Press freedom and the reality check

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.