Caught between tragedy and propaganda

Caught between tragedy and propaganda

Emmy Fitri, Jakarta

What is the role of the media in the devastation in Aceh?

There is no doubt that the media has shown us the dramatic
realities of the tragedy, prompting a global relief effort unseen
since World War II.

But when interests shift from humanitarian relief to politics,
the media becomes an ideal vehicle for political-laden
propaganda, such as the sort of items that are even now thrust
before us. No longer is the media a conduit to mirror suffering,
it has transformed itself into an agent of dogma.

Headlines in local media would take a different tone
altogether if the tragedy hit -- God forbid -- the coast of Java.

Aceh has been in a state of siege since 1976, when the
Indonesian Military (TNI) launched military operations to combat
separatist (known as GAM) sentiments.

Less than a fortnight after the Dec. 26 tsunami, local
headlines were already moving away from human-interest features
to political discourses about rebels and the state of emergency
in the province. It may have been caused by a glut of sob stories
and the simple demand for something "new", but the scent of news
manipulation has also been detectable.

Learning from the media in Iraq, Jakarta radio stations are
already reading verbatim press releases of separatist incursions
and how soldiers have had to engage rebels blocking off aid
workers.

Press releases are dubious by nature -- especially those from
the TNI -- and journalistic ethics requires double-checking. But
the magnitude of the tsunami may have prompted some media to move
ahead with news items based on "the benefit of the doubt", or
perhaps "the benefit of fear".

At a time when the focus must be on aid, it is sad that the
TNI -- negating its own good work in relief operations in Aceh --
has emphasized the need for continued offensive operations by
patrolling high-ground rebel areas untouched by the tsunami.

Looting, the interdiction of aid convoys and the dangers faced
by civilian volunteers have been cited by the TNI. All,
"surprisingly", have rarely been corroborated by returning
independent volunteers.

Amid the hardships suffered by people in Aceh, an Army general
even claimed that at least 34 skirmishes with rebel forces had
taken place since the tsunami struck.

Indonesia's most popular news portal Detik.com on Jan. 11
quoted that general as saying that operations should continue
since separatists were intent on ambushing aid convoys and
infiltrating refugee shelters.

Maybe Internet journalism does not conform to the same
standards as other media -- not that print journalism has been a
glowing example of good reporting either during this period --
but the failure to verify these statements as fact and the
ambitious move to print such items as truth is astounding.

Strong investigative journalism could well prove many of the
claims made by the TNI so far as less than accurate. Nevertheless
we hear little of this, defiance is limited to internet blogs and
private mail lists.

Such is the pervading sentiment of the GAM threat that even
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, as reported by AFP,
expressed the fear that Australian aid workers could get caught
in a crossfire between the TNI and rebels.

This is a critical period when people hope not only for "good
news" from Aceh, but expect "good reporting". Getting aid to the
tsunami victims is hard enough, it should not be bogged down
further by a political agenda.

While it should take responsibility, the media is not solely
to blame for the angling of Aceh from a stage of humanitarian
crisis to an arena of conflict.

The TNI may well feel increasingly insecure about the
incomparable effective works of foreign troops in Aceh compared
to its own shadowy past in the province.

While the attitude of the TNI or the government cannot
immediately be rectified, the "independent" media must firmly
adhere to professional principles and remain neutral.

Something is wrong with our understanding of humanity when we
-- the media, the TNI, the government and the general public --
accept the exploitation of a humanitarian crisis for political
interests.

In the age of dogma and despot, it was "patriotic" to swallow
propaganda whole. But, in the new republic, the public's --
especially the media's -- paramount loyalty is to the truth.

To swerve from that allegiance would surely mean the sword has
become mightier than the pen.