Media union need not be seen as confrontational

Ati Nurbaiti, Chairperson Alliance of Independent Journalist (AJI), Jakarta

An intriguing feature of Indonesian journalism, to outsiders in particular, is the "envelope culture". It is an extension of pervasive corruption, with the similar principal of "you rub my back and I rub yours" -- but with the greater risk of affecting not only those who have their backs rubbed, but the public.

We are told that since the "envelope" is a cultural thing, there is little that can be done about it. Senior journalists, however, shake their heads saying they did not see such a massive scale of this "culture" in their days. Along with rising consumerism in the 1970s, journalists, with their humble label of kuli tinta (laborers of ink), became caught up in the growing acceptance of press workers receiving an expression of gratitude or friendship from sources.

In time, "bribery" became unclear, especially when sources would tell young journalists in an imposing way that they had no other intention than giving a small token of fatherly love, and that it would be impudent to reject such gifts.

Despite journalists' code of ethics which do not allow the acceptance of cash or gifts, or similar other things, it is largely the journalist's management which influences the strict application of the code.

So far it has been the established large media organizations which have managed this in a fairly consistent way, which also means that their journalists have far less of an excuse to accept "envelopes".

However, the majority of the country's journalists work in media organizations which pay them indecent wages; last year the Alliance of Independent Journalists noted that in the country's second largest city of Surabaya there were journalists still paid Rp 100,000 a month; and in Manado, North Sulawesi where the minimum wage was then Rp 500,000, there were journalists paid Rp 300,000.

No one can hope for a benevolent employer forever thinking of employees' welfare, as some journalists think. When journalists themselves rise higher in the management ranks, they also need to think of the long-term needs of the corporation than they previously would.

One then needs to look further into one factor that so far features less in the debate of the envelope culture, which relates to inadequate wages -- the press union.

The nature of the press union is still debatable here, particularly with journalists striving for a 20 percent share in the media ownership. But the alternatives do not make sense -- journalists relying more on their news sources than their management for more income, or employers trying to manage any sign of unrest through "family-like" approaches to journalists while their organizations get so big that the "children" don't know each other.

Working in the press for some time gives you an idea of how colleagues can work for so many years on a persistently small wage, though they try to seek other, more promising media organizations.

In one typical day on a particular beat, the journalist meets new and old sources, all of which he or she cultivates good relations with. While the office may pose an uncaring face when it comes to journalists' welfare, the sources are sympathetic of his or her hard and long hours. No source will complain of extortion when extending some help to such friends.

The problem is of course that the journalist also works for the public through the broadcasting or publication of his work, which may be slanted to the benefit of his friend -- unless this is noticed by the editor.

However the decades-long rhetoric of stopping the "envelope culture" will go nowhere as long as journalists prefer not to appear to confront their employers, when they can ensure medication for sick children or tuition for a daughter's education through a much better, congenial network of their sources.

Public access to products of better journalism would be better ensured if journalists were independent, as people suppose they are. But independence does not come about only through rhetoric.

In the media industry the natural relation of employers and employees needs to be recognized -- the often differing interests of one seeking more income and the other seeking more profit.

Indeed this seemingly confrontational image of unions is a constraint largely avoided in the press industry. Problems of welfare can afford to go under the carpet because employees do not demand much of their employers, unlike in the factory.

Journalists also do not like to think of themselves as workers; former minister of information Harmoko said we were professionals not entitled to set up unions, while the law says that anyone receiving a wage is an employee. Only the Indonesian word is the revolutionary sounding buruh, which under the New Order was associated with revolt and its sister of that time, communism.

Hence the allergy to activism including among journalists despite their own need of association.

The days of rebellion may be gone without the obvious sight of a ruler thirsty for press control. Nowadays, a union need not be seen in the light of confrontation, but as a natural part of the media industry, as a means to bridge differing interests of management and employees -- while colleagues can issue the morning paper in the conviction that they are beholden only to the public interest.