No real information when press is repressed

No real information when press is repressed

The Indonesian press has been accused of having the tendency
to blow up superficial issues and failing to dig into the real
issues. Media analyst Daniel Dhakidae links these practices to
the fear of being banned.

Question: Some say the press is only able to present shallow
reports on given issues, rather than digging into the gist of the
issues. Your comments?

Answer: That's obvious. Why? Because both the business and
editorial activities of the print media are very much dependent
on a publishing license, a SIUPP (which can be easily canceled).

The Indonesian press, therefore, works within a very narrow
corridor. There are so many prohibitions and restrictions they
must pay attention to. It's understandable if they look for
something "safer" to write. However, I don't think it's a
mistake.

Q: Why do you say that?

A: The people wish the press were courageous in their
reporting. It's a misplaced wish. The problem is not whether the
press is daring or not. Besides, they have already proven
themselves gutsy. Since the 1970s, there have been 18
publications banned without any legal process. How can people say
they are not courageous?

The problem is, there is no "institutional linkage" which
makes it possible for the press to work in a natural way. This is
the most basic reason why the press can't report the substance of
an issue. There are so many serious questions behind an issue.
However, they only write on the superficial ones.

There are some possibilities why it is so. First, the real
issue cannot be published. Second, they are not allowed to cover
it. Third, they are not able to do so.

Having such a narrow journalistic space to work within, they
are forced to avoid writing about real issues. Once they reveal a
real issue, some consequence -- it could be anything -- awaits
them.

Q: Why are they afraid of taking the risk of revealing a real
issue?

A: Once they take the risk, no one will support them. Some may
have great concern about them, but it's not an effective concern.
It's not an institutional one.

Take the case of Tempo magazine, which was banned in 1994.
Public support and sympathy conveyed to the magazine only
revealed that we had nothing effective to stop such a thing from
happening. If we had, there would have been no need for Tempo to
die before it went to court. The decision to close or ban a
publication should only be made by a court.

What I'm trying to say is, there is no guarantee that a local
publication won't be banned without legal process. If there was
such a guarantee, I'm quite sure the Indonesian press would be
capable of reporting on real issues. Thus, they write on non-
issues just for fun.

Q: What can we do to get such a guarantee?

A: It's already beyond the press' domain. It's political in
the meaning that the institutional linkage among mass and
government institutions as a whole, including the House of
Representatives, the judicial institutions, the Supreme Court,
etc., doesn't work well. These institutions don't have the guts
to say that something is not right. They are not capable of
making a fair judgment.

In the case concerning the banning of Tempo magazine, for
example, the House of Representatives could have said the banning
was wrong and suggested (that the government should be) suing the
magazine instead.

By so doing (taking the magazine to court), they would have
forced the respective institutions to bind themselves into a
system. This is what I refer to as an "institutional linkage".

Q; What about the freedom of the press, which is always
parroted by government officials?

A: The government doesn't use the term "freedom of the press",
but "free and responsible press". This is unique and funny to me.

The word freedom implies responsibility. Freedom is
responsibility. Responsibility is freedom, from another point of
view. The two words are the two sides of the same coin. It's
those who have freedom who are capable of being responsible.
Every freedom is restricted with responsibility. Responsibility
means immersing oneself in a political and economics process and
refusing to view a political process as a political fate.

Expressing explicitly a "free and responsible press",
therefore, is only saying the obvious.

Q: Does it mean there is no need to restrict the freedom of
press?

A: Every government would surely like their press to write
things just as they want. But we have to realize that what
actually happens to us is often beyond our control. And as far as
I am concerned, our press is responsible enough in doing their
job. They exercise their freedom well. Only a few of them cross
"the line".

Q: Some say we always have our own definition on anything,
including freedom of the press, in defiance against its universal
meaning. Your comment?

A: It happens not only in Indonesia. But the important thing
is that the press should be given enough space to seize the real
issue.

The lack of the chance for the press to do so will render it
incapable of differentiating the real issues from the non-issues.
This can bring damage to the whole country. Every one in the
country will suffer from that. No one will get the real
information. This will, in turn, lead us all to a wrong judgment,
a wrong decision.

We will be swimming in a pool of bubbles. It's very dangerous.
We'll never know how thick the layer of foam is. Anything heavy
will easily make us drown.

Q; What should we do to prevent such a thing from happening?

A: Set up the institutional linkage. The concrete way of doing
it is stop banning the press. Secondly, never think that issuing
a new license for a banned press will solve the real problem. A
halt to bannings of the press is not a dream. It's constitutional
to do so and practical too. (swa)

Daniel Dhakidae is senior researcher at the Research and
Development Department of the Kompas daily.