.

Given the tense situation between the protesters led by Suthep Thaugsuban and the government — before the symbolic truce in honour of this special day — why did TV media ignore the violent clashes? Why did they choose to adopt a business-as-usual attitude? Another person who could be said to have such an attitude is the prime minister. The day after the political warfare, PM Yingluck Shinawatra turned up at news conferences with impeccable makeup — fluffy eye lashes and glossy lips. Her pleasant appearance gave the unsettling false impression that the country was calm and normal.

It was the following day that the TV stations started to feel the heat. The protesters invaded all TV stations in what was reported as ‘‘a threat to force all TV channels to abandon usual programming, and carry only the news of Blue Sky TV’’. This coarse move drew harsh criticism from media organisations.

Why did TV media ignore the clashes? Why did they adopt a business-as-usual

attitude?