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.