Challenge to regulate cable and satellite TV

[Admin]

Challenge to regulate cable and satellite TV
By Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation 2010-11-18

The explosion of cable and satellite television channels in Thailand is posing a challenge on how the industry can self-regulate itself in order to avoid commercial and political exploitation of its viewers, a symposium has concluded.

The period from 2006 to 2009 saw the combined penetration of cable and satellite TV reach some 6.37 million households, or 31 per cent of the entire 20.35 million households, said Asst Prof Pirongrong Ramasoota of Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Communication Arts, citing figures from AC Nielsen.

What’s more, the satellite and cable TV audience is expected to reach 60 per cent next year, and some 12.22 mil?lion homes.

Pirongrong spoke at the symposium yesterday, organised by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, on self-regulation of satellite TV. She said self-regulation was the most feasible way to ensure no details about fake drugs or political “hate speech” were aired, but she admitted that content was growing rapidly.

Pirongrong said that satellite and cable stations may be able to learn from a year-old attempt by some community radio stations which are not politicised to control their programmes in order to avoid rude language, sexual content and attacks on religions being broadcast.

Niphon Naksompop, chair?man of the Satellite Television Association, said although over 100 satellite channels were now received in Thailand, it has successfully prevented members from accepting advertisements about alcohol.

But others like Senator Somchai Sawaengkarn, chairman of the Senate committee on human rights, liberty and consumer protection, argued that satellite and cable TV channels were full of commercials selling drugs for sexual enhancement, and political content supported by politi?cians, and simply went to air “without responsibility”.

Somchai warned that if the industry failed to regulate itself the state would step in and this may also lead to abuse through political censorship, as it could lead to a lack of true freedom of expression.

Wasan Paileeklee, chairman of the National Broadcasting Council of Thailand (NBCT) and deputy managing editor of Thai Public Broadcasting Service (TPBS), admitted that while there had been progress achieving self-regulation, there were still problems with channels or broadcasters who were not members, such as ASTV, as they did not have to abide by council regulations.

The lack of a journalists’ union and the fact that many council members who were media professionals tended to defer to media owners meant offences went unpunished.

“We don’t want to be regulated by the government but if we can’t get self-regulation, then we have to opt for co-regulation,” he said, adding that this way, there would be mechanisms introduced to punish violators, which would be legally binding.

Wolfgang Schulz, director of the Hans-Breddow Institute in Hamburg, said co-regulation in Germany was more complex and involved the state, but it “went rather well”. He added, however, that Germany had a “very strong constitutional protection against [political] interference” in media freedom. However, the media was not politicised like in Thailand, Schulz said.

[buriramboy]

self regulate cables in Thailand? you must be joking. in theory it might work with the big cable operators, if looking closer at the current activity. no chance.