Press remains under threat despite new status in Aceh
A. Junaidi, Jakarta
The change in status from martial law to a state of civil emergency in Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam has received a warm welcome from some media observers, but they also issued a warning that the new administration's power could still restrict press freedom.
Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) member Bimo Nugroho greeted the decision to lift martial law in the province, which has been plagued by a secessionist movement for several decades, saying that military rule had sacrificed press freedom for security purposes.
"It's good because it will pave the way for freedom of the press. It will give the media a lot of opportunities to make investigative reports," Bimo told The Jakarta Post on Monday.
However, the program director of the Institute for the Study of the Free Flow of Information (ISAI), Agus Sudibyo, doubted the new status would ensure press freedom equal to the rest of the country.
"I doubt the revocation of martial law and the imposition of this state of civil emergency will bring about press freedom in Aceh. Both the military and civilian authorities have a tendency to halt press freedom," Agus said.
Under martial law, the military administration discouraged coverage of both sides of the conflict by banning the media from reporting on the activities of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and pushing for "patriotic" coverage.
Research conducted by ISAI from June to December last year found that the media had failed to help mitigate the Aceh conflict, as their coverage on the impact of martial law in the war-torn province was considered one-sided.
They used a quantitative analysis and monitored 10 national publications -- Kompas, Republika, Media Indonesia, Pos Kota, Koran Tempo, Rakyat Merdeka, Indo Pos, Warta Kota, Harian Terbit and Suara Pembaruan -- and five television networks, Metro TV, SCTV, ANTV, TV7 and RCTI.
Most journalists also failed to uphold the basic principles of covering both sides in reporting on a conflict, preferring to get information from government officials rather than ordinary people or GAM.
It also found that many reports on the Aceh conflict mixed facts with the journalists' opinions.
The media was also criticized for ignoring the Aceh issue after the initial implementation of martial law, with other stories being prioritized.
Journalists and editors were also reproached for rarely questioning the implementation of martial law.
"The media has the right to say that it must present what the readers or viewers want. There is no excuse for the media not to keep questioning the implementation of martial law in Aceh," Agus said.
The media, he said, had apparently left the public with the impression that the war was the only realistic option to resolve the conflict.
Television editors earlier admitted that their crews had to remain physically close to the martial law administration in order to ensure their security.
They also blamed the rough terrain in Aceh and the lack of telecommunication infrastructure for their failure to broadcast balanced stories.
Agus also predicted that the media would be paying more attention to the first-ever direct presidential election than on the Aceh conflict for the next several months.
The presidential election will take place on July 5, with a possible run-off on Sept. 20.
Comparison between martial law and a state of civil emergency that affect media coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Articles MARTIAL LAW ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 25(2) : The authorities have the right to control
postal, telecommunication, telephone, telegraph and radio
broadcasting.
26 : The authorities have the right to limit displays,
printing, publications and announcements as well as the
distribution, trade or posting of pictures, writings and
paintings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF CIVIL EMERGENCY ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13 : The authorities have the right to limit displays,
printing, publications and announcements as well as the
distribution, trade or posting of pictures, writings and
paintings.
17(1) : The authorities have the right to screen all news and
conversations on telephone or radio; also can
ban or cut off the transfer of news or conversations
via the telephone or radio.
17(3) : The authorities have the right to limit or ban the use
of the telephone, telegraph and radio. ------------------------------------------------------------------------