iieiiei1eWrkers - Leicester Research Archive - University of Leicester

Pua Pandin Thai shares similar ideological constraints with Siam Manusati but
control of the production process takes the form of collective centralisation. Its
production is structured into the routine monthly meeting between various
military security and information units in which a blue-print of specific
objectives and contents is produced. Script-writing is generally distributed among
three units while recording is coordinated by the Army Programme Production
Centre. Under this collective organisational structure, the script-writers are
deprived of any authority or creativity. They must follow closely the topics,
direction of presentations and the narrative style previously decided on.
Nonetheless, they are not pressured by time since the topics are geared to
annual social and historical occasions such as religious festivities and royal
events. They do however cover a wide range of current issues.
By comparison to Slain Manusati, Pun Pandin Thai draws on a wider range of
social and political ideologies. In its effort to appeal to a larger audience the
programme has brought in the former announcer of Radio Thailand, Akom
Mokaranon. He is allowed a certain degree of autonomy in presenting the
programme. Twice a week, lie talks to the audience instead of using the
prescribed narrative style of the lecture. In addition, Saturday programmes are
sometimes opened for responses and queries from the audience.
Because the production of both Siam Manusati and Pua Pandin Thai is located
within the military, a militarist ideology prevails and professionalism gives way to
institutional discipline and internal censorship. Consequently, it is external
constraints, and political conflicts in particular, that provide the main sources of
tension that impinge in production.
Despite objections by the press, parliament and the political parties that the
programmes are simply 'political platforms' that undermine consensus, the NBA
(which is responsible for regulating radio) is unable to exercise its jurisdiction
over them and effective control remains with the military who justifies its partial
use of radio on the grounds of 'national security' and 'national interests.
This presents a dilemma for the regulatory body. How can the NBA uphold
the role prescribed for broadcasting and defend its impartiality at the same time?
Indeed, the fact that the military commentaries and the Sunday sermon are both
opinionated and biased casts doubt on the whole notion of impartiality. As we
shall discuss presently, the production of news and popular news commentary
programmes provides a further illustration of how impartiality is questioned and
contested.
70