Media besieged by nationalist zealots

Otto Syamsuddin Ishak, Sociologist, Jakarta

The performance of and controversy over journalists in the context of the Aceh war and what they experience brings to mind the words of the historian H. Julien Benda who in 1927 wrote The betrayal of the intellectuals. Journalists are one of the components of the intelligentsia, a group which believes, according to Benda, that "our kingdom is not in this world."

The media reconstructs war scenes from moment to moment so that the mindset of society is formed. Therefore, journalists constitute some of the main actors in formatting the judgment, thought and action of laymen, soldiers and the other intellectuals -- like cultural observers and ulema -- particularly regarding Aceh. The testimony of journalists about the various events in the Aceh war makes them strategic figures to be placed under control -- if not domination -- by the warring parties and those with political, economic and cultural interests in this war.

Journalists are subject to "provocation" by various parties involved in the war. Among this type of provocation is the sort emanating from intellectuals of this post-New Order era. Unlike intellectuals in the past, who were very critical of the regime's policies, "post-reform" intellectuals tend to be "embedded" in the regime or are also among the political actors.

These intellectuals, as portrayed by Benda, are those overwhelmingly imbued with worldly or nationalistic political zeal.

In this case, the Aceh war has been turned into an arena to split society into nationalists and traitors to the nationalist cause. It is an arena to attain practical aims by strange justifications, out of hatred toward separatism and a fascist- like obsession with state integrity.

The result is a failure to anticipate the effect of the war on civilians, including those who uphold human rights and are enthusiastic about building a democratic political system.

In this condition the state has become idolatrously worshiped with the sacrifice of innocent people's blood. Such "embedded" intellectuals would tell journalists head on, that press freedom should be given up to help the nation gain victory in this war -- the result being the alienation of the Acehnese.

Similar to such intellectuals, the military points to reports which lack nationalism and even "side with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM)". And among the public, a recent magazine poll revealed that 56.4 percent of respondents also considered the press to be overtly partial to GAM. Actually what has happened is that journalists have quoted TNI representatives about a certain event and then they also exposed the testimony of victims. The intense military propaganda has successfully formed laymen's opinions as reflected in a poll that 56.4 percent of them consider journalists to be on GAM's side.

Such views make us understand the reason behind attacks on journalists and rights activists -- nationalist zeal. The attackers on the office of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) in May claimed to be offspring of retired military members, thus implying that vocal opposition to the war ran contrary to the stance of their parents, perceived to be among the founders and defenders of the republic. Thus one sees the simple view of history for the sake of one party being capable of holding the strongest claim over nationalism.

Indonesian journalists are being besieged by the above three factors -- "provocation" by "nationalist" intellectuals, the threats of the military and the condemnation of members of the public. The principle that applies here is that nationalism, rather than morality, determines war.

Journalists with a conscience have expressed their feelings in covering the war. One of them e-mailed a colleague: "My coverage from Aceh that reached you is obviously no longer accurate. It's no longer a firsthand report and it has been no doubt spiced up with heroism ..." In another case revealing difficulties in covering this war, civilian witnesses have been questioned by the military a day after a report included the words of the witnesses, which were "twisted" by the editor, according to a journalist of the paper.

In another case, a private TV producer and journalist was eventually dismissed, reportedly in connection with reports on Aceh, which suggest how the station's chief editor ignores the responsibility for programs produced by his journalists, who are left to face the risks alone from parties unhappy with the reports. However, the management has claimed that he was not promoted following assessment of his contract.

Therefore journalists have the potential to become part of the chain of intellectuals, the warring parties and the public who fear the exposure of the truth for the sake of their respective "nationalistic" interests. This is made possible, as Benda writes, by worship of an overtly militaristic spirit and a brutal instinct for war.