The results of the Thai Journalists Association (TJA) probe into a sexual harassment case involving a media personality has invited more questions than it has given answers.
The TJA set up a fact-finding panel which comprised gender advocates and outside experts including academic Juree Vichit-Vadakan to ensure non-partisanship to look into the high-profile case last September.
The probe was launched after reporters who gathered under the name Nak Khao Pak Sanam, or field reporters, filed a complaint with their umbrella organisation urging it to examine alleged ethical misconduct by a news agency editor.
In the complaint, they said a female reporter resigned from the news agency because she was sexually harassed.
In its probe, the panel appeared to regard the case as a personal matter. The name of the accused and the damaged party were withheld from the beginning, and removed from its report.
However, the news executive later sued a foreign columnist for naming him in the scandal, shortly before the news agency's editorial team issued a statement coming out in support of him. His harsh reaction triggered an outcry.
During the investigation process, the panel said it summoned both the accused and his former subordinate, as well as members of the reporters group which filed the complaint, to give their accounts.
It said both the accused and the former subordinate denied it was a case of sexual harassment. The panel said it had opened a channel to receive information for those who knew what happened but no one had used it.
The accused and his former subordinate conceded they were close and some dubious behaviour including body language took place which may have caused "misinterpretation and misunderstanding" on the part of the other side, the panel said in the probe report.
The panel noted that both the editor and his former subordinate did not wish to pursue the case which became public based on what appeared to be "hearsay and rumours", spread widely on social media.
"The accused and the former subordinate exchanged apologies for making things difficult for each other," said the panel in its probe report which eventually received approval from the TJA.
However, the inquiry results are a disappointment as it gives an impression that the media umbrella agency does not take sexual harassment seriously. Social activists and the reporters who filed the complaint find the probe results unacceptable.
Thicha Nanakorn, a social activist, is right in criticising the panel for failing to make it clear that sexual harassment is a result of a power-oriented relationship which means a supervisor may exploit his seniority to take advantage of subordinates sexually or by forcing them into an unwanted relationship.
In an interview with local media, Ms Thicha wondered if there were attempts to compromise ethical principles.
She said there would be no hope if those probing sexual harassment cases don't question if they have taken place because of the power structure underlying relationships.
Human rights commissioner Angkhana Neelapaijit also denounced the results for lacking gender sensitivity.
The reports also disappointed the reporters group which subsequently demanded the TJA release the full probe report to public.
The TJA cannot afford to ignore the criticism. By accepting the report, the TJA is conveying the wrong message that sexual harassment, a matter of serious ethical misconduct, is "normal".
It should realise that by failing to take sexual harassment seriously, it risks creating an impression that it condones ethical misconduct, which will then adversely affect its credibility.
As a watchdog agency, the media has an obligation to strictly uphold ethics and avoid any actions that might compromise that principle.
