Off the record? Not for corruption cases

By Sirikit Syah

SURABAYA (JP): Amid heightened tension resulting from his conflict with the House of Representatives (DPR), President Abdurrahman Wahid (or someone running his errands) reportedly called up the state news agency Antara and told it not to run a news item in which he was quoted as saying: "I will freeze the DPR".

The grounds cited for this reported gag attempt? That the remark was made off the record and its release might aggravate the political tension -- originating from the enmity between him and the legislators -- already besetting the country.

If this is true, then Abdurrahman, also referred to as Gus Dur, once hailed as a proponent of democracy and freedom of the press, has regrettably resorted to the New Order's abhorred practice of controlling the media through telephone calls known as budaya telepon.

Such actions violate article 4 of Law No. 40/99 relating to the press, which stipulates against the practice of censorship, closure or gag attempts. A maximum penalty of two years imprisonment or a fine of Rp 500 million can be imposed on violators.

Mohammad Sobary, the chief of Antara recently appointed by Gus Dur, could report the President to the police. But then, maybe such a measure was necessary, given how the attempted gag leaked to other media resulting in an item of information, that was supposedly made off the record, rapidly becoming public knowledge.

What we do not know for sure is whether Gus Dur had indeed requested that his remarks be considered off the record. Because if he had, and Antara had still tried to run the story, then the reporter or the media would have violated Indonesian journalism ethics.

The Indonesian Journalists' Code of Ethics, endorsed in 1999 by 26 journalist associations, stipulates in chapter 6 that journalists have the right to reject or accept embargoes and off the record information in accordance with an agreement between the relevant parties.

What if the reporter refuses to accept information given off the record?

David S. Broder, a senior journalist at The Washington Post left an interview with then US State Secretary Henry Kissinger when the latter demanded the interview be kept off the record. "No sense in my staying and listening to you speak at great lengths when I cannot publish the interview," Broder told Kissinger.

But there are reporters who are willing to listen to their sources speaking on background information in order to be able to dig further and launch into in-depth investigative reporting.

The information could be used to seek confirmation from other parties, or as documentation. That was what The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein did before they were able to uncover the Watergate scandal and force President Nixon out of office.

The fact remains that the Indonesian code of journalism stipulates respect for "off the record" statements. Inexperienced journalists may need to learn what their sources mean when they say "off the record". There are sources who are clear about keeping their information as "background" (meaning that no part of it is to be published) and others who want to become "unidentified sources".

There are risks to accepting such information, including inaccuracy and weak information, for instance when the sources are actually unqualified to provide the information, or do not have the authority to do so. Sometimes such sources are not the witnesses or actors of a reported action. Eventually, it is the public who is put at a disadvantage.

The media, on the other hand, still win because they are protected by the press law stipulation on "rights to refute": journalists can legally refuse to name their sources of inaccurate information.

One Surabaya resident recently asked the private-run Radio Suara Surabaya why the media were able to leak proceedings from the closed sessions of the House of Representatives discussing the President's alleged involvement in the Buloggate financial scandal.

In this case, however, the media were not to blame and reporters had not turned down any request for off the record treatment. What really happened was that some legislators had violated their own ethics by disseminating information from the closed meetings to the press, even under conditions of anonymity.

The press had not broken any rules -- at least no media rules. Private television station SCTV once broadcast a source, facing the camera and speaking into the microphone, saying "this is off the record". Of course millions of Indonesians watched that.

Another station, Indosiar, and maybe other stations, broadcast the meeting between President Abdurrahman, journalists and their chief editors at the presidential palace. The station's narrator said, "The President has told the press that the meeting was only silaturahmi (a casual meeting to improve relations) and its contents should be kept off the record."

How insulting to the public's intelligence.

The gist of the matter is actually how the media can satisfy the public's right to information. Massive rallies launched by both supporters and opponents of Gus Dur are examples of the public need for clear information about the legislature's meetings discussing the financial scandals involving the President.

The public wanted answers to rumors and speculation. People wanted to know what facts had been collected and how those facts led legislators to conclude that the President was involved. This is especially true because legal experts have frequently told interviewers about the need to distinguish between "objective facts", questioned "interpretations", "opinions" etc.

Because the public wanted to know whether the President had indeed been involved, there should not have been any "off the record" treatment; all facts and information should have been provided transparently.

To satisfy the people's right to information the House should have made public all of its reports, its factions' remarks and even recordings of testimonies by all those involved in the scandals.

The House should not have issued fragmented, selected pieces of information which served only its members' political interests. The House could even have asked the media to run those reports continuously.

If this option was too costly for the media, then the public rights to factual information could have been met by the two parties that support the President, the National Awakening Party (PKB) and the Love the Nation Democratic Party (PDKB), could have disseminated their views on the House's findings.

It is true that the PKB and PDKB factions at the House were a minority in their position, but British social commentator John Stuart Mill's remark is pertinent to this situation: even when everybody has the same opinion and there is only one person with an opinion that is contradictory to the public, his voice should not be muzzled.

The opinion of one person, meanwhile, must not override the voice of everyone else even if that person holds power.

It is clear that in matters of state affairs in the life of a nation, and when it comes to the rights of the people, we cannot have an "off the record treatment" on information regarding the suspected involvement of a President in corrupt practices.

The writer is based in Surabaya. She lectures at the Dr Soetomo University and is an activist at the media watch organization Lembaga Konsumen Pers.