Conflict in Aceh and agenda-setting by TV

Conflict in Aceh and agenda-setting by TV

Agus Sudibyo, Coordinator, Program Monitoring of Aceh
ISAI, Jakarta

In performing its social function, the mass media is more than
just a source of information for the public. Ideally, the mass
media must possess a particular framework or adopt a particular
strategy to ensure that reporting will not be oriented only
toward day-to-day events and issues, but will also be geared
towards molding public opinion about a particular subject.

The mass media must stimulate the public to seriously think
about a particular problem and wield influence over policy makers
when they make a decision that is concerned with the well-being
of the public. It is in this context that the concept of agenda-
setting by the mass media comes into play.

The question of agenda-setting is highly relevant when viewing
the performance of the mass media in covering the conflict raging
in Aceh.

Has the media demonstrated consistency in its reports about
Aceh? Has the media showed a very clear focus in its reporting?
How significant are these questions in respect of the principle
of the media as a social institution? The Institute for the Free
Flow of Information Studies (ISAI) has been monitoring the mass
media's reporting of Aceh since July 28, 2003.

With the help of the content analysis method, a study has been
conducted to identify the tendencies of the country's television
stations in their coverage of the conflict in Aceh.

The television stations monitored for this study are RCTI,
Metro TV, SCTV, Indosiar, TVRI, ANTV, TPI, Trans TV, TV7 and
Lativi. The findings of this study may answer the questions
referred to earlier.

The results of the monitoring show that less and less
attention has been paid to the discourse on Aceh lately.
Gradually, the television stations have reduced the intensity of
their coverage of Aceh.

In the early monitoring period (July 28, 2003 up to Aug. 6,
2003), there were a total of 470 news reports aired on TV, while
in the second monitoring period (Aug. 7-15, 2003), the total
number of reports aired went down to 388 and in the fourth period
(Aug. 26, 2003 -- Sept. 4, 2003) the number of reports on the
conflict in Aceh that the television stations aired dived further
to 268. By comparison, prior to and in the early days of martial
law in Aceh -- in May and June 2003 -- the conflict in Aceh made
the headlines in the print and electronic media every day.

Today, however, Aceh is no longer a priority for television
reporting. Fresh and more up-to-the-minute issues have taken its
place in television coverage. A number of television stations
have also changed their editorial policy about this matter.

Aceh has lost its attraction and has given way to more
"happening" issues such as the purchase of Sukhoi jet fighters,
the bomb blast at the J.W. Marriot Hotel, the preparations for
the 2004 general elections and the violence at the Public
Administration College (STPDN) in Jatinangor.

Nevertheless, it should also be borne in mind that war is
still raging in Aceh and the conflicting parties are continuing
to engage in violence. In point of fact, it is the power of the
media that can most realistically be expected to control how
power is exercised there. It must be underlined that the
intensity of the reports on Aceh between April and June 2003 made
the public focus their attention on the problems related to this
province. The public consequently became highly dependent on the
media to be able to keep abreast of developments in the conflict.

Unfortunately, consistency seems to be elusive in this
respect. The television stations, which at one stage were
tripping over each other with reports on Aceh, have just as
easily forgotten it. We are witnessing, therefore, a tendency to
let the coverage flow without any clear patterns or goals.

Eventually, it is considerations based on market psychology
that play the bigger role in determining the extent to which an
issue continues to capture the attention of the mass media.

From the aspect of reporting focus, there has been no
significant change in the preference of television stations in
exposing the reality of Aceh as first of all "the reality of
violence." Coverage of killings perpetrated by both conflicting
parties on the battlefield continues to dominate television news.

This coverage is allotted a much bigger portion than, for
example, reports on the conflict in Aceh viewed from the side of
the victims or the displaced people. As much as 51.9 percent of
the news analyzed has been centered on the players in the
conflict. By contrast, only 14.2 percent of total news analyzed
has been focused on the victims of the conflict.

Killings and violence continue to assume greater significance
in reporting compared with the condition of the displaced
Acehnese or the victims. Scenes depicting violence seem to
quickly satisfy the curiosity of a part of the public about
developments in Aceh.

The social functions of the mass media should place the media
in a position where it can question the urgency of a war.
Unfortunately, it is hard to imagine that the media will ever be
in such a position unless they adequately focus themselves on the
humanitarian and human rights dimensions of a war. This focus,
alas, has been missing in the TV coverage of Aceh.

Another conclusion that can be derived from this study is that
television -- a form of electronic media -- is still allowing
itself to be overly dependent on the government's official
sources. The study shows that 60.8 percent of the sources that
the television stations quoted during the monitored periods (July
28, 2003 -- Sept. 4, 2003) were official government sources: The
Indonesian Army, the police force, the government and the House
of Representatives.

By comparison, only 4.1 percent of the sources quoted came
from the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and 11.6 percent from Acehnese
community figures and residents. The media has continued to voice
the psychological reality of the power elite, particularly the
Indonesian Army.

Therefore, the media, actually, are still facing difficulties
in freeing itself from the government's reporting framework. The
biggest loss that arises from this situation is that the mass
media has failed to present a balanced discussion on the conflict
in Aceh. Furthermore, there is still a latent weakness in
television in satisfying the "cover both sides" principle.

This study shows that 51.9 percent of the total news reports
analyzed failed to satisfy this principle. It is a shame that
television continues to neglect one of the most essential
principles of journalism -- something that it is actually not so
very hard to satisfy.