http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20080114.E02&irec=1
Reform brings change to journalism practice Sirikit Syah, Surabaya Completing the first decade of reform, the media is still in search of what's appropriate and ideal for the practice of free press in a relatively young democracy like Indonesia. The euphoria has passed. The watched dog that turned wild (in 1998) has become what it should be: a watchdog. Of the five services the press has to provide in accordance with the 1999 Press Law, namely information, entertainment, education, social control and economy, the media has succeeded mostly in providing information and social control. Information is now more diverse and varied, and social control is perfect. Well, almost, since some people consider it "too much" and to some extent in violation of ethical codes. On the other hand, the news from print and electronic media is hardly entertaining (unless you like TV entertainment programs), and less than educational. The most unpleasant fact is that the economic component of the media industry has made an impact only at the upper level of media owners and leaders, not journalists. While the media industry is blossoming and advertisement revenues and profits are steadily increasing, the welfare of most media employees, particularly journalists, remains relatively low. Pocket journalism is still rampant as many reporters scramble for extra income. Many of about 100 journalists in Sumenep, in the east of Madura Island in East Java, are on the state/provincial administration's payroll, both in the legislative council and local government information offices. How can a dog watch somebody who feeds it? Big companies aren't surprised to see 200 journalists show up at their annual stakeholders meeting. No one seems to care about what media these journalists really represent. Despite the clear regulations in the Press Law on the welfare of press employees, media publishers do not seem to care, and journalists often have no better alternatives in terms of jobs. "Envelope" journalism exists because of three parties: the journalists who sell their integrity for money, the sources who buy journalists and the media owners who do not care about employees' welfare. For decades we have been taught in journalism school that bad news is good news and good news is not news. Hence, the front pages of many print media (and first segment of TV news programs) are often filled with blood and bodies or tragedies and conflicts. After so many violent conflicts, whether racial, religious or ethnic, Johan Galtung comes with the idea of peace journalism. Journalists are no longer neutral, they take sides. For Galtung and his followers (two of them are Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldryck from Reporting the World), journalists shall opt for peace. It is sinful for journalist to say: "I don't take sides. I just write, take pictures and report. I am not involved." Journalists are indeed involved and playing roles. Even a prestigious news magazine like Tempo plays an active role, helping a whistle blower get legal support. The press is no longer simply an observer; it participates. It is not that easy anymore to teach students of journalism about balance, covering both sides, objectivity. Robert Fisk from the Independent, Martin Bell from the BBC and other European journalists are very much one-sided. They are of the opinion that balance is not needed when the facts are clear. When a bulldozer destroys the homes of Palestinians, killing anyone inside, these journalists will not bother to interview the other side for an explanation. In Indonesia, covering both sides may result in more polarized conflicts. You cannot just interview GAM rebels and the military in Aceh, or Christians and Muslims in Central Sulawesi, or Freeport and human right activists in Papua. Journalists need to interview many sides. What about interviewing Javanese immigrants in Aceh, and thousands of Freeport employees who are native Papuans and their families? Covering both sides is not enough anymore. Journalists take sides, or cover many sides. Good news is also newsworthy and fairness (to all sides) is more important than objectivity (which sometimes is unfair). In the first years of reform, it seemed the objective was simply to cover only the big political campaigns of Golkar or PDI-P. These big parties had "magnitude" and "prominence". But it now looks unfair if the media pays no attention to small new parties holding small rallies without the presence of prominent figures. Free and responsible press, words frequently uttered during the New Order, is now practiced. One of the consequences is that it may make mistakes, and it can be sued. During the New Order, the press was not allowed to make mistakes, it was stopped from making mistakes. No chance. So the press never learned to make mistakes. Since reform began in 1998, understandably, our free press has made a lot of mistakes: errors, ignorance, negligence, even malice. But entering the 10th year now, we can be proud of the quality of Indonesian journalism. It is diverse, free and responsible, at last. Of course, there some problems with yellow papers, pornographic tabloids, envelope journalism, ethical violations, libels, plagiarism (especially "the cloning of visuals" among TV stringers in small towns throughout Indonesia), but I would rather be optimistic. We should be happy and hopeful with the progress and development of the country's press. The writer is a media observer and founder of LKM Media Watch. printer friendly Post Your Comments Comments could also be sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
