Journalism must maintain truth

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