Asian press needs more say<\/p>\n
By Goenawan Mohamad<\/p>\n
This is an abridged version of an Avery Lecture given at
\nPomona College on Oct. 28. It was presented in conjunction with
\nan international conference on \"Media in the Asia Pacific World.
\nPress and Politics in Economic Crisis\".<\/p>\n
CLAREMONT, California: Indonesia is currently in a political
\ntransition from an authoritarian regime to a confusing state of
\nwaiting. The headlines of the world media continue to describe
\nthe country as a huge area of economic collapse and of large-
\nscale brutality. No doubt, both the economic meltdown and the
\nsudden end of Soeharto's dictatorial rule have contributed to the
\nbreakdown of social order.<\/p>\n
I am not saying that anarchy prevails in Indonesia. Yet
\neveryone seems to have all the reasons to take the law into his
\nor her own hands. The state is no longer the authority; legal
\ninstitutions are too corrupt to be credible and society is
\nsuffering from a political paranoia.<\/p>\n
Three months ago there was a harrowing story of looting and
\nrape of Chinese-Indonesians. An influential group of activists
\nbelieves there was an organized power behind the crime. The
\nallegation, provoking fear of an unknown evil force, is yet to be
\nsubstantiated, but it has also not been convincingly refuted.<\/p>\n
Last night I read an AP dispatch with another story of
\nviolence and fear. A mob beat three people to death and set fire
\nto their car after accusing them of being involved in a wave of
\nmysterious killings. The region has been shaken by the slayings
\nof more than 150 people in the past three months, many of them
\nsuspected of practicing black magic. The mysterious killers are
\nsaid to wear black ninja-like clothing. Fear prevails in many
\ntowns, with vigilante groups targeting strangers and even
\nmentally ill people who they suspect are behind the killings.<\/p>\n
This kind of paranoia is clearly the sequel to Indonesia's
\nhistory of repression. Contrary to common belief, the major
\nfeature of Soeharto's dictatorship was not a social surveillance
\nconducted rigorously by proficient military and bureaucratic
\nmachines. It stayed in power for more than three decades because
\nit was successful in managing social trauma.<\/p>\n
Most Indonesians of my generation always remember their
\ngenerally hapless past and the political violence of the 1960s,
\nwhen thousands of people were killed in an anti-Communist purge.
\nThis act of atrocity has never been brought to light, let alone
\nput on trial, and what remains is the terror of shrouded
\nyesterdays. Soeharto's regime liked to keep the terror in the
\nnation's mind. It constantly cautioned the people of the danger
\nof political instability and sent warning signals against
\n\"subversive element\".<\/p>\n
Paradoxically, it was the regime's arbitrary character (marked
\nby its scant regard of due process and its porous, corruption-
\nridden bureaucracy), that reminded the people of the vagary of
\nlife under such a political structure. The structure made it
\npossible that one's personal existence can be transformed into
\nsomething else at the caprice of the people in power.<\/p>\n
In such a perpetual sense of insecurity, political paranoia
\neasily sinks in. Inevitably, today's Indonesian politics is badly
\nscarred by a rampant growth of conspiracy theories, created both
\nby government's spies and their enemies. Curiously, people seem
\nto like them. It has the allure of old-fashioned superstition.<\/p>\n
Previously, they were thrilled by ghost stories. Today, they
\nlove to listen to rumors of clandestine operations of various
\nkinds. Probably this is their way of defending themselves from
\nthe intrusion of a chaotic world. They accept anything in order
\nto create a pattern out of today's complex, jumbled and
\nunpleasant inflow of information.<\/p>\n
However, political paranoia is a case of fear-generating fear.
\nSome analysts may suggest that a freer inflow of information,
\ncarried by free media, is the best antidote to the disease. Maybe
\nit is. But allow me to add a caveat.<\/p>\n
Every time a reporter steps into the arena of free expression,
\nhe or she has to deal with the limited nature of his or her
\nnarration. The media necessarily projects the world as a
\nhomogeneous space. In a sense, every news item, no matter how
\nwell researched and elegantly written, is a part of the economy
\nof remembrance. By the economy of remembrance I mean the way
\nreaders, viewers, listeners and journalists maximize the use of
\nthe past out of minimum memory input.<\/p>\n
From this perspective, journalism cannot claim the validity of
\nits truth. A newspaper or a news broadcast is by no means a
\nsignifier of \"the truth, nothing but the truth\". Like the most
\nfantastic conspiracy theory, it has only a limited space to
\naccommodate the real world. Journalism becomes an antidote to
\npolitical paranoia not because of its truth-content, but because
\nof its innate skepticism.<\/p>\n
Therefore, as far as journalism is concerned, the demand for
\nmore freedom of expression should go together with the need for
\nmore freedom to doubt. To be sure, on many sides of the Pacific,
\npeople have dreams and nightmares about an intellectual minority
\nwho likes to make skepticism a profession. Accordingly, a
\njournalist's job has to deal not only with government censorship.
\nFrom time to time, it has also to cope with the wrath of the
\nfaithful and the anger of the ideologues. Hence the necessity of
\na high quality of public debate.<\/p>\n
This brings me to the issue of responsibility. In my view,
\ngiven the current political economy of the media, in which
\ngovernment and\/or business interests are the ones that have the
\ncapacity to rule the roost, the insistence on journalistic
\nfreedom is at the same time the insistence on journalistic
\nresponsibility.<\/p>\n
To be responsible one has to be free. Parrots and robots
\ncannot claim responsibility for whatever they say and do, because
\nthey just copy and follow others' words. This is an important
\npoint to stress, since the most often-used apology for censorship
\ntends to pit the idea of freedom against the idea of
\nresponsibility.<\/p>\n
To be sure, there are ethical considerations a journalist has
\nto be aware of every time he or she writes and gets published.
\nBut the substance of ethics is self-restraint (the emphasis is on
\n\"self\"). It necessarily presupposes freedom. What one ought to do
\nand not to do is decided in the solitude of one's independence.<\/p>\n
However, this is not an exercise of solitariness. I am
\npersuaded to think that basically, ethical issues are born out of
\nthe human sense of contiguity with the \"Other\". When you have
\npower, or when you write and publish, the first question about
\nthe \"Other\" is not whether he or she is the one to read and
\nrespond, but whether he or she is the one to suffer. And most
\nlikely, she or he will be one of those who have no means to speak
\nand defend themselves.<\/p>\n
Of course, in many countries in the Pacific, the press is by
\nno means equivalent to the Fourth Estate. Politically, the media,
\nespecially the print media, does not yet belong to the big
\nleagues. When election results are either rigged or illegally
\ncollected, when public opinion is often generated by oral
\ncommunication (with various degrees of brainwashing), and not by
\nan eloquent prose on the editorial page, the press can only have
\na very limited claim on political life and its changes. To borrow
\nAnthony Sampson's description of British journalism, one can say
\nthat many newspapers in Asia are not the extension of history,
\nbut of conversation.<\/p>\n
Still, it is an important piece of public conversation. At
\nleast it can raise, or give room to, pertinent questions,
\nopposing views and perspectives, and challenge the monotony of
\nlies. In a society where the ruling elite tends to dictate the
\nstyle and the substance of discourse, the so-called harmony -- a
\nhighly valued thing in Asian societies, they say -- tends to
\nsilence the weak. The is especially true when fear is widespread
\nand takes the edge off any meaningful public debate. It is not in
\nanybody's interest to let people who have the monopoly of
\nviolence in society go unchecked and become murderers and
\ntorturers. It should be everybody's concern when people having
\nthe monopoly of words get away with their deceit.<\/p>\n
Journalists and the mass media may not change this overnight.
\nAs I pointed out earlier, in many countries in Asia, the press is
\nnot a powerful political player. But I like to think that their
\nsubmissive and weak appearance is like that of water. Allow me to
\nquote Lao-Tse, the Chinese philosopher: \"In the world there is
\nnothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking
\nthat which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it.\"<\/p>\n
Goenawan Mohamad is chief editor of the newly resurrected
\nTempo magazine.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/asian-press-needs-more-say-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}