Press freedom and the reality check<\/p>\n
DISCOURSE<\/p>\n
To mark the World Press Freedom Day, which falls today on May
\n3, we interviewed Jakob Oetama, the co-founder of Kompas daily
\nnewspaper, to talk about the issue and how it relates to his own
\nnewspaper. Here are excerpts:<\/p>\n
Question:What is press freedom to you and your paper?<\/p>\n
Answer: I'm one of those who believe in free and responsible
\npress. I never believe that freedom should be absolute, or in
\nfreedom for freedom's sake. At the practical level, there are
\nmany factors, from government power to forces in society, that
\ndetermine the socio-political reality in which we exercise our
\nfreedom.<\/p>\n
These factors influence us, and interact with us. And this is
\na continuing process.<\/p>\n
In an authoritarian state, those in power set the limit of
\nfreedom. But from our own experience, whatever government system
\nwe had in place, society also set the limits. At times, society
\nwas even more restrictive than the government. For example, when
\nwe write about sensitive issues like religion, race and
\nethnicity, we have to be careful. We cannot be blunt, publish and
\nbe damned, for we will be damned.<\/p>\n
I'm not suggesting that we should give up the fight. I'm
\nsaying this as a statement of fact: That there are forces which
\naffect our work. But this is the challenge we face. We want
\nfreedom, but ultimately, the socio-political reality determines
\nthe boundaries of freedom.<\/p>\n
Is press freedom a means to an end, or an end in itself?<\/p>\n
It's both.<\/p>\n
Freedom is about human existence. It is the nature of man to
\nwant to express himself. And having freedom is important for
\nself-expression.<\/p>\n
At the same time, mere existence is not an end in itself. Man
\nhas goals in life, individually or collectively. In this context,
\nfreedom is a means to an end.<\/p>\n
Do you think the legal framework and the supporting
\ninstitutions are conducive for press freedom?<\/p>\n
The press law and the infrastructure is there, the common will
\nis there, and the common concerns and consensus are also there.
\nProblems arise at the practical level.<\/p>\n
Take for example the right of reply (guaranteed by the 1999
\nPress Law). Those who want to exercise this right are often not
\nsatisfied. So they resort to demonstrations. We have had our
\nshare of demonstrations, from rowdy to mild ones.<\/p>\n
The (1999) Press Law needs some kind of jurisprudence on how
\nit is applied. There have not been many cases tried under the
\nlaw. The tendency is for everyone, the media and those who have
\ngrievances about the media, to solve their problems amicably
\nrather than going through the court.<\/p>\n
Why? Going through the legal channels has many implications.
\nIt's lengthy, it's uncertain. People are unsure whether they will
\nreceive fair treatment. This is a dilemma, because as long as we
\ncontinue to keep this attitude, there will never be any
\njurisprudence.<\/p>\n
Is this changing?<\/p>\n
It must. We have to change.<\/p>\n
Principles never change for they are universal and noble. But
\nwhen you try to apply these principles, you are confronted with
\nthe reality, the prevailing cultures and traditions, conventions,
\nand the legal and bureaucratic obstacles. I agree with the
\nyounger generation that we should not retreat from our fight (for
\nfreedom) because of these obstructions.<\/p>\n
What about public complaints of the press abusing its freedom
\nor of going overboard?<\/p>\n
These objections and complaints are a living reality. We hear
\nthem all the time.<\/p>\n
A free press strives to give facts. But each institution has
\nits own way and style in conveying the message and criticism. The
\nstyle is determined by the personality and character of the
\npublication, and often by the target audience.<\/p>\n
Sometimes the press becomes bolder because they felt that they
\nhad not been heard. The first time they wrote, they were ignored.
\nSo, they grew bolder and so on, until they felt that they had to
\n\"pinch\" or \"hit\" to draw attention.<\/p>\n
Having said that, we in the media must abide by the principles
\nof telling the truth, and not engage in character assassination.
\nWe are bound by ethics that we ourselves have established.<\/p>\n
But there is another reason why some people had the impression
\nthat the press has gone overboard. Before, we were restricted on
\nwhat we could print. What we heard or learned were not always
\nreported. Today, we immediately report what we hear or learn.
\nSome members of our society are not ready for this.<\/p>\n
What about the moves by the government to reimpose some form
\nof control over the media?<\/p>\n
The people in the media should be proactive to ensure that
\nthese criticisms about the press are directed to the proper
\nchannels, such as through the legal mechanisms. We have to build
\nthis tradition.<\/p>\n
But part of the problem is that the government is not
\ncommunicating enough through the press. We have a democratically
\nelected government and a free press, but communication between
\nthe two, at least until recently, is almost non-existent.<\/p>\n
Take the U.S. government. It is holding daily briefings, and
\nnot only since the start of the war in Iraq. Given Indonesia's
\nimmense problems, we too have to build a common understanding,
\nand the government must communicate more, through the press.<\/p>\n
How can press freedom contribute to the nation-building
\nprocess, to the goal of a peaceful and prosperous nation?<\/p>\n
The most immediate and concrete contribution the press can
\ngive is in its watchdog role. It can provide checks on the power
\nof the government, on the corruption, collusion and nepotism
\npractices.<\/p>\n
More important than this is that the press must have a
\nframework.<\/p>\n
For example, on the economic system, it must ask the question
\nwhether Indonesia's is a free-capitalism or a market-socialism.
\nThe answer to this question becomes the point of reference in
\nreporting or commenting on the economic reality and on government
\npolicies or the private-sector activities.<\/p>\n
If we have decided on the market economy, why then is a large
\npart of the business community, dominated by (Chinese)
\ndescendants, still being politically marginalized. We should
\nbring them into the political mainstream. Political Islam was
\nonce marginalized, but it has now been brought into the
\nmainstream. Why not bring (the Chinese) descendants into the
\nmainstream too. Give them legitimacy, but also give them
\nresponsibility.<\/p>\n
This is a formidable task for this nation, but the economy
\nwill grow and the nation will prosper if this happens.<\/p>\n
What about the role of Kompas in fostering change. Are you
\nhappy with your paper being labeled conservative?<\/p>\n
Democracy, human rights, justice and the law - these are
\nuniversal values and principles. We all adhere to them. But when
\nwe apply these principles, there is another aspect to consider:
\nThe society's heterogeneity, in terms of its social and
\neducational backgrounds, race, ethnicity and others. We can't
\nchange society just like that. The last five years prove my
\npoint. We have had democracy, but we have essentially remained
\nunchanged.<\/p>\n
Change takes time. We have to build a complete understanding
\nand create a more conducive situation so that democracy can
\nfunction. Democracy is not only about freedom. The failure of the
\nBolshevik revolution in instilling change is another example.<\/p>\n
Then, there is also my Javanese upbringing (for Kompas'
\nconservatism).<\/p>\n
It is not an easy task.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/press-freedom-and-the-reality-check-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }