Lt Gen Sansern Kaewkamnerd, the government spokesman and caretaker director-general of the Public Relations Department, drew flak from media organisations and journalists because he unwittingly, or perhaps unknowingly, trespassed into their fiercely-guarded territory -- known in journalistic lexicon as "editorial independence".
He wanted to make sure that the "mobile" cabinet meeting in Nakhon Ratchasima from Monday to Wednesday would not turn out to be a one-man show with media outlets only focusing on Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha and leaving out all the other ministers -- about 20 of them -- in the cold as has normally been the case at cabinet meetings.
So he called a meeting mainly with broadcast media representatives at Government House on Wednesday to seek their cooperation for his plan -- that is to make sure that all ministers get coverage, so the public knows that they also are doing their jobs too besides the prime minister, who gets the most TV coverage in any case.
Veera Prateepchaikul is a former editor, Bangkok Post.
Getting requests for cooperation from the government and its agencies is quite normal and it happens all the time. And it is at the discretion of each media outlet to decide on the extent of cooperation they will extend.
This time, however, Lt Gen Sansern went one step too far when he dictated which TV channel should cover which minister. At the meeting with the media on Wednesday, he told them he merely wanted them to help and they could cover each individual minister any way they like. He also asked them to send copies of their TV footage to the state-owned NBT channel, which will also air the same later.
The general described this new modality of cooperation between state-owned and privately owned media outlets as a new form of integrated working relationship -- a relationship that will be beneficial to the public with the media outlets still retaining their freedom.
Well, not quite. When he dictated which TV channel should cover which minister, he did interfere in the operations of the media outlets or trespassed into their editorial independence -- a sensitive area which is fiercely guarded by most media professionals although, of late, this independence has been increasingly flouted by state agencies.
As a former editor myself, I know how much journalists in the print media treasure their editorial independence. They are never happy if an outsider, the government included, dictates what they should cover or how they should write a story.
The responsibility normally rests with the news editor who will decide which reporter should follow which minister and cover his/her activities. Also, they don't send a copy of their stories to the government to be reprinted or re-broadcast. I don't think this integrated working relationship is welcomed by journalists, who cherish their editorial independence or press freedom.
Had I been an editor of one of the outlets chosen to follow a given minister by the general, I would have said "No" and made my own decision on who to cover and where to go because I believe I am capable of making my own judgment.
I wonder how a military commander would feel if a media organisation asked for his help and dictated what he should do and where he should go?
As a career soldier, Lt Gen Sansern may not be familiar with editorial independence and I don't think it is practised -- or will ever be practised -- in the Public Relations Department.
The protest by the Thai Journalists Association and the National Press Council against what the media deemed as government interference is based on the principles of press freedom and editorial independence. The media is not hostile to the government, but it has its own rules and principles to adhere to and it does not welcome any outside interference.
Lt Gen Sansern has apologised, saying he had no intention to interfere in the media's working or to dictate what they should do. That is fair enough and no hard feelings.
If he really wants more publicity for ministers, live streaming through different social channels is another option which can be explored. US President Donald Trump, for example, uses Twitter to communicate with the Americans and has millions of followers, both supporters and opponents.
But people are smarter today, and the footage of a minister on TV or social media for a few minutes, doing some talking, would only dupe some unsuspecting members of the society into believing the minister concerned is in fact working hard for their benefit.
However, for the public in general, it is their achievements during the past three years that will earn the ministers and the government as a whole the trust and confidence of the masses.
