Media agenda for 2003: Restore public trust<\/p>\n
Thomas Hanitzsch, Technische Universitat, Ilmenau, Germany<\/p>\n
As we come closer to the end of the year, media practitioners
\nand researchers tend to reflect and ask themselves: Was 2002 a
\ngood year for the Indonesian media scene?<\/p>\n
Economically, yes it was! Even though the country has not yet
\nrecovered from the economic turmoil of the late 1990s, total ad
\nexpenditure is expected to reach Rp 12 trillion at the end of the
\nyear, from Rp 9.7 trillion in 2001. The largest share (61
\npercent) was accounted for by television, the print media still
\nholding 31 percent. This tells us something about the vast power
\nof television in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The market, however, has entered a period of consolidation and
\nadjustment: For several years media organizations mushroomed all
\nover the country, but now their number has declined to 185 daily
\nnewspapers, 290 weeklies and tabloids, 208 magazines, 629 private
\nradio stations and around 10 online news media. That means a
\nbigger market share for those who stay in business.<\/p>\n
In terms of press freedom, we believe 2002 was a bad year for
\nIndonesia's young democracy. The new national broadcasting law
\nhas passed the House of Representatives, although it will create
\na new structure that might degenerate into a "monster", as Todung
\nMulya Lubis said. This broadcasting law marks a setback for
\nIndonesian press policy. It appears that the political class is
\nnot willing to deal with a media system that is free from
\npolitical intervention. Several members of the government and
\nlegislature have already expressed their concern that the Press
\nLaw of 1999 might have gone "too far".<\/p>\n
It seems essential that Indonesian society has to make a clear
\ndecision as to whether it wants a liberal or an authoritarian
\nmedia system. We cannot have both.<\/p>\n
Ironically, there has emerged another threat to press freedom
\nin Indonesia: The same audience that has demanded press freedom
\nin the 1990s is now attacking the media whenever certain groups
\nsimply don't like what they read in the paper or watch on
\ntelevision. This essential loss of tolerance has led to an
\natmosphere of permanent and mutual surveillance (Pierre Bourdieu)
\namong the media: Everyone is waiting for someone else to be brave
\nand incautious enough to take the chance to report a "hot issue",
\nsuch as affairs related to certain religious groups.<\/p>\n
The media, however, does change reality by covering reality.
\nIn Indonesia, journalism sometimes becomes a factor within the
\ndynamics of conflict, as we have seen in Maluku. Christian
\njournalists reproduce the stereotype of the evil Muslim, and vice
\nversa. By doing this, the media have accelerated the conflict. I
\ncall this mutual reinforcement and amplification of crisis. On
\nthe other side, many in Indonesia believe that the media can
\ncontribute to de-escalate and pacify conflicts.<\/p>\n
2002 has been a bad year for professionalism in journalism,
\ntoo. Incompetent and unprofessional journalists are fueling
\npublic hostility to the media. Almost 70 percent of all
\nIndonesian journalists have no professional education related to
\njournalism, although 75 percent do hold an S1-degree. The media
\nsometimes behaves in a disoriented, opportunistic and populist
\nway. Investigative journalism remains almost a complete fiction;
\neven critical journalism tends to reinforce the political status
\nquo.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, corruption is quite widespread among
\njournalists in Indonesia these days. According to a study
\nconducted this year, 44 percent of all journalists justify and
\nover 50 percent practice corruption, more or less frequently.
\nMost striking is the fact that low pay -- contrary to all
\nexpectations -- is only for 20 percent of the interviewed
\njournalists a reason to accept money or valuable presents from
\nnews sources. In conclusion, the data did not indicate that the
\nincidence of journalists justifying corruption would decline if
\npay were increased. Interesting too: The study could prove that
\ncorrupt journalists are much more likely to work for government
\nor public media.<\/p>\n
It seems that the exchange of "envelopes" between journalists
\nand their news sources is greasing the wheels of the machine of
\npublic opinion in Indonesia. For all persons involved it looks
\nlike a game where everybody is a winner, but as a matter of fact
\nwe all lose. Journalism in losing its autonomy and its face while
\nthe audience is losing its trust in the media.<\/p>\n
So, what could be the outlook for 2003? Obviously, everything
\ndepends on the efforts and ability of the media to restore public
\ntrust in itself. Therefore, I suggest the use of already
\nestablished instruments to promote and maintain quality in
\njournalism. This could be, first, efforts to improve journalism
\neducation and further training. Second, scholars could provide an
\nexternal view on journalism through stimulating research on
\njournalists and mass media that may induce some kind of self-
\ncorrection. Third, journalism could engage in some introspection
\nthrough what we call "media journalism". This means critical
\nreflection on the media through the media itself.<\/p>\n
Fourth, the media needs an effective self-control carried out
\nby media practitioners. This could be an independent, but
\nnevertheless strong, press council and voluntary self-control of
\ntelevision broadcasters and the movie industry. Fifth and
\npossibly most important, Indonesia needs a reliable legal system.
\nEven ordinary people need to have a chance to sue the press if
\nthey feel slandered by media coverage. Without a proper legal
\nsystem, a democratic society cannot prevent its members from
\nunprofessional press coverage.<\/p>\n
Finally, we need to look at journalism as an intrinsic part of
\nour society, not as something that is standing in opposition to
\nit. The task of the media is not to educate, advocate or produce
\ntherapy for society as this is the task of other social
\ninstitutions such as the family, teachers and therapists. Today,
\nthe function of the media has shifted to allowing co-orientation
\nbetween different perceptions of reality among different people,
\ngroups and cultures.<\/p>\n
Because of its specific function in society, it cannot be the
\ntask of the media to free the world from crises, conflicts and
\nother evils. The media has only limited access to matters that
\nbelong to other systems. Journalists are members of a specific
\nsociety; they are socialized within a specific cultural
\nenvironment. If society gets worse, journalism will too. If
\nsociety gets violent, so will journalism. Peaceful journalism can
\nonly evolve within a culture of peace.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/media-agenda-for-2003-restore-public-trust-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}