Indonesian broadcasters: Losing the moral high ground

Indonesian broadcasters: Losing the 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?