Off the record? Not for corruption cases

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.