Free press a must in a democratic society

JAKARTA (JP): The reform movement has brought unprecedented freedom to the nation's press.

In a demonstration of its commitment to the spirit of reform, the government revoked a 1984 ruling which gave it the right to revoke press publication licenses shortly after it came to power. Despite this, few believe that the present government will move swiftly to introduce further reforms in the information sector.

However, there are hopes that the government will allow the press to play a much more constructive and professional role in the country's everyday life, and work free from the specter of state interference.

We asked a number of people, including experts and those active in the media, what they thought of Indonesia's newfound press freedom.

Chatib Basri, a lecturer at the University of Indonesia's School of Economics:

I welcome the new press freedom. It's a bit like in 1967 and 1968, when people could say anything they wanted, although there are still some constraints.

For example, newspapers have had lawsuits brought against them. People have the right to answer back to articles published in newspapers.

I don't think it is necessary to have publishing permits (SIUPP) any longer. There is no need for us to limit the number of publications on the market.

It would be better to let public judge the quality of newspapers. People will not buy poor quality publications.

Journalism here is far from ideal. Only a few publications are accustomed to verifying their reports and this must change.

If there are complaints, publishers should act on them and not just remain aloof.

Daddy Heryono Gunawan, chief editor of the new political and economic tabloid Indikator:

Thanks to the reform movement, the government has loosened controls on the press. This should allow publications here to compete on equal terms.

I agree that readers will choose their own publications, so there is no need to limit the number of magazines and journals available to the general public.

It took us less than one month to get our publishing permit, something that would never have happened in the past.

I hope that this press freedom will last forever and I hope that journalists will not abuse it.

Atmakusumah Astraatmadja, director of the Dr. Soetomo Press Institute in Jakarta:

The press have struggled against political and economic repression since the time of the Dutch colonial rule and they will carry on with this struggle even after Indonesia becomes a democratic country.

In modern, democratic countries, press freedom is occasionally impinged upon, but the public's right to information is guarantied by law.

In Indonesia, people who have disagreed with certain news reports have staged demonstrations. That too is an impingement on press freedom, and as such is a form of repression.

There is no need to attempt to restrict the number of publications in the country. Let the readers judge what is good and bad for themselves.

The press will need to listen to people's opinions if they want readers.

It is better to allow a free press to keep the public properly informed rather than to return to relying upon the rumor mill which existed under a strictly controlled press.

Self-censorship should be practiced by journalists using their experience and wisdom rather than by suppression.

Press organizations, of which there are currently about a dozen, need to establish a confederation to maintain their solidarity.

M. Budyatna, a mass communications expert from the University of Indonesia:

The Indonesian press has to learn the art of advocacy.

The government deserves support from the press if it protects the individuals' rights, but equally, the press must criticize the government if it fails in this duty.

Many publications did not report the recent attack on a church in Ujungpandang, South Sulawesi, because they were afraid.

The press should remain alert at all times and provide objective and balanced reports on newsworthy events.

The press does not need to practice self-censorship when dealing with racial, ethnic or religious issues, as long as it maintains an objective stance and avoids one-sided coverage.

Haris Jauhari, chairman of the Indonesian Television Journalists Association: At present, Indonesian press is still learning how to fully utilize the freedom of the press. And the readers are also in the process of learning how to accept and to react to the press freedom.

During the process, some people who disagree with certain news reports raise their critics and the press do not ignore those critics. Instead, they introspect. So at the moment, both the press and the community are having somekind of a dialog.

We can't say whether the press freedom is right or wrong, or whether it has negative impact before the dialog gets to a point, where both the press and the readers will reach an unwritten agreement of their own. And I think it will take between one to two years until both the press and the readers reach such an agreement.

So, in my opinion, there is nothing to worry about the press freedom at the moment. It is still normal and there's nothing to fear of. There might be several media which forget the ethical code. But the readers will decide. It is the readers who will make the choice.

Rev. Samuel Purwadisastra, the head of the Synod of Indonesian Christian Churches:

I agree that the press should print news about the reality of religious disharmony, yet the press should be sensitive to the people's comprehension and level of education.

I think it is good that the disharmony is printed in the open, but not through vulgar exposure. Even though we are not sure whether the recent unrest was a spontaneous consequence of the repression of the New Order era, we realize that in the past religious issues were used to compartmentalize society.

In the past, we glorified unity through slogans, while forgetting that at the grassroots level religious harmony is really frail.

We have to remember that religious harmony could not occur merely through lip service but through a well-laid out program. The accord should not only be limited to the leaders but also extended to the grass roots.

So, although printing such news is beneficial to expose different existing perspectives, we have to realize the grass roots' reading nature, and their level of comprehension.

Sadistic and bombastic headlines undoubtedly attract them. With a limited education, these people will have trouble sorting out news.

With such a vulgar approach, the news will only agitate them. (jun/kod/ste/46)