Leaders, media must adapt to changes

Ardimas Sasdi, Staff Writer, The Jakarta Post, ardimas@thejakartapost.com

In what could be viewed as a New Year's gift, President Megawati Soekarnoputri criticized the media over what she called unbalanced reporting of the ongoing protests against the simultaneous hikes in fuel prices and some utility rates.

"The media is not sympathetic to me, they always perceive my words wrongly ...," Megawati complained last Wednesday, adding that the negative reports had resulted in damaging public opinion against her administration.

This is the third time the President has expressed her irritation with the media in the last 12 months.

Last February Megawati rapped the media over the knuckles for its reporting of floods, which inundated most parts of Jakarta, killed more than 30 people and forced 380,000 people to take refuge in temporary shelters.

In August, Megawati again charged the media with blowing out of proportion the plight of tens of thousands of Indonesian workers expelled by Malaysia and stranded in Nunukan, East Kalimantan.

Each time she protested, Megawati reminded the press to remain objective. The calls strengthened public opinion that Megawati is authoritarian and allergic to criticism. Her comments sound strange in a democratic nation.

The President last February even told the media that it had a responsibility to offer solutions to the problems the country was facing. This expectation is beyond the ability of the media because it is not a 'super agency' which can do everything as it does not have the resources to do so. The best the media can do is to offer alternative solutions as they have done in editorials.

In the reform era the press has been under fire from some quarters who regard its coverage as excessive.

The other charges leveled against the media include privacy violations, mixing facts with opinions, trespassing on press ethics, bias, a lack of professionalism, graft and a failure to carry out its mission as a watchdog.

Some of the criticisms are true and have been made by the critics with the intention of encouraging the press community to reflect on its performance.

Indonesian Press Council chairman Atmakusumah Astraatmadja said accuracy and fairness in reporting was not merely a crucial component, but it was 'the soul' or the true spirit of journalism.

The media are aware of the golden rule and have made attempts to the best of their ability to meet the highest possible standards in reporting. The media checks and rechecks facts, and presents reports in a balanced and objective manner to build trust among its readers and advertisers. Big media organizations have even established independent ombudsman commissions, whose duties are to give input to the management on the content of news, including accuracy.

But the task to raise standards in reporting is easier said than done due to some practical reasons: time constraints, space limitations, sources not telling the truth, a lack of access to information and graft.

Framing is another temptation among media. The media can filter information, emphasis and tone, or keep debate within the bounds of acceptable premises in line with political and economic preferences of the owners of the media organizations.

Unintentional bias may also occur in reporting due to limited understanding of events by journalists.

German researcher Thomas Hanitzsch said (The Jakarta Post, Dec. 31, 2002) that almost 70 percent of around 14,000 Indonesian journalists have no professional education related to journalism, although 75 percent do hold an S1 (B.A.) degree.

In the reform era which evolved five years ago, the problem of developing professionalism among journalists was exacerbated by the euphoria of democracy and tougher competition to win readers in line with the rapidly growing number of media outlets.

The case of media bias, blamed as one of the factors behind a love-hate relationship between the leaders as the source of information and the press, is not a unique case of Indonesia. It also happens in other countries even though the form, frequency and gradation is different.

But the existing leaders, including Megawati, are also to be partly blamed for media bias. The last five years has seen a rare type of political communication. Former president Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid talked too much, while Megawati talked too little or talked late and at the wrong time and place. This was demonstrated in her speech to party cadres in Bali on why the government took the bold measures to raise prices of the utilities.

The poor relations worsened after Megawati, for unknown reasons, distanced herself from the press at the beginning of her presidency. The President restricted access through various ways, leaving the media no place to seek information on government policy because the President had no spokesperson.

The media are fully aware of the noble upbringing of Megawati as the daughter of founding president Sukarno, but they cannot comprehend the stance taken by a leader who chooses to stay aloof in her ivory tower amid the deteriorating economic and political condition.

The ups and downs of ties between Megawati and the media followed the pattern of the press relations with Gus Dur.

It is no exaggeration to say that in the beginning the media was a staunch supporter of Megawati because the critical press had been part and parcel of her rise to prominence in the early 1990s from a little known politician.

The media only changed its position against the President last year because of her criticisms against the press and a unique political communication type.

So unclear was the communication strategy of the incumbent government, lately public relations experts have also criticized Megawati. They urged her to stop blaming the media and instead reach out by building a strong communications team to improve the image of her government.

Another factor the President and her advisors might forget is that Indonesia has moved from a controlled press to a free press. In a free press regime, the leaders must expect to get both good and bad press. The leaders cannot generalize a mistake made by one media organization because generalization is always wrong.

The potential for conflict between news sources and the media is bigger in the era of a free press. The solution to this phenomena is both sides must learn and adjust to this changing situation.