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.