Media and democracy

Media and democracy

The House of Representatives this week began debating the
long-awaited Bill on Broadcasting, a bill this nation urgently
needs to provide a legal framework for the broadcasting industry.
The document was drafted by the government, and as Minister of
Information Harmoko told the House's plenary session when he
introduced the bill on Monday, it is the result of extensive
discussions with mass media experts as well as representatives of
the broadcasting industry.

So much has changed in these last five to 10 years that
reviewing the current legislations as well as the various
government rules affecting the broadcasting industry has indeed
become imperative. For one, we have witnessed the introduction of
commercial television in Indonesia, in a medium which has long
been the monopoly of the government with TVRI. There is a growing
number of foreign stations beaming their programs straight into
Indonesian living rooms. And then there is the arrival of the
Internet, a new phenomenon which is still baffling regulators
around the world.

In more advanced countries, radio, television, and the print
media are widely recognized as important democratic institutions.
The legislative document now in the hands of House members
implicitly recognizes this factor when it states, in the opening
paragraph, that "radio and television as electronic communication
media have a formidable ability to influence people's opinions,
attitudes and behavior."

Having recognized their influence over public opinion, the
bill then fails to address this theme in full. Instead, the 58
chapters of the 39-page document concentrate on regulation of the
industry, mostly through the licensing mechanism.

One of the most pressing issues in Indonesia's broadcasting
industry is ending the monopoly that TVRI and its sister station,
radio network RRI have over news broadcasting. While TVRI and RRI
deserve praise for bringing the news to millions of households
across Indonesia every day for all these years, most people agree
that a choice of news sources is essential in any democracy.
Before the bill was unveiled, there was a growing expectation
that commercial stations would soon be providing viewers with a
wider choice of news sources.

Sadly, the bill does not propose ending the government's
monopoly; indeed, on this matter, it is rather vague. A single
chapter is devoted to this issue, and it only states that private
networks may broadcast news only "with the consent of the
government".

This reminds us uncomfortably of the 1982 Press Law which
subjects newspapers to the same treatment, requiring the print
press to obtain a publishing license from the government. While
the press law is ironically more explicit than the Bill on
Broadcasting in recognizing newspapers' role in democracy, this
has not stopped the government from revoking licenses by invoking
the 1984 Minister of Information Decree that gives the government
that power. How many newspapers and magazines have been abruptly
shut down this way, when the government could have taken legal
action, which is permitted by the 1982 Press Law ? Many would
consider this a better way to go about things, as it gives
newspapers a chance to defend themselves.

Given that the broadcasting bill was drafted by the Ministry
of Information which oversees the country's entire media
industry, it is of course understandable that it should be more
concerned about regulating the industry. The growing public
unease about pornography and violence on television, and the
current debate about the dubbing of all foreign programs into
Indonesian, in the name of cultural pride, underpin this
attitude.

Yet a law should not simply give a list of don'ts. It should
also provide guarantees to those affected by the law: in this
case, both the broadcasting industry and the public.

Regulation and licensing are necessary to ensure order, but
House members should not lose sight of the bigger picture. This
bill could do our nation a greater service by allowing television
and radio to play their part in our democracy. The government
might also draw some lessons from the press law, and avoid the
pitfalls that led to the closures of some newspapers and
magazines.