Journalism must maintain truth
I would like to emphasize the importance of maintaining truth and accuracy in the press, with reference to some recent events in Indonesia and the United States of America.
The press has always taken pride in being society's watchdog, but we must always remember to ask: who watches over the press itself? Does freedom of the press also means freedom to insinuate, exaggerate, misinform, distort, and even violate ideals of truth in journalism?
In the United States, where the Clinton sex scandal is making headlines, members of the press are tripping over one another to get the latest scoop, including sordid details of the president's alleged affair with a White House intern.
Commenting on the Clinton affair, the director of America's Project for Excellence in Journalism has said, "The state of our press is dreadful. We are at a low point in journalism now. In the rush to get news out, serious mistakes have been made by the press." He added that since the days of Nixon's Watergate scandal, "the level of verification (required) to publish a story is much, much lower".
The problem isn't that the press reports news, it's how they report it. Current surveys suggest the U.S. public are fed up with the way the press covers news. In a recent poll, the majority of people questioned felt that the press had exceeded reasonable limits. Perhaps reflecting this disenchantment, public support for Clinton's professional performance remains high.
What of press practices regarding newsworthy events in Indonesia? Although last year's forest fires and resultant haze were indeed disasters, a weekly newspaper published a map showing the area affected by haze reaching South toward Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean. People in southern areas of Indonesia know this not to be the case -- their daily lives were unaffected by the smog. Nevertheless, Indonesian tourism suffered as a result of such reporting worldwide.
Recently, an international newspaper's front-page story led off with the words: "Riots have broken out in two towns of Indonesia's main island of Java." The article insinuated that current economic problems could lead to civil disorder on a scale last seen in 1966. Furthermore, the article stated that there was "an effort by the government to use the minority (ethnic Chinese) as a scapegoat for its political and economic problems".
In the 30 years I have lived in Indonesia I had never before heard mention of Kragan, one of the towns afflicted by rioting. The town is small and isolated, so riots there seem unlikely to spread. The other town affected, Sarang, was not even in my quite comprehensive atlas. But the world, alas, now probably believes these two towns are nerve centers of Indonesia.
As for scapegoating the "ethnic Chinese": the government's policy has always been to minimize ethnic distinctions. And truthfully, what exactly does that term mean anyway? Visit the British Council in Jakarta, and you'll find an entry for the Indonesian word peranakan, meaning anyone here of mixed blood, in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Shouldn't millions of local, so- called "ethnic Chinese" rightfully be called "ethnic Indonesians", in view of the other part of their ancestry? Besides being divisive and alarmist, the reporter was simplistic to boot.
The final objection that I wish to air is the claim that ethnic Chinese have been "forced" to change their names in order to sound Indonesian. I wish those people in Paris, where the publication in question is edited, would inform the world that there are prominent Indonesians named Liem Swie King, Onghokham and Kwik Kian Gie etc. Is grabbing readers' attention at the expense of the whole truth acceptable in journalism nowadays?
FARID BASKORO
Jakarta