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.