Indonesian broadcasters: Losing the moral high ground<\/p>\n
Martin Jenkins
\nEditor
\nDanareksa Sekuritas
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
The downfall of Soeharto's New Order regime back in 1998
\nmarked the start of a new chapter for Indonesia's broadcasting
\nindustry. Since then, the industry has transformed itself in a
\nbroadcasting revolution that has seen much of the staid and
\nconservative programming replaced with increasingly controversial
\nand risque material. And with competition in the industry so
\nfierce -- there are now 10 private TV stations vying for
\nadvertising revenues -- it seems that there is little that the TV
\nstations won't broadcast in a bid to attract viewers. So what
\ndoes the industry need to do to put its house in order?<\/p>\n
A good start would be for broadcasters to put an end to the
\ntotally unacceptable way in which they exploit real life violence
\nand bloodshed to pander to the viewers' lowest base instincts.
\nThis can be seen most vividly in the way that the TV stations
\ncover crime stories in programs such as Fakta as aired on ANTV,
\nfor instance, when nothing is thought of showing the bloodied
\nbody of some unfortunate murder victim that even the most avid
\ngore fest fan should find reprehensible. The bloodshed is shown
\nmerely for its own sake: the crime story could easily have been
\nreported without having to stoop to such low levels.<\/p>\n
Do the broadcasters even stop for one minute to think about
\nwhat sort of an impact their images will have on the families or
\nfriends of the murder victim? And surely the murder victim him or
\nherself deserves to be treated with a little more dignity before
\nthey are carted off to the nearest morgue and not be depicted as
\njust another dead body. After all, these murder victims are not
\nplaying dead and, unlike the actors in a Hollywood film, will not
\nsimply get up and go home when the TV cameras have finished
\nfilming!<\/p>\n
Also of concern is that such images, if seen often, could have
\na desensitizing and numbing effect on the viewing public, which
\nmight in the long run bring about a more violent society. And
\nhave the broadcasters considered the negative impact on children
\nwho might happen to be watching these gory programs that are
\noften shown in the early evening? It is also the case that the
\nbroadcasting of such TV programs may serve to exaggerate the
\nperceived dangers in the community, scaring people into adopting
\nmore cautionary behavior even when the risks of being murdered
\nare probably far lower, say, than being killed in a traffic
\naccident.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, it is also true that the ethical issues become
\nmuch more complicated when there is a political dimension to the
\nnews story being shown. A picture says more than a thousand
\nwords, or so goes the old adage.<\/p>\n
Recently in the U.S., for example, some TV stations took the
\ndecision to broadcast the grisly images of four U.S. security
\nguards who had been burned and their mutilated corpses hung from
\na bridge in Falluja, Iraq. But while the TV producers had to be
\nmindful of the pain the images would cause to the families of the
\ndead and the potential revulsion of viewers, some of them decided
\nto go ahead and show the footage. The clear difference here
\nthough is that the images were not shown simply to satiate
\nbloodthirsty desires, but rather as an attempt to portray the
\nintensity of the hatred that some Iraqis feel toward the American
\noccupation of their country.<\/p>\n
Of course, in political affairs, broadcasters are often
\ntreading a tightrope. It may be deemed okay to show the body of a
\ndead Palestinian freedom fighter, for example, but would it also
\nbe acceptable to show the body of a dead Israeli schoolgirl
\nkilled in a suicide bombing? And on how many occasions have
\nIndonesian television stations dared to show the pictures of an
\nIndonesian soldier killed in the restive province of Aceh since
\nthe military crackdown began in May 2003?<\/p>\n
Such thought-provoking and disturbing images can have a
\ndevastating impact. Indeed, it is well known that the images of
\ndead U.S. troops in Vietnam did much to sway American opinion
\nagainst the war and finally persuade the U.S. government to
\nconcede defeat.<\/p>\n
These concerns serve to underline how important it is for
\nbroadcasters to play fairly and abide by a decent code of ethics
\nemphasizing the principles of truth, fairness, integrity,
\nindependence and accountability, especially in dealing with such
\nsensitive matters as death and violence.<\/p>\n
But it is not as if the Indonesian broadcasters are unaware of
\nthe problems: They have already accepted that there is a need for
\neffective self-regulation. Indeed, the Association of Indonesian
\nPrivate Television Stations (ATVSI) has issued guidelines on
\nethics for broadcasting content in an effort to address the
\nproblems. And the Indonesian police too have warned the media
\nover the disturbing content of its crime reporting.<\/p>\n
The problem is that the broadcasters just do not want to
\nlisten. The complaints from the public fall on deaf ears. Self-
\nregulation is clearly not working. So, is now not the time that
\nthe government says enough is enough and applies appropriate
\nsanctions to force the broadcasters to change their ways?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/indonesian-broadcasters-losing-the-moral-high-ground-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}