Broadcasting subject to public censorship: Experts

Broadcasting subject to public censorship: Experts

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Public censorship of television or radio programs is much more
effective than any regulations enforced by government offices or
other institutions, broadcasting practitioners said.

They suggested, therefore, that the government and legislators
revise the controversial broadcasting bill, which retains the
censor's scissors in the hands of the government.

Ishadi S.K. of the Indonesian Television Association (ATVSI)
insisted that control or evaluation over broadcast programs
should be exercised only after those programs were aired.

"Control over the content of programs before they go on the
air is considered a threat (to press freedom). An evaluation of a
program is normally carried out after it has been broadcast,"
Ishadi, a former director general of radio, television and film,
told a discussion here.

Abdul Rachman of the Telecommunications Society (Mastel),
meanwhile suggested that if evaluations were to be made
compulsory, they should be carried out by the broadcasting
community itself.

Both practitioners were commenting on the provisions of the
widely-criticized broadcasting bill, which gives the Indonesian
Broadcasting Commission (KPI) the power to determine the
standard, quality, content, and classification of programs.

The KPI is also authorized to draft regulations and codes of
conduct for broadcasters.

The membership of the commission includes government
officials.

Leo S. Batubara, a staunch critic of the bill, suspected that
the bill was designed to hamper press freedom.

"With all these articles, the KPI takes over the roles of the
Directorate for Radio, Television and Film, which acted like a
monster," said Leo of the Indonesian Press and Broadcasting
Society (MPPI).

All the practitioners agreed that a better broadcasting bill
was needed to protect television and radio stations from angry
mobs, possibly agitated by false report about the stations.

Responding to the demands, legislator Djoko Susilo, who also
spoke at the discussion, acknowledged that he saw some
problematic articles drafted by government officials.

According to Djoko, he and fellow legislators rejected some
articles that gave the government the power to meddle in
broadcasting affairs.

"But what can I do when most of the legislators support the
role of the government?" he asked.

Legislators and government officials are currently promoting
the controversial bill among the general public throughout the
country.

They are making trips to a number of regional towns to hear
the views of the people with a view to making revisions to the
bill.

Despite all the promises, the chairman and members of the
House working committee have made it clear that further
deliberation on the bill would not result in significant changes.

Legitimate government intervention

- Article 17: through regulations on the number and coverage of
local, regional, and national broadcasting
stations; in media cross-ownership

- Article 28: in the issuance of licenses

- Article 29: in guidance for broadcasters

- Article 30: in networking

- Article 31: in broadcasting equipment

- Article 61: all these articles to be further provided for by
government decree.