Private vs public

The phone-tapping scandal ensnaring the presidential palace complex has raised legal and ethical questions of interest not only to law-enforcement agents, but also to journalists. Was Panji Masyarakat news magazine at fault or unethical in printing the transcript of the purported phone conversation between President B.J. Habibie and Attorney General Andi M. Ghalib?

There is no doubt that tapping phone conversations -- if that is how the recording was obtained -- is an infringement on the right to privacy, and the party responsible is liable for criminal action. Unfortunately, the facts of the case are not as clear-cut for a media institution, in this case Panji, responsible for disseminating the information.

The media's first and foremost obligation is always to the public. Unfortunately, in the quest to serve public interests, media representatives sometimes invade the privacy of others, usually public figures. Editors must weigh their obligation to respect people's right to privacy, and their duty to inform the public. Deciding the ethics or propriety of Panji's actions is up to the judges, if the investigation ever reaches the court. But judges would be well advised to take public interest into consideration, the same litmus test which an editor of any responsible media uses in determining whether to run a sensitive story.

One also has to bear in mind that Panji was not alone in receiving a copy of the tape. Other media organizations were in possession of the tape -- in public circulation for more than a month -- but they decided to sit on the story in the absence of any official verification. A little-known tabloid, BK (Berita Keadilan), ran excerpts of the conversation in January, but the story drew little public attention. Panji also made the point of trying to contact Habibie's aides and Ghalib for authentication, but neither official responded to the opportunity.

The purported Habibie-Ghalib conversation became a major national issue last week thanks in no small part to the blustery official reaction to Panji's article. Once it was disclosed that Habibie ordered an investigation of a "leakage" in the presidential palace, the tape became a public issue that other media could no longer ignore. Several TV stations aired the tape to give the public the benefit of determining for themselves the identities of the speakers.

It is much more than anything Habibie and Ghalib have done to clarify the issue. Ghalib has unconvincingly denied the voice is his; Habibie has neither confirmed nor denied it, but his angry reaction has only served to strengthen credence in the tape's authenticity.

The police investigation appears to be based on two possible criminal offenses: the tapping of the conversation, and the dissemination of its contents. The first issue is more elusive and probably difficult to solve because, as government officials hinted, it may be the result of a high-level conspiracy against Habibie.

The second is probably easier to deal with, but the police approach raises serious questions about their capability. The fact the police are asking Panji editors how they obtained the tape shows their ignorance. For a start, the press law accords editors the right to protect the identity of their news sources. Second, since copies of the tape were in public circulation before last week, why did the police only react now upon Habibie's order, when they could have acted before and contained the potential damage now inflicted on the state?

A certainty is that the police investigation will be severely encumbered as long as Habibie's office remains tight-lipped about authenticity of the voices. While denial would prompt a question about why there was so much fuss from the presidential camp, confirmation would raise an even more serious and probably damaging question about some of the inflammatory issues discussed by the two.

The participants in the taped conversation are clearly conspiring to deceive the public about the ongoing corruption investigation into former president Soeharto. If the identities of the speakers are ultimately verified as those of Habibie and Ghalib, then the People's Consultative Assembly, in the public's interest, must initiate an investigation into their actions.