Thailand’s RSF Press Freedom Ranking Is Falling — and Should Be Even Lower Next Year

​On Sunday afternoon, this writer received a surprising phone call from France, from exiled Thai political dissident Jaran Ditapichai.

The 78-year-old Jaran has lived many lives: university student in France, communist insurgent in Thailand during the 1970s, detainee of the Burmese junta for distributing pro-democracy leaflets in Yangon, national human rights commissioner, redshirt co-leader, and now political dissident fleeing lèse-majesté charges since 2014.

Jaran told me he called to offer words of support on World Press Freedom Day, observed on 3 May, which fell on a Sunday this year. I asked how many Thai journalists he admired he had called that day. Was it more than six? ​He said three.

As for Thai media firms, he said there were only a few before complaining that one major and financially successful Thai-language online outlet was secretly funded by a large conglomerate and continually promoted its backers without public disclosure.

​While I cannot verify the claim, Thailand’s current media landscape is hardly cause for celebration.

Paris-based Reporters Without Borders (RSF) released its 2026 World Press Freedom Index last week, and Thailand’s ranking among 180 countries fell from 85th to 92nd.

I agree with the assessment. Perhaps it should be even lower, and next year it will likely be so.

​As one of the few people invited by RSF to assess Thailand’s press freedom conditions annually on a pro bono basis for the past decade, I always reminded the Paris group that Thailand’s levels of press freedom are overrated.

​I have written to them, for some years now, at the end of the questionnaires sent by Reporters Without Borders that although Thailand has had no journalist in prison for some years now, and no journalist killed, it doesn’t mean it’s more free than countries that imprison journalists, or even kill some. This is because nearly all Thai journalists and media organisations have internalised self-censorship on anything mildly critical of the monarchy, to the point where they are taking no risks and there is no need to prosecute or imprison them at all. At the surface, metrics showing that no Thai journalist is imprisoned or has been killed could suggest that Thailand enjoys a high degree of press freedom, but that is not the case here. It can be misleading and inflate the international rankings.

​The case of Bang La or Mr. Rungaroon, a former security guard who became a viral topic in Thailand late last month, is one of the most recent examples of self-censorship within much of the Thai press.

​The man, who possesses an uncanny facial resemblance to the Thai king, was vilified after ultra-royalists accused him of undermining the monarchy through his TikTok videos.

​While Bang La himself eventually confirmed through a video that he was not charged under the lèse-majesté law, contrary to early social media claims, malicious actors have taken his images and doctored them in ways deemed offensive toward the monarchy and spread them on social media.

​ Bang La eventually clarified in the same video that he is a royalist, but this has affected his life and employment. In a genuinely free society, the issue itself would be widely reported news. The majority of the mainstream Thai press chose to censor themselves, however.

​In fact, the aversion to anything mildly critical of the king is so deeply ingrained at an almost subconscious level that the Thai Journalists Association (TJA), the kingdom’s largest journalist association, and other similar press associations, have no stance on the draconian royal defamation law, also known as the lèse-majesté law, which carries a maximum prison term of 15 years. And they can celebrate Thai press freedom every World Press Freedom Day (or Thai Journalists Day) without talking about this biggest obstacle to genuine press freedom in Thailand, and without acknowledging the irony of celebrating press freedom while avoiding discussion of its most significant restriction.

​The fact that mainstream mass media are essentially corporate entities means they do not want to alienate their sponsors and advertisers by engaging in critical coverage and analysis of the Thai monarchy. They believe doing so would be tantamount to breaking their own bread basket, and so reporters also learn not to cross the line, and anything critical about the monarchy is discussed in private or as gossip. And if you are not sure, there’s ‘no harm’ in self-censoring more, than less.

​When censorship is so internalised to the point where you don’t see this self-censorship as a problem for press freedom, such a society is more disturbed than countries that still imprison journalists, because in the latter case, the brute force of the state is naked and journalists there are still trying to push the envelope. Here in Thailand, most do not even try to resist or point out the elephant in the room.

​I reckon that next year, the scores for Thailand in the 2027 annual World Press Freedom Index should be lower because of this reason and other new factors, particularly the use of SLAPP against two editors at The Isaan Record recently, and an apparent increase in online harassment and character assassination against a prominent reporter working on the Deep South issue.

​On the broader picture, the continued downsizing of most mainstream media organisations in Thailand is undermining the Thai press’s ability to serve as a capable watchdog.

​They now can hardly pay able young journalists salaries competitive with other well-paid professions. Some work for international news agencies in order to earn a decent income, but they end up functioning as cogs within large media organisations with little chance to become public intellectuals as their job descriptions limit their roles.

​Then there is the ever-shorter news cycle. This significantly discourages us from stopping and reflecting deeply. Instead, we move rapidly from one often sensational news item to another every five to 10 minutes, like someone virtually trapped in a never-ending rat race.

​Back to Jaran, who somehow mentioned during our phone conversation that one relatively new and successful news organisation is virtually secretly funded by a major Thai corporation and incessantly promotes the funder’s business interests without acknowledging the link. It reminded me of ​RSF’s assessment on the Thai economic context:

​“Public and semi-public media outlets are directly owned or controlled by the government and military. Meanwhile, some private media outlets are owned by powerful conglomerates and are often influenced by corporate interests or business partners who are likely to steer content to protect their economic interests. The rise of sponsored content — funded by big corporations and political parties — has made it difficult for audiences to distinguish real news from paid promotional content, further challenging the integrity of the information space.”

​Given the dire situation, and despite Thailand still being ranked second in the ASEAN region, behind new ASEAN member Timor-Leste, what we need in Thailand is greater courage among the Thai press and higher media literacy among the public.

The Thai public must better understand the media’s limitations, hidden agendas, and taboo topics. They should not be passive consumers and should question what they read and watch as the Thai press continues to struggle with all the issues mentioned.