The report that the popular morning TV news programme Jor Luek Thua Thai Inside Thailand on Channel 9 MCOT HD will leave the state broadcaster at the end of this month casts a sceptical light on the Anutin government.
The programme has been on MCOT for seven years, having moved from a commercial station to the state-owned broadcaster during the government of Prayut Chan-o-cha. Even so, the programme and its two hosts -- veteran journalists Danai Ekmahasawat and Amornrat Mahittirook -- have never shied away from criticising governments, authorities and heavyweight politicians.
Over the years, the programme has become a morning staple for journalists, politicians and state officials alike. The show has cultivated sources in high places who provide the hosts with confidential information and tips. Leaked documents have often included lists of senior police and official appointments, as well as confidential dossiers, such as Department of Special Investigation documents related to the probe into the Senate election.
Last week, Jor Luek Thua Thai Inside Thailand launched a barrage of criticism against the TH-AI Passport project introduced by Digital Economy and Society Minister Chaichanok Chidchob, son of Newin Chidchob, strategist and adviser to the Bhumjaithai Party.
The 1.6-billion-baht scheme to purchase one-year premium AI subscriptions for five million users has drawn criticism over its cost-effectiveness and procurement process.
After the two anchors announced their decision to leave the station, rumours of political intervention spread like wildfire. Pukkamon Noonanant, a People's Party spokesman and party-list MP, immediately alleged that MCOT had received a "ticket" from the "blue regime" to take the programme off the air.
What has happened at MCOT does not bode well for press freedom.
MCOT is not merely a state-owned broadcaster; it is also a publicly listed company that is obliged to uphold good governance and transparency.
Reports that journalists are leaving the station after criticising the government will inevitably damage the image of both MCOT and the government itself.
The onus now falls on the Anutin government to prove it had nothing to do with the programme's departure.
Failing to do so will only reinforce perceptions that it is thin-skinned and authoritarian. That would not serve a government that aspires to join the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and uphold an image of transparency.
Both MCOT executives and Prime Minister's Office Minister Supamas Isarabhakdi, who oversees MCOT, have remained silent.
Such silence is irresponsible, as it sends a troubling signal to journalists working within state media organisations.
More encouraging is the news that the House of Representatives will establish a committee to determine whether political interference played a role.
The Thai Journalists Association is also monitoring the issue and is expected to issue a statement soon.
Without scrutiny and support from such institutions, journalists working for state media may ultimately face a stark choice: behave, or leave.
