Indonesian broadcasters lose moral high ground

Martin Jenkins, Editor, Danareksa Sekuritas, Jakarta

The downfall of Soeharto's New Order regime back in 1998 marked the start of a new chapter for Indonesia's broadcasting industry. Since then, the industry has transformed itself in a broadcasting revolution that has seen much of the staid and conservative programming replaced with increasingly controversial and risque material.

And with competition in the industry so fierce -- there are now 10 private TV stations vying for advertising revenues -- it seems that there is little that the TV stations won't broadcast in a bid to attract viewers. So what does the industry need to do to put its house in order?

A good start would be for broadcasters to put an end to the totally unacceptable way in which they exploit real life violence and bloodshed to pander to the viewers' lowest base instincts. This can be seen most vividly in the way that the TV stations cover crime stories in programs such as Fakta as aired on ANTV, for instance, when nothing is thought of showing the bloodied body of some unfortunate murder victim that even the most avid gore fest fan should find reprehensible. The bloodshed is shown merely for its own sake: the crime story could easily have been reported without having to stoop to such low levels.

Do the broadcasters even stop for one minute to think about what sort of an impact their images will have on the families or friends of the murder victim? And surely the murder victim him or herself deserves to be treated with a little more dignity before they are carted off to the nearest morgue and not be depicted as just another dead body. After all, these murder victims are not playing dead and, unlike the actors in a Hollywood film, will not simply get up and go home when the TV cameras have finished filming!

Also of concern is that such images, if seen often, could have a desensitizing and numbing effect on the viewing public, which might in the long run bring about a more violent society. And have the broadcasters considered the negative impact on children who might happen to be watching these gory programs that are often shown in the early evening? It is also the case that the broadcasting of such TV programs may serve to exaggerate the perceived dangers in the community, scaring people into adopting more cautionary behavior even when the risks of being murdered are probably far lower, say, than being killed in a traffic accident.

Nonetheless, it is also true that the ethical issues become much more complicated when there is a political dimension to the news story being shown. A picture says more than a thousand words, or so goes the old adage.

Recently in the U.S., for example, some TV stations took the decision to broadcast the grisly images of four U.S. security guards who had been burned and their mutilated corpses hung from a bridge in Falluja, Iraq. But while the TV producers had to be mindful of the pain the images would cause to the families of the dead and the potential revulsion of viewers, some of them decided to go ahead and show the footage. The clear difference here though is that the images were not shown simply to satiate bloodthirsty desires, but rather as an attempt to portray the intensity of the hatred that some Iraqis feel toward the American occupation of their country.

Of course, in political affairs, broadcasters are often treading a tightrope. It may be deemed okay to show the body of a dead Palestinian freedom fighter, for example, but would it also be acceptable to show the body of a dead Israeli schoolgirl killed in a suicide bombing? And on how many occasions have Indonesian television stations dared to show the pictures of an Indonesian soldier killed in the restive province of Aceh since the military crackdown began in May 2003?

Such thought-provoking and disturbing images can have a devastating impact. Indeed, it is well known that the images of dead U.S. troops in Vietnam did much to sway American opinion against the war and finally persuade the U.S. government to concede defeat.

These concerns serve to underline how important it is for broadcasters to play fairly and abide by a decent code of ethics emphasizing the principles of truth, fairness, integrity, independence and accountability, especially in dealing with such sensitive matters as death and violence.

But it is not as if the Indonesian broadcasters are unaware of the problems: They have already accepted that there is a need for effective self-regulation. Indeed, the Association of Indonesian Private Television Stations (ATVSI) has issued guidelines on ethics for broadcasting content in an effort to address the problems. And the Indonesian police too have warned the media over the disturbing content of its crime reporting.

The problem is that the broadcasters just do not want to listen. The complaints from the public fall on deaf ears. Self- regulation is clearly not working. So, is now not the time that the government says enough is enough and applies appropriate sanctions to force the broadcasters to change their ways?