Press impartiality in Aceh

Press impartiality in Aceh

The information disclosed by new media watchdog Aceh News
Watch on Wednesday that most national newspapers and television
stations had failed to practice the very basic media principles
of impartiality and coverage of both sides in a conflict in their
reportage of the war in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (NAD) surprises
no one.

According to the findings obtained by the NGO by monitoring
five television stations and 13 major newspapers, the press
reportage of the war in NAD depends heavily on information
supplied by the Indonesian Military (TNI) and National Police
(Polri). The television stations used the military version of
incidents 108 times and those supplied by the police 46 times. In
comparison, those stations quoted the Free Aceh Movement (GAM)
only 16 times. As for the printed media, the newspapers quoted
military sources 33 times and police sources nine times, while
GAM sources were quoted only five times.

The question is whether this failure to abide by the
fundamental credo of the media is caused merely by technical
difficulties in covering the government's enemy in the war, which
is GAM, or because they had to meet government demands not to
provide any access to GAM for the sake of the Unitary State of
Indonesia (NKRI).

Apart from that there is also the fear that the media does
truly share the government's stance that GAM should not be given
a chance to convey its version of the war, because the fate of
the unitary state is at stake. But who actually has the right to
claim that the state is in fatal danger? Clearly, not the
military or the government only, but the nation as a whole.

It is not our intention to blame the television stations and
the press for depending so heavily on the security forces because
they are facing a very difficult situation, and that includes the
responsibility to guarantee the safety of their reporters on the
battlefield. Journalists who cover the war face the threats of
warfare when they make contact with the rebels. The names of
media organizations and journalists who have faced the
consequences of their defiance against the security forces, have
also been reported by the media. The rebels should be equally
blamed for the chaos because even until this day, they are still
holding the RCTI television crew members hostage.

Whatever the reasons for this partial coverage may be, biased
and one-sided reports on anything not only betray one of the most
fundamental principles of a free press society, they also deceive
the public, which has the right to get accurate and fair
information.

There is no guarantee that closing media access to the rebels
will ensure the success of the joint operation in NAD to
eradicate the rebellion and stamp out the roots of the insurgency
in that province. By giving a chance for the rebels to air their
version of the war, the public will get more balanced information
about the source of the war and the public can get closer to the
truth behind the war in NAD.

The security forces, for their part, can benefit from reports
about GAM. For instance, whenever claims arise that Indonesian
soldiers have committed gross human rights abuses, the TNI can
use this GAM information to check out the allegation and, if
accurate, to punish those who are responsible for the crimes.

We do agree, though, that the unity of the Republic of
Indonesia should be maintained. We also wholeheartedly concur
with the view that armed rebellions must not be tolerated. We,
the media, must also play a role in securing the unity of this
Republic, but not a unity that is based on one version of the
conflict only.

The U.S.-led war on Iraq, for example, could serve as an
example. Many sections of the American media, such as CNN, were
trapped in the nationalistic euphoria that prevailed in the U.S.
before the war and so, by using only their government's version
of the war, many Americans ignored their role as self-proclaimed
champions of press freedom. They believed that Saddam Hussein
must be toppled because his weapons of mass destruction and his
support for terrorism were seen as an immediate threat to their
country and the world. So many parties in the U.S. media had to
lick what they had spit out.

We hope that we can learn from the American media's
experience. They enthusiastically supported the war, only to
realize that they had to pay dearly for their blundering choice.
We believe that fairer coverage on NAD will help the nation to
end the suffering of its people. The media itself is expected to
be mature enough to make its judgment on NAD. Talking about such
bitter facts on NAD may upset us now, but for the sake of the
Acehnese, the true facts should be disclosed in order to find out
the truth.