Does patriotic journalism really exist?

Does patriotic journalism really exist?

Ignatius Haryanto, Vice Executive Director, Institute for Press and
Development Studies (LSPP), Jakarta

Can journalism be categorized as patriotic or unpatriotic?
Media is an information tool, and is provided by people who must
serve their readers, or viewers with information.

It is not the journalists' problem, whether the news they
write or air will benefit one party or many. Since each has his
or her own interests, the media itself cannot satisfy all.

The main problem we face here is the kind of relationship that
should exist between the military the and media during wartime.
Although the military have a special program called embedded
journalists, the military cannot claim that every media
enterprise, domestic or foreign, will support them in Aceh. What
we have seen so far is a restriction of media coverage, and
intimidation of journalists by both the military, GAM and
"unidentified parties", and also investigation of journalists
critical of the warring sides.

The military has asked journalists to support "national
integrity above press freedom", and State Minister of
Communications and Information Syamsul Mu'arif said that the
media had to work "within the framework of the unitary state of
the Indonesian Republic."

A legislator representing the Indonesian Military (TNI), Maj.
Gen. Slamet Supriyadi, echoed military colleagues, saying "there
should be no `coverage of both sides' for the sake of national
interests".

Any demand to undermine a journalist's ethics is like
persuading someone to betray his or her own profession. Covering
both sides of an issue is a principle held sacred in journalism,
as sacred as the facts that a journalist finds in the field.
Likewise, can we force the military to reveal its strategy during
war?

Asking journalists to betray their own ethics is an indication
of the low level of confidence on the part of both warring
parties in their ability to win over the Acehnese people's minds
and hearts. If the government really has the conviction that it
can settle the Aceh problem, it should not worry too much about
the media.

To win the minds and hearts of the Acehnese, the government
and the TNI should prove they are qualified and professional in
settling the Aceh problem, not only with their military approach
but also by giving peace a chance, and conducting the
humanitarian operation as promised.

Agreeing to implement "patriotic journalism" would mean, in
extreme cases, the possibility of journalists lying to their
readers or viewers. And when the public feels that the media
cannot be trusted any longer, the media itself will lose its
credibility in the eyes of the public. Without a trustworthy
media to air its policies, the government will also lose its
credibility.

The warring sides would be better advised to air their views
using their own media. The military, for instance, once had the
dailies Berita Yudha and Angkatan Bersenjata at the national
level, apart from radio stations. Journalists would appreciate
the military if they were accessible, for explaining their
military operation, and how they are able to capture GAM members
and supporters in a professional way who have mixed with the
civilian population.

In a situation of war we can learn from the experience of the
New York Times during the Vietnam war in the 1960s. David
Halberstam, a Times reporter, was sent to Vietnam and lived there
from 1962 to 1964. He approached local people and got different
perspectives -- but his reporting made President J.F. Kennedy
unhappy. Kennedy contacted Times' publisher, Arthur Ochs "Punch"
Sulzberger and demanded that Halberstam be sent home.

Interestingly, Sulzberger rejected Kennedy's demand. For him
the problem was not about whether U.S. policy on Vietnam was
right or wrong, but whether the U.S. government had the right to
tell what the media to do.

Vietnam became a scandal in American history, but Halberstam
was awarded the Pulitzer in 1964 for international reporting. Was
Halberstam being unpatriotic when he covered the war through the
eyes of the Vietnamese people? Or did reports like his become an
early warning for the U.S. government regarding its failed policy
on Vietnam?

History will tell us, whether the current military operation
in Aceh will really win the hearts and minds of the Acehnese.
History will also judge the media, whether mere jargon like
"national integrity" or "unitary state" can really help educate
the general public, the media itself and decision makers on the
issue.