Indonesian press system still seeks best format<\/p>\n
By Junarto Imam Prakoso<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The famous words of John Stuart Mill that one
\nsingle view different from all others should be respected and
\nthat humankind does not have the right to silence that view have
\nbecome the fundamental principle of the freedom of the press,
\nfought for over hundreds of years in the west. In Indonesia -- in
\norder that we do not become pessimistic -- now at least we are
\nexperiencing a transformation of the press system. The abolition
\nof Ministerial Decree No.1 of 1984 has resulted in dozens of new
\npress licences. President Habibie's guarantee that there will be
\nno more censure or ban gives a feeling of relative safety for
\njournalists to express themselves freely.<\/p>\n
The atmosphere of this freedom is used by the elements of the
\nsystem that is politically fragmented. The prevailing tendency is
\nthat an increasing number of media openly show their partisanship
\nfor certain political parties or interest groups.<\/p>\n
The implication of the change in the political system we will
\ndiscuss is that the national media will be increasingly partisan
\nand the competition in the media business sharper. Both the
\npolitical and the economic factor have the potential to distort
\nthe meaning of the freedom of the press and in turn they will
\nthreaten professional journalism that follows the principle of
\ngiving priority to a balance and an objectivity in news
\nreporting.<\/p>\n
John Milton in Aeropagiticia (1644) assumes that each human
\nbeing is rational. This enables him to find the truth in a number
\nof facts. In order to be able to use the ability, each person
\nmust be given an unlimited right to hear other people's ideas and
\nthoughts. The truth, said Milton, is certain and can be shown. In
\nthe process of seeking the truth, information plays a dominant
\nrole because only with adequate information can the search for
\nthe truth take place. The consequence is that one must be free to
\nsend, to collect and to receive information in an unhampered way.
\nIn the final instance one will find the best for the welfare of
\noneself and of society.<\/p>\n
John Stuart Mill additionally said that it is allowable to
\nconvey any kind of information to man, whether it is wrong, bad,
\ngood or true. Fundamentally man cannot claim something is right
\nor wrong because what is deemed right may be wrong. On the other
\nhand, if we know the information is wrong, there may be some
\ntruth in it. Even if it is entirely wrong, the information can
\nserve as a comparison.<\/p>\n
From the thought of Milton and Mill the contemporary idea of
\n\"a free market in ideas\" is drawn. In this free market, the truth
\nwill prevail through a self-correcting process. Wrong information
\nwill correct itself automatically. Therefore, there should be no
\ncontrol on the flow of information. Control leads to manipulation
\nby the controller. In a wider context, this has its implications
\nfor the rejection of control of information exercised by the
\nauthorities. Supporters of libertarianism believe that in the
\nfree market, the press industry will experience natural
\nselection. Bad press will be eliminated because it does not enjoy
\nthe people's trust.<\/p>\n
In reality the press, which was initially expected to function
\nas a fourth pillar of democracy, became an extension of a
\npolitical party, an interest group or a business institute that
\nis after profit only so that the press cannot be expected to
\nserve as a facility for finding the actual truth.<\/p>\n
The press is subject to business and politics. Advertisements,
\nfor example, can influence editorial policies and the contents of
\nan editorial. Politically the press tends to affiliate with a
\npolitical party or an interest group that is in support of its
\nmanagement and financing. In search of profit, the press presents
\nsuperficial, sensational stuff that endangers the public morale
\nor oversteps the limits of private lives.<\/p>\n
In this context Walter Lippmann was aware that truth and news
\nare clearly not synonymous. He even said that the press is an
\nobstacle on the road toward truth. News writing, said Lippmann,
\nis governed by emotion and the hopes of the people writing the
\nnews and not by the facts themselves. Reporters, according to
\nLippmann, are not ready to analyze the complex realities that
\nthey must report. The journalists and the reports by themselves
\nand the press-industry owners, most of whom fight for certain
\nideological interests and business profits, are not objective
\npresenters. The freedom to think and to speak shows itself with a
\nnew face with problems because apparently public opinion can be
\nengineered. \"Public opinion is wrong and misleading in times of
\ncrises,\" said Lippmann.<\/p>\n
A democratic system or a coalition government is threatened if
\nthe process of consensus becomes a kind of personal effort
\nwithout rules of the game, said Lippmann, because the public has
\nno adequate knowledge and views to determine government policies.
\nWhat they can do is merely to approve or to oppose decision
\nmakers. If that happens, Lippmann added, it will be difficult for
\nthe authorities to be free from \"the rough treatment and the
\nclamor of the masses which attack like flood water.\"<\/p>\n
\"The public will arrive in the midst of the third act and will
\nleave before the curtain falls while pondering who is the hero
\nand who is the culprit in this life drama,\" Lippmann added.<\/p>\n
Those social realities are obtaining in this country now. On
\nthe one hand people are struck by the euphoria of freedom so that
\nall people feel they have the right to become a valid source of
\ninformation. On the other our social system is unstable and is
\nchanging in uncertainty. The dependency theory on the effects of
\nmass communication says that in a situation of uncertainty like
\nthe present one people tend to look for the maximum amount of
\ninformation in order to feel safe, tranquil and peaceful
\npsychologically.<\/p>\n
In reality because of the political fights at elite level, the
\ninformation circulating in society is full of political
\nengineering and does not alleviate the uncertain condition at
\nall. People are intentionally led to a situation of uncertainty
\nin order that their opinion is easily molded. The political elite
\napparently makes the best use of this situation. They are well
\naware of the strategic role of the media as a combat arena for
\ninformation flow.<\/p>\n
This situation is worsened by the partisan attitude of the
\nmany newly born media. Actually this should not be a problem if
\ntheir partisanship were balanced by efforts to maintain the
\njournalistic standards of press professionalism in the sense of
\nupholding the principle of objectivity. What is happening is the
\nopposite. Their reporting tends to be biased in ideology while
\nnon-political media only give free rein to sensation and
\npornography to compete in boosting their circulation.<\/p>\n
That is an enumeration of realities in this uncertain
\nsituation as a logical consequence of the freedom we have now
\nobtained. The fact we have found is that the people cannot choose
\nwhat is true or what is good for them. After all man does not
\nplace common welfare above all other things. People compete with
\neach other in fighting for positions or power while sacrificing
\nother people. The self-correcting mechanism trusted by the
\nbelievers in the freedom of the press has not proven itself, at
\nleast until now.<\/p>\n
Anyway, I personally continue to reject controls on
\ninformation flow, especially by the government. I believe in the
\nidea of social responsibility of the press that hands over the
\ncontrol mechanism of the government to the community itself
\nthrough professional institutes, consumer institutes, non-
\ngovernment organizations and the academic community. It is clear
\nthat this is not the social responsibility that was
\nmisinterpreted by the New Order in defining the \"free and
\nresponsible\" concept according to the logic of their power.<\/p>\n
In the real concept of social responsibility, the professional
\ncommunity agrees on a code of ethics on what is not acceptable
\nand what is not permissible for its members. If a member acts
\nagainst this code, the professional community will penalize this
\nmember. Meanwhile, the people -- apart from using the mechanism
\nof the court -- can organize themselves into consumer movements.
\nFor example by a threat of boycott of the media or a company that
\nadvertises a hazardous product in the media.<\/p>\n
We do not need to act precipitately. The press system in the
\nwest has been transforming itself for centuries, while ours has
\njust started. We need not be pessimistic or on the contrary pride
\nourselves that our press system has found the best format. I am
\nconfident that in the near future our system will continuously
\nadapt itself through rejections, support or demands on various
\nelements of the press system that is still unclear so that at a
\ncertain moment our press system will obtain a new balance. All
\nthat will depend on the format of our political system in the
\nfuture.<\/p>\n
The writer is a communications student and assistant lecturer
\nat the University of Indonesia's School of Social and Political
\nSciences.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/indonesian-press-system-still-seeks-best-format-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}