For all his laudable composure after the high tension on Tuesday, Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej did display a worrisome blip: he urged the Thai media to choose sides. "Either them or us," said Samak after he gave an ultimatum to People's Alliance for Democracy protesters to move from the compound of the Government House. Samak told the press: "You can't be neutral. You have to choose sides. Otherwise, it will be deemed that the media has played a role in exacerbating the damage to the country."

Samak's statement was unsettling, particularly on a day when a TV station became a political target. Naturally, the three media associations - the Confederation of Thai Journalists, the Thai Journalists' Association and the Thai Broadcast Journalists' Association - issued a joint statement to disagree with Samak's remark because it would run against the principal ideology of the media: that the press should strive to report the truth. On the contrary, if the press decides to manipulate information for certain political purposes, it may worsen the situation by fuelling the confrontational atmosphere.

It has been very hard for the Thai media - who are always accused of being anti-Thaksin or pro-coup, or pro-Thaksin and anti-coup - in their efforts to uncover the truth from this multi-layered political crisis. But it's during times like this that the media community must perform its journalistic duty with honesty and refrain from being a propaganda tool that could escalate the violence, which in turn might endanger the interests of the country.

In fact, history has given a valuable lesson on the unforeseeable consequences of the distortion of news reports. The October 6 infamy was sparked by a distorted picture that appeared in some publications. In May 1992, the government's attempt to censor news reports led to misunderstanding and higher tension, culminating in loss of life.

This time around, both sides are trying to influence public opinion by using the media. The People's Alliance for Democracy has been airing its political opinions through private-run ASTV, while the government has launched the programme "Today's Truth", aired on the pro-government Channel 11, to attack its opponents. This has met with strong criticism from the media circle and the public because the Samak government uses the state-run TV channel, financed by the public's tax money, to propagate its views every night. But society continues to tolerate it.

However, on Monday, a state of chaos gripped Bangkok when the PAD laid siege to state-owned NBT, or the Channel 11 station. Although Channel 11 has at times been criticised as a mouthpiece of the government, laying siege to a public TV station is unacceptable. It is an attempt to obstruct the flow of information to the public.

Some viewers might disapprove of the way Channel 11 presents its news. But at least these viewers have an alternative media channel and they are able to make their own judgement after absorbing the information from all sides. Therefore, the PAD lost public sympathy when it raided the NBT because its action was tantamount to the limitation of the public's rights. At the same time, the media associations promptly issued a statement condemning such action as "one of the gravest and blatant violations of media freedom to date because the media was threatened, intimidated and obstructed from performing its duty".

In between, the big burden rests with the mainstream media to present both sides of the story. Amidst the escalating conflict and chaos, the decent and best thing that the media should do is to report the truth to ensure that the rights of the public to access information are not compromised, regardless.

It is to be hoped that the PAD might learn something about its miscalculation in trying to gain control over the NBT compound and facilities. NBT may also have to learn a thing or two from the incident - about whether it has been genuinely serving the public interest by providing a free flow of unbiased news and information to viewers. (The Nation/ ANN)