Press freedom and the reality check

DISCOURSE

To mark the World Press Freedom Day, which falls today on May 3, we interviewed Jakob Oetama, the co-founder of Kompas daily newspaper, to talk about the issue and how it relates to his own newspaper. Here are excerpts:

Question:What is press freedom to you and your paper?

Answer: I'm one of those who believe in free and responsible press. I never believe that freedom should be absolute, or in freedom for freedom's sake. At the practical level, there are many factors, from government power to forces in society, that determine the socio-political reality in which we exercise our freedom.

These factors influence us, and interact with us. And this is a continuing process.

In an authoritarian state, those in power set the limit of freedom. But from our own experience, whatever government system we had in place, society also set the limits. At times, society was even more restrictive than the government. For example, when we write about sensitive issues like religion, race and ethnicity, we have to be careful. We cannot be blunt, publish and be damned, for we will be damned.

I'm not suggesting that we should give up the fight. I'm saying this as a statement of fact: That there are forces which affect our work. But this is the challenge we face. We want freedom, but ultimately, the socio-political reality determines the boundaries of freedom.

Is press freedom a means to an end, or an end in itself?

It's both.

Freedom is about human existence. It is the nature of man to want to express himself. And having freedom is important for self-expression.

At the same time, mere existence is not an end in itself. Man has goals in life, individually or collectively. In this context, freedom is a means to an end.

Do you think the legal framework and the supporting institutions are conducive for press freedom?

The press law and the infrastructure is there, the common will is there, and the common concerns and consensus are also there. Problems arise at the practical level.

Take for example the right of reply (guaranteed by the 1999 Press Law). Those who want to exercise this right are often not satisfied. So they resort to demonstrations. We have had our share of demonstrations, from rowdy to mild ones.

The (1999) Press Law needs some kind of jurisprudence on how it is applied. There have not been many cases tried under the law. The tendency is for everyone, the media and those who have grievances about the media, to solve their problems amicably rather than going through the court.

Why? Going through the legal channels has many implications. It's lengthy, it's uncertain. People are unsure whether they will receive fair treatment. This is a dilemma, because as long as we continue to keep this attitude, there will never be any jurisprudence.

Is this changing?

It must. We have to change.

Principles never change for they are universal and noble. But when you try to apply these principles, you are confronted with the reality, the prevailing cultures and traditions, conventions, and the legal and bureaucratic obstacles. I agree with the younger generation that we should not retreat from our fight (for freedom) because of these obstructions.

What about public complaints of the press abusing its freedom or of going overboard?

These objections and complaints are a living reality. We hear them all the time.

A free press strives to give facts. But each institution has its own way and style in conveying the message and criticism. The style is determined by the personality and character of the publication, and often by the target audience.

Sometimes the press becomes bolder because they felt that they had not been heard. The first time they wrote, they were ignored. So, they grew bolder and so on, until they felt that they had to "pinch" or "hit" to draw attention.

Having said that, we in the media must abide by the principles of telling the truth, and not engage in character assassination. We are bound by ethics that we ourselves have established.

But there is another reason why some people had the impression that the press has gone overboard. Before, we were restricted on what we could print. What we heard or learned were not always reported. Today, we immediately report what we hear or learn. Some members of our society are not ready for this.

What about the moves by the government to reimpose some form of control over the media?

The people in the media should be proactive to ensure that these criticisms about the press are directed to the proper channels, such as through the legal mechanisms. We have to build this tradition.

But part of the problem is that the government is not communicating enough through the press. We have a democratically elected government and a free press, but communication between the two, at least until recently, is almost non-existent.

Take the U.S. government. It is holding daily briefings, and not only since the start of the war in Iraq. Given Indonesia's immense problems, we too have to build a common understanding, and the government must communicate more, through the press.

How can press freedom contribute to the nation-building process, to the goal of a peaceful and prosperous nation?

The most immediate and concrete contribution the press can give is in its watchdog role. It can provide checks on the power of the government, on the corruption, collusion and nepotism practices.

More important than this is that the press must have a framework.

For example, on the economic system, it must ask the question whether Indonesia's is a free-capitalism or a market-socialism. The answer to this question becomes the point of reference in reporting or commenting on the economic reality and on government policies or the private-sector activities.

If we have decided on the market economy, why then is a large part of the business community, dominated by (Chinese) descendants, still being politically marginalized. We should bring them into the political mainstream. Political Islam was once marginalized, but it has now been brought into the mainstream. Why not bring (the Chinese) descendants into the mainstream too. Give them legitimacy, but also give them responsibility.

This is a formidable task for this nation, but the economy will grow and the nation will prosper if this happens.

What about the role of Kompas in fostering change. Are you happy with your paper being labeled conservative?

Democracy, human rights, justice and the law - these are universal values and principles. We all adhere to them. But when we apply these principles, there is another aspect to consider: The society's heterogeneity, in terms of its social and educational backgrounds, race, ethnicity and others. We can't change society just like that. The last five years prove my point. We have had democracy, but we have essentially remained unchanged.

Change takes time. We have to build a complete understanding and create a more conducive situation so that democracy can function. Democracy is not only about freedom. The failure of the Bolshevik revolution in instilling change is another example.

Then, there is also my Javanese upbringing (for Kompas' conservatism).

It is not an easy task.