Local media: Good news, bad news

Local media: Good news, bad news

Tessa Piper, Media Consultant, Jakarta

In his article entitled Press freedom no guarantee of
professionalism (The Jakarta Post, Jan. 8) Harry Bhaskara points
to some of the key challenges facing the media today. At the same
time, Bhaskara is critical of the media's abuse of its new found
freedoms and its lack of professionalism.

I would be the first to agree with him that there are numerous
examples to be found of the media's failure to live up to
appropriate standards of professionalism, and there is no
question that much work needs to be done to raise those
standards. I take issue, however, with Bhaskara's view that the
media's performance during 2001 was disappointing. It seems to me
that these days there is too much tendency to focus on the
negative aspects of the Indonesian media, and to ignore or deny
the many positive developments that have occurred in the industry
since the fall of the New Order government.

Just four years ago, for example, who would have been able to
envisage the media openly raising issues of corruption and
malfeasance at the highest political levels, and conducting in-
depth investigations in order to unearth the truth? Abuse of
power, impunity, human rights violations, all are now topics of
everyday discussion in the media. The taboo of reporting on
religious, racial, and other forms of conflict has also been well
and truly smashed, resulting in the public finally being able to
better understand the complexities of the violence prevalent in
various parts of the country.

True, these reports have not to put an end to corruption, or
solved any of the myriad conflicts around Indonesia. But what
media in the world could or should aspire to achieve such things?
The role of the media is to disseminate the facts. Let's not fall
into the trap here of blaming the messenger, when in fact it is
public policy and the legal system that should be addressing the
root causes of these problems.

The tendency to do so points to a misconception about the role
of the media prevalent among many government officials and
members of the public. Just as the media itself is having to
adjust to a sea change in the way it is now allowed to operate,
so too do citizens need to understand the proper role of the
media in a democracy. The media should not be allowed to act
irresponsibly, but it is for the legal system to deal with
recalcitrant media, not the government and certainly not mob
rule.

Meanwhile, there is still a great deal that needs to be done
to assist the Indonesian media to mature into an industry that
can fulfill its role as the fourth estate and a watchdog on
government. Support is required not only in the form of programs
designed to make a speedy and visible impact, but also for longer
term initiatives, such as the establishment of strong indigenous
educational institutions that can ensure sustained media
development long into the future.

Worryingly, though, there is talk in development circles of
phasing out support for programs designed to help professionalize
the media. The rationale for this apparently includes that such
support has already been going on for some time and is therefore
no longer needed (clearly incorrect), or else that the media has
failed to demonstrate meaningful change for the better despite
such assistance in the past. Certainly, we can all throw up our
hands when hearing of tendentious and at times downright
inflammatory reporting, and despair of the complete lack of
adherence to basic ethical norms by certain media seemingly
guided purely by business interests with no concern for accuracy
and accountability. But isn't that precisely why more work needs
to be done to help the media improve its performance?

It is unrealistic to expect the media to throw off the
shackles of over three decades of restrictions and censorship
overnight. No one anticipated that it would be possible to
overhaul the country's deeply flawed legal system in just a few
years, and there appears to be no indication that the significant
international financial and technical support for legal reform
initiatives is waning. So why is it that the media is expected to
be able to evolve effortlessly from an industry constantly
battling ever shifting limits on freedom of expression in the
Soeharto era, into a fully developed professional institution, in
the space of just a few years?

What we are witnessing now are the growing pains of a
profession that is having to grapple with the radical changes it
is experiencing in its working environment. The
professionalization of the media is part of the process of
transition to democracy that requires time, determination and
concrete support. In that process there will likely be a mix of
progress, stagnation, and backsliding. This is true not only in
the media, but is also something we witness every day in both the
political and legal arenas.

Let's not forget the situation from which the Indonesian media
has emerged in these few short years, nor minimize the very real
challenges that it is confronting to metamorphose into the kind
of media that can be hoped for and expected in a democracy.
History can't be erased, and changes cannot be achieved
overnight. It will require considerable time and effort for the
Indonesian media to take full advantage of the changed political
environment, just as the government and citizens are having to
make fundamental changes to their own thinking and ways of
operating.

The challenges are many, and there will likely be many more
examples of irresponsible and/or ignorant media reporting before
we reach that point. But, next time we rush to criticize yet
another example of poor media professionalism, let's remember
just how far the media has come in this short space of time since
Soeharto's fall, and be grateful for the progress -- albeit at
times frustratingly slow -- already made.