Partisan media in danger of violation

Religion-oriented media have long had their respective readerships. However, they have become controversial in the wake of recent developments, mainly the bloody conflict in Maluku. The Jakarta Post talked to media expert Andi Muis who is based in Makassar, South Sulawesi, on the issue. An excerpt of the interview, the last in a series on the Islamic media, follows:

Question: What do you think of the Islam-oriented media these days?

Answer: Such media are directed toward religious propagation, media dakwah, which by definition is partisan. However, they cannot be so 100 percent, because they are also a press industry which must sell (products). So they retain up to 70 percent (for their mission) -- except for publications of internal organizations like that of HMI (Indonesian Muslim Students Association).

Republika is one general newspaper but oriented to Islam, mainly the Association of Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals (ICMI) and in its coverage of conflicts in Maluku, Ambon and Makassar (the daily) has clearly displayed its stance.

Q: How far can such journalism be justified?

A: In journalism theory there is the term "gatekeeper," namely the editorial policy being the gatekeeper between the media's mission represented by its owner, and news content which is owned by the public.

Western media clearly limits the owner's mission in its editorial, its bylines and cartoons. But we are a bit fanatic about missions here. A number of media publications are secular, sometimes leaning here and there; their ownerships are mixed. These would be the best for our readers.

Q: But partisan media seem to be quite popular nowadays...

A: Yes, but readers don't want to lose quality press -- though there is no completely impartial press. Both kinds (nonpartisan and partisan) of press develop now. Despite the majority of Muslim readers, these readers want to widen their horizons and this need is provided to by the general media.

Our readers' education is largely below international standards, and they want to improve themselves. Those who lack money go to organizations or offices which have more than one newspaper and read there. This can be observed in cities like Makassar and Padang, West Sumatra.

Television and radio also encourage interest in print media because audiences are not satisfied with what they get from the electronic media. Likewise the Internet. So, contrary to fears of dwindling readership, I see no cause to worry. This is particularly evident among the middle class. It's the era of multimedia literacy.

Q: Is there a possibility of a division of Muslim and non-Muslim press and readership?

A: This is where media watch institutions come in. When a media has become very partisan, it violates the public right to know, mentioned in Clauses 5 and 6 of the new 1999 Press Act which I helped to formulate. Either the public, the police -- which has set up its own media watch -- or the government could sue the media.

But the necessary government regulation for the law has not been issued. Because the ministry of information no longer exists, it could be issued by the State Secretariat.

In South Sulawesi we now have a few rival publications from Christians, though they are not as explicit.

Q: Would that be a good or a bad thing?

A: It's just dialectics... one basic theory the press should refer to is the 5Ws (where, when, why, who, what) and 1H (how) and news value. Editors and reporters now seem to be in confusion, hovering between their mission and journalism basics... (while) the government can only criticize the media for sensationalism but it can no longer control the press.

Q: Some say people don't really respond to "provocative" reporting. Would you say the media is to blame for provoking people?

A: If we understand media theory, the influence can be quite great. People usually believe things more when they read it in the newspaper.

Q: Back to the right to information, what has been missing in reports on Maluku? One chief editor has said all reports have been cross checked and that reports are balanced...

A: In the cases of the calls for jihad, what's missing is the lack of exposure of the discourse on the concept itself.

The discussion should be opened that jihad can be physical, or can be in the form of donations, and readers could choose their own preference.

Q: So what should be done?

A: Let it be, it will pass, this is just the excess of the euphoria of press freedom. In the short term nothing can be done; it just depends on the editors for we have no ruling now. The press does not stand on its own, we have to see what develops in the field (regarding Maluku, for instance). Journalists must continually find out what's going on.

In the long term only the strong among the media (in quality and economic viability) will survive; the press will have to catch up with an increasingly educated readership. Here (in South Sulawesi) we also have publications which live only a day or two... I am optimistic that readers will continue to seek new experiences through the media to feed their curiosity.

Q: For decades the media has faced a taboo on reporting on racial, ethnic and religious differences (SARA), but suddenly we face serious intergroup conflict, including religious conflicts. How should the press manage this, while we face the possibility of inciting more trouble?

A: There has indeed been a relationship between reporting and actions by masses. Reporting of an incident of mass action influences action by another group. Editors and reporters can only refer to their code of ethics such as checking and rechecking, and balanced reporting.

In the case of the clashes in Mataram (Lombok), some media that attempted to cover the incident, only reporting of a "social conflict" without further explanation; while others reported it for what it was -- a conflict between groups of different religions. It would be better to report the facts rather than letting rumors fly.

Newspapers like Suara Pembaruan (associated with Christians) surely have a mission but they see that their readers' demands and the Press Law will not let them (stress their mission).

Regarding the Maluku coverage, this is also an excess of the government's inaction. (anr)