Media union need not be seen as confrontational

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.