Freedom of the Media in Thailand

Author: Lucie Cvachová
Affiliation: FGES – Licence Gestion, Economie & Sciences, Université catholique de Lille, 60 Boulevard VAUBAN, 59016 Lille
Email: lucie.cvachova@gmail.com

Language: Czech / English translation
Issue: 2/2016
Pages: 82-108 (27 pages)
Keywords: Media, mass media, social network, censorship, internet, freedom, Thailand

Abstract

This paper analyses the extent of freedom in the Thai media through the opinions of Thai students and journalists on the current media situation in Thailand and the representation of the Thai royal family. It characterises the media in general and then in relation to society and public opinion. Thereafter, it describes the viewing of media by others in relation to the social construction of reality and the influence that media can have on society. For the analytical component, a content analysis of an English version of a Thai journal was employed. This was then supplemented by semi-structured interviews conducted with Thai students of journalism and Thai journalists.

Celý příspěvek / Full Text Paper:

Svoboda médií v Thajsku

Czech version: HTML

Introduction

The media unquestionably play a vital role in contemporary society. They serve as a fundamental — often the sole — source of information by which individuals or entire communities form opinions about the world around them. It is therefore imperative to subject the media to thorough analysis to discern the methods by which they present information. Because the media are ubiquitous and consumed constantly, they exert a profound influence on people’s lives. Indirectly, they help shape human thought by presenting the public with selected portions of reality, chosen via a selective process. Recently, media freedom has become a topic of intense debate. Numerous organisations track media freedom — for instance, the US‑based Freedom House and the French Reporters Without Borders (Reportéři bez hraníc). According to their indices and evaluations, Thailand is regarded as a country with restricted media freedom. In 2014, I undertook a month‑long stay in Southeast Asia, during which I conducted research on media freedom in Thailand. I engaged with local journalists and journalism students to explore their perceptions of that freedom.

This study seeks to describe the state and extent of media freedom in Thailand, which is affected by the military regime and censorship anchored in the lèse‑majesté law — meaning that neither citizens nor journalists may express defamatory remarks about the royal family. The paper aims to outline the phenomenon of the media and to analyse the Thai media market. To this end, I conducted a content analysis of the English‑language Thai daily The Bangkok Post’s online version, and carried out interviews with journalism students at the Faculty of Media Studies in Bangkok and with Thai journalists themselves.

Theoretical Framework

The term *medium* originates in Latin, where it literally means “intermediary”. Accordingly, a medium can be considered anything used by people to convey a message. The term denotes that which mediates a message and therefore facilitates interpersonal, social communication. The media largely contribute to shaping public life, public opinion and also enter into the lives of individuals.[1]

We distinguish between interpersonal media, which foster the formation and maintenance of social relations between individuals, and mass media. Interpersonal communication takes place via letters, e‑mails, text messages or telephone calls; users perceive one another as distinct individuals and can both send and receive messages.[2] In contrast, mass media transmit a message from a single source to a large audience. This is so‑called societal‑wide communication. No reciprocal exchange of messages occurs. The audience comprises a group of people who lack mutual social ties or relations — a ‘mass’. The concept ‘mass’ represents a large undifferentiated group, historically envisaged in a negative sense — as a raw or rebellious common people or crowd. More positively, in the sociological tradition the term ‘mass’ was seen as a force and solidarity of the working people, organised to advance a common interest or resist oppression. “Phrases such as ‘mass support’, ‘mass movement’ or ‘mass action’ serve as examples of when a large number of people acting together may be regarded in a positive light.”[3]

Mass media are generally known as the means of mass communication that give the public access to information and have the capacity significantly to influence an individual’s knowledge and outlook, thereby forming public opinion. They are a source of power and, hence, a means of influence. They set and affect the direction of society and public judgement, and their importance continues to rise. They may also influence the functioning and significance of societal institutions.[4] Mass media also portray public life — both domestic and international — and enable retrospectively the revelation of changes in societal values, culture, research or political circumstances. They are a tool for the fame of individuals or groups, but can equally serve as a means of condemnation and censure by the majority society that follows them without question.[5] Media indeed have the power to shape public opinion. According to Giles, it is redundant to distinguish the terms ‘media’ and ‘mass media’. “The term mass media has in recent years become almost obsolete, presumably because when people speak of media, they almost always mean mass media. And the ‘mass’ portion simply dropped off over time.”[6] According to McQuail, media may be seen as a window that broadens our outlook and allows us to see what is happening without any external intervention; they may be understood as a mirror of societal or world events that is capable of showing their reflection — which, however, may be distorted. Another property of media is the filter, i.e., gatekeeper. No one is obligated to follow mass media or to accept the opinions or information they present.[7]

Media communicate with a broad audience, which is undifferentiated and generally shares characteristics such as being large in number, heterogeneous, anonymous, and lacking internal communication or independent action. The individuals forming the audience generally do not know each other, nor do they know those whom they observe. The audience thus lacks identity and is passive; it may also be manipulated. Its members come from diverse social strata, yet are united by the object of their interest.[8]

Media communication is typically distinguished from mass communication. Media communication is a social and communicative activity mediated by any printed, broadcast or online medium. It is subordinate to mass communication, since that is stimulated only by certain types of media. Mass communication refers to the transmission of information via press, radio, television, etc. (mass media enable mass communication) to an audience that is dispersed, heterogeneous and extensive. Mass communication does not permit immediate feedback, and in many respects differs from interpersonal communication, which is dependent on space and time.[9] This communication operates on the social level and is characterised by the fact that all its activities occur via media that act as intermediaries.[10] Mass communication is media communication initiated by mass media — which are high‑cost periodic print media or radio or television broadcasting intended for large audiences. Their equivalents are available online.[11]

The primary effect of media is agenda‑setting. Which topics will be mediated is decided by the gatekeeper, or ‘guardian of the gate’, who selects which events become part of the news.

“Journalists entering the profession are confronted with an immense volume of potential stories, of which only a limited number may be selected for their media outlet’s content.[12] The role of the gatekeeper lies in the media’s capacity to influence the degree of audience attention directed at a particular issue. This capacity may yield positive outcomes—for example, drawing attention to an undesirable phenomenon—but also result in the propagation of alarmist waves and moral panic[13]. Frequently, it is precisely the amplification of an issue via the media that compels public institutions to act.[14] In the process of gatekeeping[15]—the mechanism by which news items are selected for media publication—the character of the person making those selections plays a significant role. Gatekeeping, in the contemporary sense, denotes the process by which information is admitted into the media, especially in relation to the power wielded by the individual who holds the information. Thus, the selection of stories may be likened to the function of a doorman permitting some news items into the reporting domain while leaving others outside. How the ‘doorman’ decides is influenced by a variety of factors, including professional routines, interests, or public pressure. Moreover, multiple gatekeepers may be involved in the decision‑making process of editorial content, differing in their position within the organisational hierarchy.[16] Gatekeeping may be understood in several respects. It is influenced at an individual level by everyday communication routines—what is deemed newsworthy—as well as by social institutions and society at large. On the individual level, decisions are shaped by a journalist’s personal preferences. Beyond personal opinions, factors such as gender, sexual orientation, education, social class or religion may play a role. Knowledge and information concerning the topic in question determine a journalist’s independence. That degree of independence also influences in which news bulletin a report will appear.[17]

However, not all events find their way into the media’s spotlight. Only a minute fraction of events occurring in recent days reach the audience, and the question of whether they do is not determined solely by their type.[18] Agenda‑setting is one of the primary theories associated with the mass media. Society perceives a given problem or event in the way the media present it and in the significance they ascribe to it. Society is therefore influenced by the media and absorbs what the media determine as important and worthy of attention—essentially the construction of its own reality.[19] The power of the media lies not only in what the audience thinks about, but also in what the audience thinks about and how it regards these issues.[20] It is a hypothesis concerning the influence, or effect, of the media on opinions and thoughts and on public and political discourse. According to this hypothesis, the media are capable of determining the hierarchy of significance of events, whether intentionally or unintentionally.[21] Walter Lippmann pointed out that most of our thoughts are shaped by the media and, in that context, distinguished between the surrounding world and the pseudo‑world—reality versus the subjectively perceived world.[22] This theory is applied across all media forms and domains of public human activity. Journalists are unable to capture all information and events, nor are they capable of reflecting everything to the public. The events that media choose to cover are those they produce themselves. One of the principal consequences of agenda‑setting is guidance. This increases the significance of the perspectives according to which public opinion and attitudes towards public persons and events should subsequently orient themselves. “Television news may give attention to certain themes while ignoring others, thus influencing the criteria by which we evaluate governments, presidents, political decisions and candidates for public office.”[23]

Media have a greater chance of influencing agenda‑setting when the audience is unfamiliar with the topic in question. Such audiences rely more heavily on media and have a greater need to be informed than those already acquainted with the subject matter. The language used or the imagery employed also shapes the audience’s experience and the formation of opinions when processing information.[24] The media agenda is the set of the most important topics and is operationalised as the amount of space devoted to a given topic in the media—broadcast time, number of lines of text or placement on the front page, etc. In this context, a topic is understood as a socially significant, often conflictual problem. The number of respondents designating particular topics as most important represents the public agenda.[25] Public awareness depends precisely on which events and themes the media choose to cover and supply to society. If the media prioritise certain events, they assign them greater significance, and the audience, consciously or unconsciously, categorises those as important and is compelled to think about them. Readers and viewers assume that the topics mentioned in the media have been selected carefully so as to inform them of the most significant events and reflect reality. With the advent of the concept of agenda‑setting, another crucial term emerges—salience—which is defined as “the degree to which a given topic is perceived as important in a particular agenda.”[26]

Media are also subject to censorship, which can be divided into prior and subsequent types. Prior censorship is embodied in self‑censorship. Self‑censorship occurs when a journalist deliberately modifies their expression out of fear or deference to an institution. This happens without overt pressure from a specific institution or authority. Self‑censorship is most prevalent in societies where official governmental media censorship exists and where journalists may be fined, dismissed or prosecuted for breaking censorship rules.

An individual appearing on television is often compelled to accept the theme, conditions of communication and time constraints that effectively preclude any substantive contribution. This type of censorship may appear political, but this is not always the case. Political control undoubtedly exists, but is usually executed by the appointment of particular individuals to leadership positions. This form of censorship may be labelled self‑censorship and is carried out by journalists themselves, either consciously or unconsciously, out of uncertainty about their employment.[27] Self‑censorship is the daily reality for Thai journalists and, more broadly, the people of Thailand. Journalists frequently withhold publication or broadcast of material on the basis of their own decision when they or their interests may be threatened by a third party over the content of their reports. They may have editorial directives from a superior and must avoid conflicts of interest with economic sponsors, advertisers or shareholders of the respective media organisation.[28] This principle essentially precedes direct censorship, in which a media outlet seeks to accommodate those who would otherwise constrain its activity. Formal control of mass media is embedded in legislation, including judicial decisions that regulate such laws and the rules and regulations administered by government agencies. It involves restrictions on expression, public communication and, more generally, limits the flow of information deemed unsuitable, harmful or politically incorrect by government or authorities. “In liberal as well as totalitarian regimes throughout the world, journalists must continuously fight political censorship.”[29]

Censorship restricts and regulates which information may be communicated verbally, in writing or through other forms of expression. Typically instituted by the state, religious bodies, the military, or even corporate management, censorship serves to uphold declared moral principles, preserve secrecy or maintain an ideological monopoly.[30] Most commonly it concerns the media — that is, publicly disseminated information — but in authoritarian regimes private communication may likewise be censored. Individuals attempting to circumvent censorship may face punishment or legal prosecution. Throughout virtually all of human history, censorship has been practised by power structures of which it formed a part.[31] “In recent decades (particularly since the end of the Second World War) certain features have developed in mass media, which have attained a degree of maturity, that society regards as somewhat problematic and which have given rise to the establishment of oversight or codes of conduct by governments or even supranational bodies.”[32] Burton and Jirák[33] distinguish two types of regulation — internal (voluntary) and external (coercive). Internal, voluntary regulation comprises rules adopted by journalists’ unions or broadcast workers’ associations; external or imposed regulation generally consists of statutory measures.

Thailand – The Media Market

The government and military control virtually all national television networks and operate many of Thailand’s radio stations. Multi‑channel television, available via cable and satellite, is widely accessible. The radio market, particularly in Bangkok, is highly competitive: in the capital and its environs there are more than sixty stations. Print media are largely privately owned, with a handful of Thai‑language daily newspapers accounting for the bulk of newspaper sales.[34] The Thai media market underwent significant transformation in the twenty‑first century: over the past fifteen years it has occupied each of the three status categories used by Freedom House.[35] Its press and online‑media freedom index shifted from free to partly free in 2006, and was judged not free by 2014 — a status that has remained unchanged since then.[36],[37] The imposition of martial law and the May 2014 military coup accompanied severe restrictions on media output.[38] Reporters Without Borders gave Thailand a press‑freedom index of 37.94 in 2014, ranking it 130th out of 180 countries; by 2015 the index had worsened to 40.07, placing it 134th. A lower score indicates greater press freedom.[40] Another non‑governmental organisation concerned with media, free speech and the right to information is Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA), which in 2006 warned that “the overall environment for the press is unstable and under daily threat.”[42] The situation is further exacerbated by government regulation of broadcasting and systematic monitoring of websites. The Thai Ministry of Information and Communication issued a warning that web‑masters are responsible for all contributions on their sites and instructed that any reports referencing the monarchy must be removed, on the grounds of maintaining public calm. Although no explicit guidelines dictate exactly what journalists must write, and despite formal guarantees of freedom of movement and fact‑gathering, the government pressed editorial boards to refrain from negative coverage.[43]

The overall state of freedom of expression in Thailand began to deteriorate when Yingluck Shinawatra became prime minister in 2011. During her term the number of court cases related to censorship increased significantly.[44] This was underpinned by Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code on lèse‑majesté — “Lèse majesté” — under which anyone who defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, heir or Regent may be punished.[45] According to the Criminal Code, lèse‑majesté covers only criticism of the King, Queen, Crown Prince, a former Supreme Court judge and serves as a general prohibition against criticism of royal projects and institutions, especially the Chakri dynasty from which the King descends; no former Thai King may be criticised.[46] The Thai royal family is protected under some of the strictest laws in the world. Although the previous government pledged to amend Article 112, no such change occurred and journalists convicted under censorship laws may face imprisonment from three to fifteen years.[47] While the media retain the formal capacity to criticise government policy and highlight corruption or human‑rights abuses, journalists tend to practise self‑censorship when it comes to the military, monarchy, the judiciary and other sensitive issues.[48]

Press freedom in Thailand suffered a further blow following the military coup on 22 May 2014, which overthrew the elected government and inaugurated the junta.[49] The ruling body, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), led by General Prayut Chan‑ocha, promulgated an interim constitution in August 2014. The new regime vigorously enforced the existing laws on defamation and lèse‑majesté, and carried out wide‑scale media blackouts. Many journalists were summoned to court for “undesirable” articles.[50] The King of Thailand stated in one of his speeches that he would welcome criticism of himself and his government, since he would learn of his mistakes and avoid them.[52] Nevertheless, the government resists this posture, as further discussed in the content‑analysis of the Thai newspaper The Bangkok Post. Although the constitution provides for freedom of information, it contains exceptions: access to information that may threaten the monarchy is restricted. The Freedom of Information Act has been mis‑interpreted and applied unevenly.[53]

The 2007 constitution reinstated and expanded freedom of expression, replacing the interim charter issued by the military government in 2006. The Press and Publication Act of 1941 was also amended, although many of the regulations introduced by the military regime remained operative, continuing to threaten media freedom.[54] Such regulations include criminalising defamation punishable by fines or up to two years’ imprisonment. In December 2013 the navy filed charges of defamation and computer‑crime against journalists for reports allegedly linking military personnel to human‑trafficking.[55] Thailand has experienced serious challenges in respect of press and expression freedoms. In 2013 political violence and street protests erupted, because Prime Minister Shinawatra and her government refused to address the implications of lèse‑majesté, which was employed against both traditional and online media and their personnel. The government also falsely accused and sued journalists, whilst monitoring online media and threatening to shut them down.[56] In the same year, the first lawsuit was brought against an individual over a Facebook comment. It was filed by Shinawatra against cartoonist Chai Rachawat, who had allegedly defamed her. The Minister of Information and Communication then announced that websites containing offensive remarks about the prime minister would be immediately shut down, and urged citizens to report inappropriate content to the authorities.[57] Under the lèse‑majesté law, defamation or insult of the royal family carries a penalty of up to fifteen years’ imprisonment for each offence, but the prosecutor may exceed that limit under the 2007 Computer Crime Act, which permits up to five years’ imprisonment for online publications deemed to threaten individuals, the public or national security, and for proxy‑server use to access restricted material. The government uses the law to silence dissent.[58]

In 2012, a group of academics and activists established the Committee to Amend Article 112, which received international support in its efforts to increase pressure for reform of the law. Members of parliament and Prime Minister Shinawatra expressed negative views of this campaign. The Constitutional Court unanimously ruled that criminal sanctions for offences of lèse-majesté were not inconsistent with constitutional protections of human rights, including freedom of expression, since lèse-majesté was considered a threat to national security. As a result of these obstacles, the movement’s efforts to amend Article 112 were significantly hampered, and the process substantially delayed.[59]

The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission[60] was established in 2010 as the sole regulatory authority for telecommunications and broadcasting. It supervises these two industries and private companies with links to the government and the military. The Commission consists of eleven members, including a high-ranking police officer and five senior military officials. Some critics have expressed concerns about the organisation’s independence in view of the military representation.[61] The National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission introduced regulatory oversight, with its principal plans approved and published in 2012, becoming legally binding. It primarily redistributed broadcasting licences and determined the number of radio licences to be allocated for commercial, public, and community purposes.[62] In 2012, a draft regulation was approved allowing the issuance of one-year trial licences for more than seven thousand radio stations. By 2014, the licences had still not been redistributed, although a proposal envisaging twelve public and twelve community stations had been adopted. Those stations that met the criteria and obtained annual licences were required, following the military coup, to sign a memorandum of understanding agreeing to cooperate with the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission.[63]

In 2012, Thailand had twenty-three million internet users. Pornographic sites, anti-monarchist content, and anti-government websites were subject to filtering. Hundreds of websites were blocked by the military after the 2014 coup.[64] In 2013, the government sought to amend the Computer Crime Act to grant authorities greater latitude in blocking websites without court approval, similar to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission, which had proposed a regulation on mobile content. The Thai Journalists Association and online news providers protested, and this opposition prevented the organisations from further restricting media freedom or interfering with media content.[65] Online activity is monitored by the Cyber Security Operations Centre, established in 2011 under the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. It facilitates the rapid blocking of undesirable websites without the need for a court order.[66]

Thailand, with a population exceeding sixty-seven million, had an internet penetration rate of 38%[67] and eighteen million social media users. We Are Social[68],[69] reported that Thailand is known for its obsession with social networks. The number of internet users continues to grow, and social media are expected to play a significant role in the development of industries and the national economy.[70] Internet access in Thailand increased from 29% of the population in 2013 to 58% in 2015. The relatively high cost of internet services remains one of the main reasons many households lack internet connections. Mobile internet, however, is more affordable and now used by nearly every inhabitant. Although the internet and social networks offer more diverse debate than traditional media, online self-censorship persists and is even on the rise. The government and the military monitor all comments and information shared on social media.[71] Owing to extensive monitoring and surveillance, a wide range of websites has already been blocked, not only Thai sites but also globally accessible platforms deemed to have a negative influence. The monitoring primarily targets social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, which are highly popular in Thailand—there are eighteen million Facebook users. Imprisonment threatens anyone who shares or “likes” content considered offensive to the monarchy.[72] Prior to the military coup, society was divided between supporters and opponents of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Following the coup, soldiers were deployed to media offices and editorial rooms to control content and ensure the broadcast of junta materials. Many stations were shut down, although most were later reopened under restrictions prohibiting political discussion and with only one-year broadcasting licences.[73]

Research Methodology

The empirical research in Thailand was conducted using a qualitative approach, which Disman describes as “the non-numerical investigation and interpretation of social reality.”[74] Data collected through qualitative methods cannot be generalised in the same way as quantitative research, which in turn cannot explore the core of a problem. Responses were gathered through semi-standardised interviews. “In such an interview, questions are clearly and precisely (pre-formulated) and are usually asked in the same way and in the same order. Depending on the respondent’s answers to basic questions, the interviewer poses additional follow-up questions, allows the respondent to elaborate, and probes further into details.”[75]

Interviews with Thai participants were conducted in the capital city, Bangkok, at Chulalongkorn University, within the Faculty of Media and Mass Communication, where fifteen students were approached. In addition, local journalists were contacted, whose details had been obtained during my stay in Thailand. Interviews with journalists were carried out online via Skype. The research took place between January 2014 and December 2015. The second part of the research was based on both quantitative and qualitative content analysis of Thai English-language media. This method of studying media content is among the most widely used. The principal feature of content analysis lies in the quantification of selected phenomena occurring within the material, which are subsequently classified into pre-defined categories. Quantitative research enables the identification of the frequency of articles addressing Thailand’s political situation and the royal family during the observed period. The data were subsequently processed using statistical operations and presented in charts and tables.[76] The analysis also included a qualitative dimension. The qualitative component consisted of the in-depth examination of the articles’ content. The aim was to identify themes that appeared regularly within the texts and to trace how these evolved over the defined time span. The inclusion criterion for articles in the analysis was the occurrence of the keywords “royal family”, “king”, “crown prince”, “queen”, “princess”, their personal names, “Majesty”, or “Lèse majesté” in either the title or the body of the article.

The research was conducted exclusively with English-speaking respondents due to the language barrier, and the content analysis also focused solely on English-language articles. Respondents pointed out that Thais often find it difficult to express themselves when the subject matter is negative or sensitive. This presented a challenge during interviews, as students frequently responded with “I don’t know” or chose to remain silent. According to Park and Kim,[77] Asians, shaped by historical and cultural discourse, tend to employ indirect communication, making interaction more difficult for Europeans or Americans, who generally favour a direct communication style. Cultural values thus determine both negotiation and communication styles.

Content Analysis

Thailand has several national daily newspapers, two of which are published in English, alongside five national television channels and three national radio stations. The national television networks are owned either by the government or the military, which also control the national radio stations. The subject of analysis was the Bangkok Post, an English-language daily newspaper. The study focused solely on the online version of this national outlet. The research period extended from 15 December 2015 to 15 February 2016.[78] Articles were selected based on the presence of the aforementioned keywords in their titles or body texts. Only articles concerning members of the Thai royal family were included in the analysis, yielding a total of 181 relevant articles. Articles about members or royal families of other countries were excluded. When Bangkok Post did publish content about foreign ruling elites, it primarily covered the British and Bruneian royal families. The paper published only two articles concerning the Thai royal family as a collective entity: one related to a convicted former broker accused of defaming the entire royal family, and another reporting the Prime Minister’s claim that public participation in the King’s celebratory events demonstrated the Thai people’s reverence for the royal family. Within the royal family, the King was by far the most frequently covered figure, particularly in connection with the selection of a new Supreme Patriarch of Buddhism, a nomination that the government must present to the King. Thirteen articles addressed this issue. Ten additional articles portrayed the King in a celebratory tone or reported on events held in his honour, such as his birthday or coronation celebrations.[79] Six of these articles focused specifically on his birthday. Eight articles reported on a cycling event organised by the Crown Prince in honour of his father.

Articles about the Queen primarily covered her birthday celebrations—eight articles—and her patronage of numerous organisations and involvement in charitable activities—six articles. The Queen’s efforts to promote Thai culture and folklore were also highlighted; eight articles reported on events or exhibitions organised by the Queen to familiarise the public with her life and initiatives. Only seven articles were devoted to the Crown Prince. One described how the Prince honoured a disabled boy who had participated in the cycling event dedicated to the King; two others also related to this event. The remaining articles focused on the funeral ceremony of the late Supreme Patriarch, attended by the Prince together with his sisters, the princesses. Articles mentioning the princesses also appeared in connection with this funeral ceremony.

Articles concerning Lèse majesté primarily reported on a scandal affecting the government, which was allegedly corrupt. The authorities accused anti-government activists of Lèse majesté offences. Eighteen articles dealt with this topic. The Bangkok Post also informed readers that the government had tightened penalties for violating Lèse majesté, increasing the maximum sentence from fifteen to thirty years. Another ten articles discussed criticism voiced by the American and British ambassadors, who questioned the severity of the sentences and rejected Lèse majesté as a positive legal instrument. Although their remarks were deemed offensive and considered a violation of Thai law by the police, both ambassadors retained diplomatic immunity and could not be prosecuted. Eleven articles reported on citizens convicted or charged under the Lèse majesté law.

Characteristics of the Articles

Articles concerning the royal family were predominantly informative and news-oriented. Naturally, none of them contained any statements that could be considered insulting to members of the royal family, and therefore none breached the Lèse majesté law. Readers could learn about the royal family’s activities in connection with the following themes:

• Charity – The King, known for his charitable involvement, was awarded a medal in recognition of his support for philanthropy. He serves as patron of numerous foundations and most recently established one to improve healthcare, commemorating the centenary of his father’s birth. At the Queen’s request, the King financed the renovation of a government building, which was subsequently transformed into a museum of Thai folklore. The Queen herself is the patron of several charities, particularly in the field of healthcare. She supports the blind and women suffering from cancer. Exhibitions dedicated to her life donate their proceeds to charitable causes.
• Birthdays – The birthdays of the King or Queen are major national events in Thailand. Articles reported that the entire country was “turned upside down” during the celebrations. People sang, organised parades, and set off fireworks. The Crown Prince held a “Bike for Dad” race, attracting hundreds of thousands of Thais and foreigners. At that time, the King was hospitalised due to health problems, and the Bangkok Post reported on celebrations taking place outside the hospital. The Queen used her birthday festivities to promote Thai culture and support charitable activities. On the occasion of a Princess’s birthday, a website was launched featuring a collection of her artistic works—ceramics, photographs, literature, songs, and drawings. Articles described the Princess as artistically gifted and deeply interested in culture and philosophy.
• Ceremonies – A significant event attended by members of the royal family was the funeral of the late Supreme Patriarch. The ceremony was funded by the King, who was unable to attend in person due to health reasons.
• Appointment of a new monk – As Buddhism is the predominant religion in Thailand, the appointment of a new Supreme Patriarch is a major milestone. The candidate must be presented to the King after approval by the Prime Minister. However, the Prime Minister ignored the advice of Buddhist monks, who, following tradition, nominated the most senior monk. The Prime Minister declined to present the controversial candidate to the King, as he had previously been closely associated with a problematic abbot. This issue was the most frequently reported topic in connection with the King.
• Culture – The King was portrayed as a true Renaissance man, gifted in multiple disciplines. His musical compositions were performed at an international classical music festival attended by orchestras from around the world. On the birthdays of the King and Queen, numerous cultural events were held, particularly concerts—featuring, for example, a Korean violinist and the Bangkok Symphony Orchestra performing in the King’s honour. Exhibitions about both the King and Queen were organised, allowing the public to glimpse their private lives through photographs.
• The King’s health – Given the King’s advanced age—nearly ninety—his health has been a recurring concern. Thais gather outside his hospital to wish him well. When he left the hospital for a short walk after four months, hundreds of people waited to greet him. The Bangkok Post regularly reported on his health conditions—fever, knee inflammation, lung infection, breathing difficulties, and poor blood test results.
• The King’s dog – The media reported extensively on the death of the King’s beloved dog. The Bangkok Post published three articles on the matter and noted that a film about the dog was in production.
• The King’s ideas – Many articles highlighted the King’s intellect and brilliant ideas. These included his proposals for combating drought through dam construction, his economic analyses and philosophical reflections aimed at helping Thailand progress towards becoming a developed nation. He contributed innovations in agriculture (the “eco-smart” model) and was deeply engaged in promoting sustainable development, which Thailand had recently begun to prioritise. The King’s theories on improved agricultural practices are included in a book on sustainable development authored by others, and his agricultural philosophy has even been adapted into a children’s animated film shown in cinemas.

Readers learned exclusively positive information about the royal family. Journalists consistently emphasised the exceptional character of the King. Phrases such as “in honour of” and “to pay tribute to” were frequently used in the articles.

Articles dealing with Lèse majesté correlated with several other topics. They were often linked to political scandals and featured numerous individuals by name. In particular, Bangkok Post readers encountered the following themes:

• Convictions for violating Lèse majesté – During the observed period, several cases of lèse-majesté and offences against the royal family were reported in Thailand, all related to online activity. A former broker was sentenced to six years in prison for defaming the monarchy. Another man received thirty-two years for “liking” an image depicting the castrated King. A woman working as an editor of a Thai magazine was sentenced to eight months in prison and fined 20,000 baht (approximately 13,600 CZK) for failing to remove offensive online comments, thereby “aiding” the offence. The Bangkok Post also reported on individuals convicted for criticising the junta government. Some articles described cases still under prosecution, such as that of a man accused of committing an online lèse-majesté offence while he was actually in prison at the time. Reports also mentioned two deaths occurring during the execution of sentences.

• Human rights – According to several activists, the Lèse majesté law endangers human rights. The Thai Human Rights Commission stated that, in light of numerous Lèse majesté cases, the overall standard of human rights protection and compliance had declined. The Bangkok Post also reported on anti-government protesters who were later acquitted of Lèse majesté charges with external assistance. In one opinion piece, the author addressed the human rights implications of the Lèse majesté issue, urging readers to engage in the defence of human rights and national unity.

• Ambassadors – Ten articles addressed Lèse majesté in connection with criticism of the law by the American and British ambassadors to Thailand. Both diplomats commented on the excessive length of the sentences, describing them as disproportionate, and criticised the overall human rights situation in Thailand. According to the police, such criticism constitutes a criminal offence; however, the ambassadors enjoy diplomatic immunity. The government nevertheless proposed disciplinary proceedings. A reader’s comment published alongside one of these articles supported the ambassadors’ statements, arguing that the King himself had in the past voiced criticism of the Lèse majesté law and might therefore have agreed with the ambassadors’ position.
• Censorship – Thai students studying in the United Kingdom conducted an interview with the British ambassador. This five-page interview was intended for publication in the annual issue of the Association of Thai Elite Students’ magazine but was removed before printing, after which the students reportedly received a lecture on self-censorship. In December 2015, three articles were deleted from newspapers, each instance concerning the international edition of the New York Times, where blank white space appeared in place of the removed text. The censored articles dealt with Thailand’s stagnating economy, the functioning of the royal office, and the royal family’s financial management.
• Corruption and activists – The Thai government faced serious challenges from activists, as several Thai students organised protests against it. Eighteen articles reported on these demonstrations and the activists involved. According to these reports, the government led by the Prime Minister and his wife was widely viewed as corrupt. The protests were triggered by the cost of a new park constructed under military supervision. The students were arrested after authorities allegedly found materials incriminating them for violating the Lèse majesté law. Activists were charged with Lèse majesté, and some were detained. One activist fled abroad and sought asylum. Another requested the closure of a temporary “detention facility” within a military building, where two detainees accused of Lèse majesté offences had reportedly died.
• Change in sentencing – Since the military coup of May 2014, at least sixty-one individuals have been prosecuted for violating the Lèse majesté law. The current junta government introduced harsher penalties, doubling the maximum prison term. Five articles published during the observed period discussed the increase, with sentences of up to thirty years for royal defamation. The American ambassador publicly condemned these lengthy punishments.

The content analysis conducted in this study was based on a sample of 181 articles addressing the royal family and the Lèse majesté law, which is intended to protect the monarchy from defamation and insult. The analysed articles were drawn from the English-language daily Bangkok Post, the most widely read English-language newspaper in Thailand, including its online edition.

Webmasters are required to monitor readers’ contributions. Although every page of the newspaper warns readers not to violate the Lèse majesté law, if a webmaster allows an offensive comment to remain online, it is treated as an offence, and the employee may face penalties similar to those imposed on the original perpetrator. The vast majority of the analysed articles—over 95%—were journalistic in nature, and the King’s name appeared most frequently. The King was mentioned in relation to charitable activities, his birthday celebrations, expressions of honour and respect, and his official duties—such as attending the funeral of the late monk and overseeing the appointment of the new Supreme Patriarch of Buddhism. The Queen was mentioned mainly in connection with her birthday, her charitable work, and her active promotion of Thai folklore through cultural events. In comparison with their parents, the royal children received far less media attention. The Bangkok Post published around ten articles about the Crown Prince, mainly focused on the “Bike for Dad” cycling event, attended by hundreds of thousands of people as a gesture of respect for the royal family. Coverage of the princesses was almost non-existent, except for brief references to their presence at the monk’s funeral and the creation of a website dedicated to one princess’s life and artistic achievements on the occasion of her birthday.

The Bangkok Post published a comparable number of articles about Lèse majesté as about the King himself. During the observed period, several cases of royal defamation were reported, all involving internet-related offences. The newspaper provided detailed coverage of sentencing and trial proceedings, the human rights situation in Thailand, the increase in penalties under the law, and the controversies surrounding the American and British ambassadors who criticised these developments. The media image of the Thai royal family is therefore highly idealised: while the public is exposed only to positive portrayals, the number of Lèse majesté cases continues to rise.

Analysis of Student Interviews

Contact with students was established during a visit to the Thai capital. The respondents were young Thais who were generally quiet and rather shy. The first contact was made with one student encountered outside the faculty building, who subsequently introduced his classmates, several of whom agreed to participate in the interviews.

Identification Table – Students

Obtaining comprehensive responses proved difficult, as the interviewees often answered in a single sentence or merely with the phrase “I don’t know.” Data collection took place during the evening hours, when the students were working on a group project within the university premises. Twelve questions were posed to the fifteen participating students.

Although students’ views of the current state of the media varied, none expressed a positive opinion. The female respondents described the media landscape as a “soap opera”, citing the superficial and unengaging nature of its content as the primary reason. “Our news is more talkative than clear and straightforward, and that often leads to misunderstandings,” noted Proud. Most respondents argued that this trait is embedded in Thai culture, as Thais tend to avoid directness or openness. The students believed that the media were profit-oriented and heavily influenced by advertisers, who dictate the topics to be covered, often at the expense of genuinely important issues. “It seems to me that people tend to pay attention to a few selected topics — for example, mystical mysteries and celebrities,” said Dissaya.

Eight respondents stated that the domestic media are not free, being primarily influenced by the government, to which they are subservient. Other factors mentioned were the military and corporate investors. “If I had to describe our media in the most straightforward way, I would say they are far too controlled by the government,” (Gonthorn). Only two students described the media as free; the remainder considered them largely or entirely unfree. “Everything is censored and filtered according to what is deemed appropriate and suitable for presentation to Thais, and this especially concerns political topics,” (Noon). According to the respondents, the media are influenced chiefly by politicians, the government, organisations, and business interests — a situation with which they disagreed. They believed that the Thai people should have the right to access truthful information and to know what is genuinely happening in their country. “It’s clear that our media are filtered and monitored by the current government — though I must admit I find this government more sympathetic than the previous one,” (Dissaya).

Overall, the students viewed the state of the media unfavourably, arguing that since the media shape public opinion, the information disseminated should be truthful, credible, and objective. In their view, the Thai public remains unaware of the country’s real situation and receives only the information permitted by the government — unless individuals actively seek news from foreign sources. They concluded that the media focus on “unimportant” topics, distracting the public from the truly significant events taking place in Thailand.

“Our media try to blind people and lead them to see only what the media want them to see.” (Aekraphong). The students regarded the internet and social media as the most important Thai media due to their accessibility and ability to connect users instantly. According to the respondents, the internet enables people to share their opinions about received information and to broaden their horizons. “People still have a lot to learn and need to understand how powerful the internet is.” (Aekraphong). Television was also frequently mentioned as a major source of information. Seven respondents identified themselves as belonging to the “traditional” group of people who place the greatest trust in television. Television news is accessible to almost everyone, offering both image and sound, which, according to the students, facilitates comprehension. Most respondents stated that throughout Thailand, television remains the most important medium, as most households possess a television set or have easy access to one, while the older generation rarely uses the internet. One respondent identified newspapers as the most important Thai source of information, and another named the internet.

Another theme discussed in the interviews was journalism. Respondents perceived Thai journalists as individuals who act as gatekeepers and watchdogs, providing the public with answers and ensuring access to truthful information. However, many believed that journalists’ work is obstructed by external interference. They viewed Thai journalists “as people who want to reflect the truth and inform the public as best they can. Unfortunately, there is a dominant third party above them that somehow prevents this.” (Sasisha), or “as people who present information and news that have already been checked—or even edited—by someone else.” (Supon). Students further observed that journalists often “sacrifice everything to obtain information that earns them money or prestige, without considering others or what is right. Sadly, there are far too many of them.” (Dissaya).

The respondents defined media freedom as the ability to grant public access to truthful information and to reflect such information transparently. In their view, journalists should not fear surveillance or punishment for performing their duties fairly, and they should not have to “move in hiding like partisans.” (Supon). News, they argued, should be moral and ethical and should not harm anyone—an idea they associated with freedom of expression. “Freedom is always the best solution, but many media here interpret it incorrectly. Instead of meaning freedom in obtaining truthful information, they claim that freedom means the right to invade other people’s privacy.” (Tanyaluck).

Most students expressed a desire to make truthful information available to the public and to transform the current system through which the population is informed and manipulated. For this reason, they chose to study journalism. Some aspired to careers in public relations, others in television, magazines, newspapers, advertising, social media, or film. Several regarded their studies as an investment in the future, seeing journalism as a field that would allow them to inform the public truthfully and to gain access to interesting people and information. They were also aware of their ability to critically assess the information they receive. For some, journalism represented a dream career; for others, it was a vocation to improve the situation in Thailand. “What I love about journalism is that it teaches me new things. I can share my experiences and the knowledge I’ve gained.” (Gonthorn).

The interviews also explored students’ perceptions of media development. According to the respondents, contemporary media are faster, more reliable, and digitalised. Information circulates more rapidly, and two-way communication is now possible. Two respondents noted that the media have become more profit-driven. All agreed that the greatest change has been the advent of the internet and social media, which are displacing traditional media. “Nowadays, the media are more careless and do not consider the consequences that may result from what they publish or broadcast.” (Gonthorn). The respondents anticipated further development of the media, particularly on the technological level, with continued modernisation and digitalisation leading to a predominance of online formats. They predicted that the internet and television would become the primary sources of information, replacing the printed press. Moreover, they wished to see the content become more transparent and truthful, although some doubted whether this would be possible in Thailand. Others expected greater freedom of expression, the end of prohibitions and restrictions, and the further evolution of two-way communication. “People still have much to learn about the power of the media. I would be happy if our media respected others and, above all, reported important news.” (Tanyaluck).

The respondents stated that the Thai media are insufficiently informative. They repeatedly referred to them as a “soap opera”, dominated by sensationalism and emotion rather than by important and objective information. They attributed this partly to Thai culture, which discourages direct and simple expression. All respondents agreed that the media should be more truthful, objective, fair, and impartial, providing substantially more information. They also discussed the ethics and morality of reporting, as well as the need to protect privacy, particularly on social networks. Some respondents suggested that citizens themselves must change their approach to media use, as almost anyone can now release information into the public sphere with potentially negative consequences. “Only people with knowledge in the field should work in the media—those who study or have studied it—so that they can develop and improve the quality of mass communication.” (Kritchanut). Respondents also argued that professionals working in the media should not fear punishment for doing their jobs properly. “The media should be driven by a younger generation who would bring more meaningful content than gossip and celebrities. Entertainment certainly helps people, but a country cannot function on entertainment alone.” (Dissaya).

Analysis of Interviews with Journalists

Open interviews with journalists were conducted via Skype, and the respondents proved to be highly forthcoming. Contacts had been established through relationships developed during a one-month stay in Southeast Asia. Owing to the prevailing political situation and Thai legislation, some respondents preferred not to disclose their surnames.

Identification Table – Journalists

The respondents unanimously agreed that the current junta government is not democratic. They referred to it as a dictatorship that has imposed new rules rather than legitimate laws. Naturally, this political climate is reflected in the media. The journalists expressed their disillusionment, stating that as citizens they do not feel well, as “there is no longer democracy in Thailand.” (Ret). They maintained that the current media situation is even worse than during the premiership of Yingluck Shinawatra. “If you criticise the royal family, they send you to prison—there’s a law for that.” (Pong). “And now, on top of that, you are not allowed to criticise the government either. As soon as someone does, or if it is an investigative journalist, they might be abducted and questioned about their opinions—they can disappear for a week.” (Surachetch).

The journalists agreed that people in rural areas still believe what they hear and see on television. Although the government owns the television stations and broadcasts only content that presents it in a positive light—showing either a partial truth or outright falsehood—this remains the main source of information. “Villagers are OK with the fact that there is no democracy.” (Surachetch). They stated that criticism of the government is allowed only in a limited and indirect way; names may not be mentioned, and the public is repeatedly reminded that criticising the government is not acceptable. “I remember that a few months ago, it was reported on TV that someone[80] from the government was corrupt, and that money had disappeared during the construction of a park that clearly could not have cost as much as the politicians claimed.” (Pong). According to them, the audience is told that “we cannot criticise the government, but people have the right and the desire to know how taxpayers’ money is being spent.” (Surachetch). The respondents also claimed that the government censors international media that reach Thailand: “I saw a printed article, I think it was from the New York Times, and there were blank white spaces where someone had simply erased what was deemed inappropriate.” (Thanakorn).

The respondents noted that the political situation does not affect all journalists equally. For instance, photojournalists are less restricted. “I hope that media freedom will be better protected in the future and that future journalists will want to help improve the country’s situation.” (Pong). According to the respondents, the essence of journalism lies in uncovering the truth, yet the government makes precisely this aspect of their work the most difficult. The issue of self-censorship remained essentially unaddressed, as none of the respondents knew what the term meant; even after it was explained, they chose not to comment further.

Although it is forbidden to write negatively about members of the royal family, the journalists stated that the monarchy is a “traditional sensation” for Thais. Because the royal family has been in power for such a long time, people have become accustomed to its presence and, to some extent, dependent on it. They have learned to distinguish between the King and the government, since the King has no authority to dismiss the government or intervene in political decision-making. While the respondents were unable to determine whether most Thais support the current government, they were certain that the royal family enjoys overwhelming popularity among the population. “People should also know the bad things about the royal family.” (Surachetch). The respondents disagreed with the fact that legislation determines what can and cannot be reported in the media, but they tried to explain that Thailand is still “in a different era—you have to understand that we’re a developing country, a step behind in some ways.” (Pong). “We live with the fact that certain things are forbidden, and perhaps some people don’t see it as such a serious matter.” (Topper).

The respondents expressed concern about how the media image of the King would evolve in the future. Although they maintained that the public adored him, they acknowledged that there were some who doubted his perfection. “Most people are afraid of what his successor will bring. Our King is already very old, and some think he is no longer good enough, even though you won’t hear that anywhere. People think he might make mistakes.” (Suracheth). The respondents perceived pressure exerted by both the media and the government on the public with regard to the royal family. “When, for example, the King has his birthday, it’s a national holiday. People celebrate him, but alcohol isn’t sold. I might like to have a beer to toast him, but I don’t need to spend the whole day cheering because it’s his birthday.” (Topper). In the media, the public hears most about the King, who is referred to as “the Father”. Thais generally like and respect him. “The King is my favourite. Like me, he studied agriculture. I once saw him in my hometown speaking about sustainable development, and I found that very admirable.” (Pong). “The King travels a lot and tries to help people live better lives; he goes into the mountains to see how his people farm and live.” (Suracheth).

Conclusion

This study examined media freedom in Thailand. It was divided into two parts: theoretical and empirical. The theoretical section defined the concept of media and its various forms, and explained the process of news selection through the theories of gatekeeping, news values, and agenda-setting. The gatekeeping theory emphasises that within every media organisation there is an individual who exercises decision-making power over what passes through the “gate” to become published news, and what does not. Not every event has an equal chance of becoming a news item. According to the theory of news values, each event must meet certain criteria to be considered newsworthy. Since the media exert a profound influence on how individuals and societies think, behave, and form opinions, the media as an institution must provide truthful information and serve the public good. The theoretical section also outlined the structure of the Thai media market.

The content analysis of the English-language daily Bangkok Post revealed that the articles generally portrayed members of the royal family in a positive or neutral tone, most often with expressed respect and reverence. They reported on celebrations marking the life events of the King and Queen, highlighted their generosity and charitable activities, and described how the people shared these occasions with their monarchs. Readers also learned about the duties of the King and other members of the royal family. During the observed period, several cases of Lèse majesté and offences against the monarchy were reported, all related to online comments or publications. The Bangkok Post covered these cases by reporting on the penalties and trial proceedings, the human rights situation in the country, the tightening of sentences, and the controversies surrounding the American and British ambassadors who criticised these laws. Thus, the topic itself is openly discussed in Thailand and is not subject to censorship. For this analysis, a total of 181 articles published between 15 December 2015 and 15 February 2016 were examined. These were identified using keywords related to the royal family and the Lèse majesté law, which protects the monarchy from defamation and insult. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty respondents: journalism students from the Faculty of Mass Communication at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, and Thai journalists.

Overall, the respondents expressed negative opinions about the state of the Thai media. The vast majority (eighteen out of twenty) viewed the media as institutions controlled by third parties, primarily the government. They were aware of the government’s dominance over the media and criticised it. According to them, Thai media need to become more transparent and focus on reporting more significant information, as the public has the right to know what is truly happening in the country. Journalists, therefore, should provide truthful reporting without fear of imprisonment or fines for doing their work honestly. The respondents also stated that the government allows only positive news about the functioning of the state to be broadcast or printed, which explains why people trust and support a government that is not democratic. The level of media freedom in Thailand is thus constrained by the country’s laws and political situation — meaning that Thai media cannot be regarded as free.

[1] JIRÁK, Jan and Barbara KÖPPLOVÁ. Media and Society (Média a společnost). 1st ed. Prague: Portál, 2003, p. 16.

[2] Ibid., pp. 21–22.

[3] MCQUAIL, Denis. Introduction to Mass Communication Theory (Úvod do teorie masové komunikace). 2nd ed. Prague: Portál, 2002, p. 58.

[4] JIRÁK, Jan and Barbara KÖPPLOVÁ. Media and Society (Média a společnost). Prague: Portál, 2003, pp. 21–22.

[5] Ibid., pp. 21–22.

[6] GILES, David. Psychology of the Media (Psychologie médií). Prague: Grada, 2010, p. 14.

[7] MCQUAIL, Denis. Introduction to Mass Communication Theory (Úvod do teorie masové komunikace). Prague: Portál, 2002, p. 89.

[8] Ibid., p. 60.

[9] JIRÁK, Jan and Barbara KÖPPLOVÁ. Media and Society (Média a společnost). Prague: Portál, 2003, p. 24.

[10] REIFOVÁ, Irena. Dictionary of Media Communication (Slovník mediální komunikace). Prague: Portál, 2004, p. 102.

[11] JIRÁK, Jan and Barbara KÖPPLOVÁ. Media and Society (Média a společnost). 1st ed. Prague: Portál, 2003, p. 24.

[12] TRAMPOTA, Tomáš. News Reporting (Zpravodajství). Prague: Portál, 2006, p. 38.

[13] HUK, Jaroslav. Sociology of the Media: Journalists, Politicians and the Others (Sociologie médií: žurnalisté, politici a ti ostatní). Prague: UJAK, 2008, p. 39.

[14] ŠIMÍČEK, Vojtěch et al. Election Campaign in the Czech Republic (Volební kampaň v České republice). Brno: Masaryk University, 2000, p. 32.

[15] David Mening White – the first to introduce the term “Gatekeeping” in media studies.

[16] TRAMPOTA, Tomáš. News Reporting (Zpravodajství). Prague: Portál, 2006, pp. 38–47.

[17] SHOEMAKER, Pamela and Stephen REESE. Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. 2nd ed., 1996, p. 85.

[18] POSPÍŠIL, Jan. How to Work with Media (Jak na média). Kralice na Hané: Computer Media, 2011, pp. 28–29.

[19] The Social Construction of Reality theory – Berger and Luckmann (1999, p. 9) define reality as “a quality pertaining to phenomena that we recognise as having an existence independent of our own will.”

[20] DEARING, J.W. & Rogers, E.M. (1996). Communication Concepts 6: Agenda-Setting. Thousand Oaks, p. 36.

[21] REIFOVÁ, Irena. Dictionary of Media Communication (Slovník mediální komunikace). 1st ed. Prague: Portál, 2004, pp. 16–17.

[22] KUNCZIK, Michael. Foundations of Mass Communication (Základy masové komunikace). Prague: Karolinum, 1995, p. 119.

[23] MCCOMBS, M. E. & D. L. SHAW. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, 1972, p. 176.

[24] Ibid., p. 176.

[25] DEARING, J.W. & ROGERS, E.M. (1996). Communication Concepts 6: Agenda-Setting. Thousand Oaks, pp. 2–3.

[26] Ibid., p. 8.

[27] BOURDIEU, Pierre. On Television (O televizi). Brno: Doplněk, 1st ed., 2002, p. 11.

[28] HERMAN, Edward S. & Noam CHOMSKY. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. London: Vintage, 1994, p. 78.

[29] MCNAIR, Brian. Sociology of Journalism (Sociologie žurnalistiky). Prague: Portál, 1998, p. 97.

[30] DOMINICK, Joseph R. The Dynamics of Mass Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994, p. 401.

[31] Ibid., p. 401.

[32] MCQUAIL, Denis. Introduction to Mass Communication Theory (Úvod do teorie masové komunikace). 2nd ed. Prague: Portál, 2002, p. 148.

[33] BURTON, Graeme. Introduction to Media Studies (Úvod do studia médií). Brno: Barrister & Principal, 2001, p. 125.

[34] BBC, Asia, Thailand [online], 2014.

[35] Freedom House is a U.S.-based non-governmental non-profit organisation whose mission is to defend democracy, political freedom, and human rights. It publishes annual reports rating democratic freedoms on a scale from 1 (best) to 7 (worst), categorised as “free”, “partly free”, or “not free”.

[36] The methodology of Freedom House has also been subject to criticism, with claims that its evaluations are too lenient.

[37] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the Press: Thailand [online], 2014–2015.

[38] BBC, Asia, Thailand [online], 2014.

[39] Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières) is a French non-governmental organisation defending press and media freedom worldwide. It advocates for journalists and media workers facing censorship or persecution. It rates countries on a 1–100 index, where 100 is the worst possible result.

[40] REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, Thailand [online], 2014.

[41] The organisation SEAPA (2006, online) expressed concern that this regulation reinforced the already existing self-censorship. For example, pro-government websites remain accessible, while anti-government ones are blocked. The Thai Journalists Association and the Broadcasting Association called on the government to respect freedom of expression and guarantee press freedom. SEAPA – Southeast Asian Press Alliance – was founded in 1998 in Bangkok and currently includes ten member states: Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and East Timor.

[42] CENTRE FOR MEDIA FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY [online], 2006.

[43] SEAPA, Thailand [online], 2006.

[44] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the World: Thailand [online], 2013.

[45] STRECKFUSS, David. Truth on Trial in Thailand: Defamation, Treason and Lèse-Majesté. Routledge, 2011, p. 197.

[46] Ibid., pp. 445–475.

[47] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the World: Thailand [online], 2013.

[48] BBC, Asia, Thailand [online], 2014.

[49] A government led by a group of military officials.

[50] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the World: Thailand [online], 2015.

[51] King Bhumibol Adulyadej passed away on 13 October 2016.

[52] NATIONMULTIMEDIA. Bangkok: NationMultimedia, [online], 2005.

[53] COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES for 2014. State.gov [online], 2015.

[54] STRECKFUSS, David. Truth on Trial in Thailand: Defamation, Treason and Lèse-Majesté. Routledge, 2011, p. 199.

[55] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the Internet: Thailand [online], 2014.

[56] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the World: Thailand [online], 2013.

[57] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the Internet: Thailand [online], 2014.

[58] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the World: Thailand [online], 2013.

[59] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the Press: Thailand [online], 2013.

[60] NBTC – National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission.

[61] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the World: Thailand [online], 2013.

[62] REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, Thailand [online], 2014.

[63] Ibid.

[64] BBC, Asia, Thailand [online], 2014.

[65] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the Press: Thailand [online], 2014.

[66] BBC, Asia, Thailand [online], 2014.

[67] Thailand Social Award. ZocialRank [online], 2013.

[68] WeAreSocial. Thailand Social Media [online], 2013.

[69] An organisation monitoring global use of social networks, digital and mobile technologies.

[70] According to 2015 statistics by World Stats, there were approximately 38 million internet users in Thailand.

[71] TELECOMMUNICATIONS DATA AND RESEARCH CENTER. Report on the Survey of Thai People’s Telecom Behaviour [online], 2012–2013.

[72] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the World: Thailand [online], 2013.

[73] FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the Press: Thailand [online], 2014.

[74] DISMAN, Miroslav. How Sociological Knowledge Is Produced (Jak se vyrábí sociologická znalost). 3rd ed. Prague: Karolinum, 2007, p. 285.

[75] MAJEROVÁ, Věra & MAJER, Emil. Qualitative Research in Rural Sociology and Agriculture – Part I (Kvalitativní výzkum v sociologii venkova a zemědělství – část I). 1st ed., 2nd reprint. Prague: Czech University of Life Sciences, p. 69.

[76] REIFOVÁ, Irena. Dictionary of Media Communication (Slovník mediální komunikace). 1st ed. Prague: Portál, 2004, p. 76.

[77] PARK, M-S. & KIM, M-S. Communication Practices in Korea. Communication Quarterly, p. 47.

[78] Older articles were no longer accessible, as they had been moved to the Bangkok Post archive.

[79] The Thai King is the world’s longest-reigning monarch, having ascended the throne in 1946.

[80] The word “someone” was strongly emphasised.

References

BBC, Asia, Thailand [online], 2014, [cit. 2015-09-30]. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-15639421

BURTON, Graeme. Introduction to Media Studies (Úvod do studia médií). Brno: Barrister & Principal, 2001. ISBN 80-85947-67-6.

CENTRE FOR MEDIA FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY, 2006 [cit. 2016-09-01]. Available from: http://cmfr-phil.org/uncategorized/press-freedom-in-thailanerodes-seapa

COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES for 2014. State.gov [online], 2015 [cit. 2015-03-20]. Available from: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/#wrapper

DISMAN, Miroslav. How Sociological Knowledge Is Produced (Jak se vyrábí sociologická znalost). 3rd ed. Prague: Karolinum, 2007. ISBN 978-80-246-0139-7.

DOMINICK, Joseph R. The Dynamics of Mass Communication. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. ISBN 0-07-017882-8.

FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the Press: Thailand [online], 2014, [cit. 2015-09-30]. Available from: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2014/thailand

FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the World: Thailand [online], 2013, [cit. 2015-09-29]. Available from: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2013/thailand

FREEDOM HOUSE. Freedom of the World: Thailand [online], 2015, [cit. 2015-09-29]. Available from: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/thailand

GILES, David. Psychology of the Media (Psychologie médií). Prague: Grada, 2010. ISBN 978-80-247-3921-2.

HERMAN, Edward S. & Noam CHOMSKY. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. London: Vintage, 1994. ISBN 0-09-953311-1.

HUK, Jaroslav. Sociology of the Media: Journalists, Politicians and the Others (Sociologie médií: žurnalisté, politici a ti ostatní). Prague: Jan Amos Komenský University, 2008. ISBN 978-80-86723-65-5.

JIRÁK, Jan & Barbara KÖPPLOVÁ. Media and Society (Média a společnost). Prague: Portál, 2003. ISBN 80-717-8697-7.

KUNCZIK, Michael. Foundations of Mass Communication (Základy masové komunikace). Prague: Karolinum, 1995. ISBN 80-7184-134-X.

MAJEROVÁ, Věra & MAJER, Emil. Qualitative Research in Rural Sociology and Agriculture – Part I (Kvalitativní výzkum v sociologii venkova a zemědělství – část I). Prague: Czech University of Life Sciences, 2001. ISBN 80-213-0507-X.

MCCOMBS, M. E. & D. L. SHAW. The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, 1972, pp. 176–187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/267990

MCNAIR, Brian. Sociology of Journalism (Sociologie žurnalistiky). Prague: Portál, 1998. ISBN 80-7178-840-6.

MCQUAIL, Denis. Introduction to Mass Communication Theory (Úvod do teorie masové komunikace). 2nd ed. Prague: Portál, 2002. ISBN 80-717-8714-0.

NATIONMULTIMEDIA. Bangkok: NationMultimedia [online], 2005 [cit. 2016-03-22]. Available from: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2005/12/05/headlines/data/headlines_19334288.html

PARK, S. Yong & Bryan S. K. KIM. Asian and European American Cultural Values and Communication Styles. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. American Psychological Association, 2008, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 47–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.14.1.47

REIFOVÁ, Irena. Dictionary of Media Communication (Slovník mediální komunikace). 1st ed. Prague: Portál, 2004. ISBN 80-717-8926-7.

REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS. Thailand [online], 2014 [cit. 2015-09-29]. Available from: http://en.rsf.org/thailand-12-03-2012,42054.html

SEAPA. Southeast Asian Press Alliance [online], [cit. 2015-11-01]. Available from: http://www.seapa.org/country/thailand/

SHOEMAKER, Pamela & Stephen REESE. Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. 2nd ed., 1996. ISBN 0-8013-1251-5.

STRECKFUSS, David. Truth on Trial in Thailand: Defamation, Treason and Lèse-Majesté. Routledge, 2011. ISBN 978-0-415-41425-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847541

ŠIMÍČEK, Vojtěch et al. Election Campaign in the Czech Republic (Volební kampaň v České republice). Brno: Masaryk University, 2000.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS DATA AND RESEARCH CENTER. Report on the Survey of Thai People’s Telecom Behaviour 2012–2013. National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission [online], [cit. 2016-01-13]. Available from: http://bit.ly/nbtc-go-th

Thailand Social Award. ZocialRank [online], 14 Nov 2013 [cit. 2015-01-14]. Available from: http://www.zocialinc.com/zocialawards2015/slides/thailandzocialawardsslide3.pdf

TRAMPOTA, Tomáš. News Reporting (Zpravodajství). Prague: Portál, 2006. ISBN 80-7367-096-8.

WeAreSocial. Thailand Social Media. [online], 14 Nov 2013 [cit. 2015-01-14]. Available from: http://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2012/01/social-digital-mobile-thailand

ZEEPEDIA. Human Resources Development. [online], 2009 [cit. 2016-01-16]. Available from: http://bit.ly/zeepedia-com