Aceh war sparks a culture of fear within media industry

Aceh war sparks a culture of fear within media industry

The "integrated operation", including a military approach in
Aceh, was a hard decision to take. Unlike military operations
under the New Order, these operations are open to media coverage.
The Jakarta Post's Ati Nurbaiti talked to lawyer and human rights
activist Todung Mulya Lubis on how he perceives the coverage on
the issue so far. The following is an excerpt from the interview:

Question: How do you see the coverage on the Aceh issue so far?
Answer: I still feel uneasy about the unbalanced reporting. It
seems that the suffering of the people has not adequately been
reported in the media: We tend to devote more space to the
entirety of the military operations in Aceh -- which is important
-- but it's equally important to show how people are suffering,
losing their jobs and homes, and that they have to be evacuated.
But there have already been many reports on such issues. Hasn't
the reporting improved?

Lately yes: Gradually, more space has been given to victims
but still, we hear a lot of untold stories from various sources,
including foreign correspondents. The Bireuen incident (in which
the military was reported to have shot civilians, an accusation
it has denied following an internal investigation) initially
presented a problem (in getting adequate information on it).
Do you sense that the media faces problems in covering Aceh?

One problem that seems to be apparent from the Aceh reporting
is the emergence of a culture of fear within the media community.
We've heard of interference on the part of the authorities, for
instance when the military doesn't like what is reported. Tempo
daily has been mentioned at one point and there have also been
objections to reports by some television stations. We heard
recently a TV reporter had been dismissed, apparently due to
critical reporting.

It would be hard for the media to admit to a "culture of
fear".

It's a worrying sign; whether it's a strong sign is a matter
of degree. There's also the debate on nationalism, which tends to
be defined in a very narrow sense, and this also limits the scope
of press freedom, because people have been ordered to report what
is considered "right", within the framework of upholding the
unitary state of the republic.

But according a media poll recently in Tempo magazine, readers
also expect the press to be nationalistic; it's not just the
government and Military. Your comment?

But the duty of the journalist is to cover what needs to be
covered, and reporting things as they are is also patriotic (in
doing one's duty). Being "patriotic" in carrying out journalism
may lead to self-censorship, and even the hiding of facts. The
media's audience deserves complete, accurate and balanced
reporting, which is what they have paid for.

Wide public support for military operations does not justify
the media in censorship of the news for the sake of the success
of the operations and nationalism.
What issues would you like to see covered regarding Aceh?

We have been talking about the demise of (the effectiveness
of) the Coalition on Human Rights in Aceh (comprising several
non-government organizations, or NGOs) because activists are
being chased; they can't really work effectively and some have
been forced into hiding, and some have probably fled. People have
been talking about that culture of fear.

We should make people aware that nationalism is good in
principle, but it is equally important that the news be reported
as honestly as possible. Of course it is not easy sometimes for
journalists to suppress their sentiments because they are close
to certain groups, whether TNI (the Indonesian Military) or GAM
(the Free Aceh Movement), but their duty is to be independent.

Do we have an intelligent, open public debate on the issue?

I don't think people who believe in peaceful conflict
resolution now have much room to express their point of view. To
expect an intelligent debate at present might just be too much.

When humanitarian assistance from foreign NGOs was curtailed,
domestic NGOs felt threatened. Some did get funds from foreign
NGOs but it has been almost impossible for them to express their
position. So where is this intelligent discourse? Look at the
National Commission on Human Rights -- (member M.M.) Billah has
already placed a mask over his mouth: What has happened?