In a fascinating turn of events echoing through the corridors of Chulalongkorn University, the Faculty of Communication Arts has vociferously rallied behind one of their own, Pirate of Ramasoota, a distinguished member of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). This show of solidarity came on the heels of her two-year prison sentence handed down last Thursday, thanks to allegations of dereliction of duty—a situation triggered by complaints originating from the prominent True Digital Group.
The faculty threw its doors open to host an engaging seminar aptly titled “The Pirongrong Effect.” The event served as a platform to fortify their unwavering support for Prof Emeritus Pirongrong, who once illuminated the classrooms as a lecturer. Associate Professor Preeda Akarachantachote, the esteemed dean of the faculty, stepped up to the podium, exuding charisma and conviction.
“In our role as torchbearers of communication arts education, indifference is simply not an option,” he declared passionately.
He added that for decades now, stalwart academics, media professionals, and vigilant citizens have sought to reform the media landscape in Thailand with bated breath. They envision the NBTC as a bastion, safeguarded against both state machinations and corporate giants, fulfilling its noble duty of regulating media with professional ethics, nurturing societal responsibility, and zealously guarding consumer rights and freedoms.
This evocative seminar followed a rather solemn verdict from the Central Criminal Court for Corruption and Misconduct Cases. They concluded that Prof Emeritus Pirongrong’s actions had inflicted tangible harm on True Digital by derelicting her duty under Section 157 of the Criminal Code, thus coming down hard with a two-year jail term sans suspension.
With unwavering resolve, Prof Emeritus Pirongrong defended her actions. She was steadfast in her belief that issuing cautions about digital platform operators slipping commercials into free-to-air television slots was merely a fulfillment of her duty.
Associate Prof Preeda, without missing a beat, pondered the ramifications of this legal battle on society’s perspective towards the NBTC’s autonomy. He queried aloud whether this would reshape how media operators, media professionals, and everyday consumers perceive the future trajectory of NBTC’s work.
The faculty’s support for Prof Emeritus Pirongrong was echoed through the hallowed halls, recognizing her adherence to principles, upstanding honesty, and her unwavering defense of public interest during her NBTC tenure.
The origin of this complex saga dates back to 2023, when a hue and cry was raised over TrueID’s advertisements peppering digital TV channels on its platform. As chair of the broadcasting subcommittee, Pirongrong boldly ordered the acting NBTC deputy secretary-general to notify a whopping 127 radio and television broadcast license holders that True Digital was crossing lines with its over-the-top (OTT) service. The note further invoked the ‘must-carry’ principle, detailing the unbroken relay of free-to-air channels sans ad interruptions.
However, in March 2024, like a bolt from the blue, True Digital lodged a grievance against the NBTC and Prof Emeritus Pirongrong. They lamented the sting of a tarnished reputation and strained partnerships with television channel stalwarts, all allegedly due to the warning issued.
The seminar’s atmosphere thrummed with the insights of yesteryear, featuring a former NBTC commissioner, an ace journalist, and a legal virtuoso urging legislative rejuvenation. They implored the powers that be to revisit and rejuvenate laws governing the NBTC’s scope. There was a clarion call to fast-track a national strategic plan, sculpting the regulatory framework for internet-based television or OTT media. Fears are rife that an unregulated phase might topple the licensed television sector.
In the end, while the air crackled with anticipation and possibly apprehension over the legal proceedings, the seminar resonated as a testament to unity, debate, and the perpetual dance for media freedom in Thailand—an enduring legacy and a chapter that finds its ink still wet.
I’m glad to see Chulalongkorn University supporting Prof Emeritus Pirongrong. It seems unjust to send someone to prison for fulfilling their duties. What happened to freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech shouldn’t excuse negligence. It sounds like True Digital had every reason to be upset with their treatment!
But isn’t it part of NBTC’s job to regulate and issue warnings? Pirongrong was just doing her duty.
Regulation is one thing, but when it becomes harmful to companies and doesn’t protect consumers, we have a problem.
The decision against Prof Pirongrong sets a dangerous precedent. We risk stifling proactive oversight if we punish regulators for doing their job.
But at what cost? Oversight shouldn’t become overreach. Companies have rights too!
Oversight is supposed to protect the wider public interest. Prof Pirongrong questioned unethical practices, right?
Spot on, Ben. Ethical considerations must guide regulatory practices even if it rattles corporate cages.
This is confusing… why did True Digital get upset over a warning? Wasn’t it their own fault?
It’s about business interests and reputation. Warnings can impact partnerships even if they’re justifiable.
I get it now. It’s more about how things look than what actually happened?
I bet there’s more to this story than they’re telling us. Corporate influence runs deep!
Conspiracies aside, maybe the NBTC was too heavy-handed? Balance is key.
Possibly, but corporate giants aren’t innocent either. They play hardball.
Anyone else think this seminar is a distraction from the real issues? The media landscape is still flawed and biased.
Seminars can raise awareness, Tommy. They’re not a fix-all but they start necessary conversations.
Fair. As long as it leads to actual reform and not just talk.
We need to remember that laws exist for a reason. If she broke the law, she must face consequences.
Laws can be outdated or misapplied! We need to update them to reflect current needs, not punish properly applied oversight.
True. Re-evaluating laws could be part of the solution here.
The faculty should be standing up for her if she truly did what was right. Universities are supposed to be bastions of truth!
I’m worried about how this affects future media regulations. What company will dare take on tough but necessary reform now?
There’s hope yet for reform. Maybe this incident will spotlight the need for more comprehensive rules.
I hope so! Without clear rules, innovation might stifle under too much cautiousness.
It’s unusual to see such strong faculty support in times of controversy. Education sectors are waking up!
Can someone explain what the ‘must-carry’ principle is? I’m lost here.
It’s an obligation for broadcasters to carry certain channels without charge, ensuring equal access to important information.
Crazy to think that a warning about ads can lead to jail time. Aren’t there bigger fish to fry?
Props to the professor for sticking by her ethics. More people in power need to follow suit, in my opinion.
Ethics are key, but they don’t cancel out the potential fallout of one’s actions.