Restoring public trust in the media

Restoring public trust in the media

Thomas Hanitzsch
Technische Universitat
Ilmenau
Germany

As we come closer to the end of the year, media practitioners
and researchers tend to reflect and ask themselves: Was 2002 a
good year for the Indonesian media scene?

Economically, yes it was! Even though the country has not yet
recovered from the economic turmoil of the late 1990s, total ad
expenditure is expected to reach Rp 12 trillion at the end of the
year, from Rp 9.7 trillion in 2001. The largest share (61
percent) was accounted for by television, the print media still
holding 31 percent. This tells us something about the vast power
of television in Indonesia.

The market, however, has entered a period of consolidation and
adjustment: For several years media organizations mushroomed all
over the country, but now their number has declined to 185 daily
newspapers, 290 weeklies and tabloids, 208 magazines, 629 private
radio stations and around 10 online news media. That means a
bigger market share for those who stay in business.

In terms of press freedom, we believe 2002 was a bad year for
Indonesia's young democracy. The new national broadcasting law
has passed the House of Representatives, although it will create
a new structure that might degenerate into a "monster", as Todung
Mulya Lubis said. This broadcasting law marks a setback for
Indonesian press policy. It appears that the political class is
not willing to deal with a media system that is free from
political intervention. Several members of the government and
legislature have already expressed their concern that the Press
Law of 1999 might have gone "too far".

It seems essential that Indonesian society has to make a clear
decision as to whether it wants a liberal or an authoritarian
media system. We cannot have both.

Ironically, there has emerged another threat to press freedom
in Indonesia: The same audience that has demanded press freedom
in the 1990s is now attacking the media whenever certain groups
simply don't like what they read in the paper or watch on
television. This essential loss of tolerance has led to an
atmosphere of permanent and mutual surveillance (Pierre Bourdieu)
among the media: Everyone is waiting for someone else to be brave
and incautious enough to take the chance to report a "hot issue",
such as affairs related to certain religious groups.

The media, however, does change reality by covering reality.
In Indonesia, journalism sometimes becomes a factor within the
dynamics of conflict, as we have seen in Maluku. Christian
journalists reproduce the stereotype of the evil Muslim, and vice
versa. By doing this, the media have accelerated the conflict. I
call this mutual reinforcement and amplification of crisis. On
the other side, many in Indonesia believe that the media can
contribute to de-escalate and pacify conflicts.

2002 has been a bad year for professionalism in journalism,
too. Incompetent and unprofessional journalists are fueling
public hostility to the media. Almost 70 percent of all
Indonesian journalists have no professional education related to
journalism, although 75 percent do hold an S1-degree. The media
sometimes behaves in a disoriented, opportunistic and populist
way. Investigative journalism remains almost a complete fiction;
even critical journalism tends to reinforce the political status
quo.

On the other hand, corruption is quite widespread among
journalists in Indonesia these days. According to a study
conducted this year, 44 percent of all journalists justify and
over 50 percent practice corruption, more or less frequently.
Most striking is the fact that low pay -- contrary to all
expectations -- is only for 20 percent of the interviewed
journalists a reason to accept money or valuable presents from
news sources. In conclusion, the data did not indicate that the
incidence of journalists justifying corruption would decline if
pay were increased. Interesting too: The study could prove that
corrupt journalists are much more likely to work for government
or public media (see chart). where is it?

It seems that the exchange of "envelopes" between journalists
and their news sources is greasing the wheels of the machine of
public opinion in Indonesia. For all persons involved it looks
like a game where everybody is a winner, but as a matter of fact
we all lose. Journalism in losing its autonomy and its face while
the audience is losing its trust in the media.

So, what could be the outlook for 2003? Obviously, everything
depends on the efforts and ability of the media to restore public
trust in itself. Therefore, I suggest the use of already
established instruments to promote and maintain quality in
journalism. This could be, first, efforts to improve journalism
education and further training. Second, scholars could provide an
external view on journalism through stimulating research on
journalists and mass media that may induce some kind of self-
correction. Third, journalism could engage in some introspection
through what we call "media journalism". This means critical
reflection on the media through the media itself.

Fourth, the media needs an effective self-control carried out
by media practitioners. This could be an independent, but
nevertheless strong, press council and voluntary self-control of
television broadcasters and the movie industry. Fifth and
possibly most important, Indonesia needs a reliable legal system.
Even ordinary people need to have a chance to sue the press if
they feel slandered by media coverage. Without a proper legal
system, a democratic society cannot prevent its members from
unprofessional press coverage.

Finally, we need to look at journalism as an intrinsic part of
our society, not as something that is standing in opposition to
it. The task of the media is not to educate, advocate or produce
therapy for society as this is the task of other social
institutions such as the family, teachers and therapists. Today,
the function of the media has shifted to allowing co-orientation
between different perceptions of reality among different people,
groups and cultures.

Because of its specific function in society, it cannot be the
task of the media to free the world from crises, conflicts and
other evils. The media has only limited access to matters that
belong to other systems. Journalists are members of a specific
society; they are socialized within a specific cultural
environment. If society gets worse, journalism will too. If
society gets violent, so will journalism. Peaceful journalism can
only evolve within a culture of peace.