Private vs public

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.