Partisan media in danger of violation

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)