The violence during the demonstration of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) on 25 May 2008 should be condemned, no matter if it comes from the ‘PAD’, ‘anti-PAD 1’, ‘anti-PAD 2’, ‘anti-PAD 3’, or ‘anti-PAD 3…4…5’.

We condemn violence from all sides and call on the government to show its responsibility for its inability to prevent the violence, and to prosecute the perpetrators without discrimination.

However, Thai society needs to do more than that. It must try to understand the root causes of this violence. A thorough understanding together of the state of Thai society will lead to the establishment of cultural roots which respect human rights. The main question remains whether or not Thai society will take the time to learn and use these lessons in a timely manner before there are losses resulting from violence.

When there are deep divisions, it is not easy to stand neutral in the conflict zone when plastic bottles, glasses, and wooden sticks are being thrown from one side at the other and each responds to the other using force. There are injuries on both sides. The police, trying to call for restraint from both sides, are seen as taking sides, while the media has become the enemy of the anti-PAD groups.

A news anchor from one television channel tried over and over again to get information from reporters in the area during the first day of the PAD demonstration on the location of the anti-PAD groups, what their leaders were saying, if they were calling for their side to refrain from violence, etc. The reporters at the demonstration tried to explain that the confrontation and clashes were beyond the control of any leader. However, the similar questions come up over and over again as if the anti-PAD side is a visible movement with a clear group of persons planning its movements.

We can assume that the news anchor on that channel does not have bad intentions and is not trying to portray the anti-PAD side as the instigators of the violence or thugs. We can also assume that he also does not intend to side with the PAD. However, we believe that this news anchor is like those on other channels who work on news according on how they see things. This is the danger point.

Because the pictures that they are seeing do not come from an understanding of the situation of the anti-PAD side, the groups that are against the PAD never get news space. They do not publicly express clear demands and it sometimes looks as if they are from somewhere out in space. They always start with vulgar words and often refer to the media as “wicked”.

Most of the media looks at the anti-PAD groups as pro-Thaksin, which is not all true. Many on the anti-PAD side have moved beyond the issue of Thaksin to the fight for the 1997 constitution which had been torn up. While it can be said that they have had a “democratic conscience” for quite some time, many media groups are stuck in the same view, looking at the anti-PAD groups as all related, organized, led, and controllable. There is still a belief that the anti-PAD groups have the same features as the Caravan of the Poor, which attempted to close The Nation, or the United for Democracy against Dictatorship. This is far from the case.

When the media do not try to understand why these people sacrifice their time and their lives to oppose the PAD, how can they understand the situation and the violence stemming from it? If these people are not fighting for space, position, or for political interests, what are they fighting for, if not against the oppression and injustice that they have faced for years?

It would be interesting and important to the Thai media whether we are focusing only on news about the PAD or the violence, and bypassing the other side of the news.

This is similar to how the Thai state has seen the insurgents in Southern Thailand as criminals, drug addicts, illegal traffickers, and even as separatists. However, it has never been understood what injustices there are, and what causes them to call for a separate state.

If the media cannot see both sides of the coin for whatever reason, how can we call for justice for both sides, and how can violence be prevented?

When the media reports only one side of the story and the other side is shown only as negative, does this mean that the media are perpetrators of violence?

Translated by Pokpong Lawansiri