RI's media: Freedom or professionalism?

RI's media: Freedom or professionalism?

Keith Loveard, News Editor, www.laksamana.net, Publisher,
www.asiamad.com, Jakarta

There is likely to be a hue and cry among the Indonesian media
over statements by Syamsul Muarif, the State Minister for
Information and Communication, that the Indonesian media is to be
brought to order with the amendment of the Press Law with 37 new
articles.

The minister said that the amendments were required to prevent
"excessive freedom of the press".

Apart from a likely attack from the strong lobby for freedom
of speech, there will be many who will see that Syamsul and the
government are well within reason to step in to stem reporting
that has become a slather of gossip that often verges into
malicious libel.

While details of the proposed amendments have yet to be
released, Syamsul's comments suggest that the essence will be in
strengthening the role of the police and the courts in judging
whether journalists have overstepped the line of the law.

The law on criminal defamation already presents the clearest
boundary to media excess and, here, foreign examples are
pertinent. The second amendment to the Constitution of the United
States guarantees freedom of speech. This amendment has been
tested by publishers such as Larry Flint, with the Supreme Court
itself ruling in the favor of the creator of Hustler. So far
freedom of speech in the U.S. has stood the test of time, giving
America one of the freest media industries in the world.

A new major test of the right to a free media is emerging in
the U.S. in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, with administration
officials appearing regrettably keen to stifle the media.

In Britain and Australia, the media has long been constrained
by strong defamation laws. In one case in Australia, a journalist
was jailed for criminal defamation, producing great alarm in the
industry at the time that there, too, freedom of speech was in
danger.

The courts in both countries have ruled that truth is not
necessarily a defense.

Take a case where an entrepreneur is reported in the media to
have conducted an unpleasant act. That entrepreneur (or more
correctly, his lawyers) will argue that while he may have engaged
in such an act, publicity about his behavior materially damaged a
business reputation that was in no way connected to the behavior.

Result: The publication pays up big.

Defamation is big business in the developed world, and a more
stringent Press Law that throws the onus of proof on the courts
will provide in Indonesia, as it has done elsewhere, a new
license to print money. No lesser figure than Soeharto has tried
to cash in, in his case against Time, but found his argument
rejected. Abdurrahman Wahid consistently ranted and threatened to
sue media outlets.

In Indonesia, the added risk of political motivation for
prosecution adds a different element. Time will tell whether the
Megawati government will use the revised legislation as a
political tool to silence the media.

Under the tight hand of State Secretary Bambang Kesowo, the
Megawati palace has become even more leak proof than the Soeharto
regime. Senior staff take great care in talking to journalists,
well aware that every contact with the media is monitored and
likely to be held against them.

Lack of information does not necessarily equate with political
harassment.

Nevertheless, the changes to the Law will, at the least, put
in place the mechanism where such harassment will be possible at
any time.

The new Police bill (endorsed by the House of Representatives
on Monday) also throws complete authority into the hands of an
institution yet to have proved either its efficiency or its
commitment to reform, but which retains the collective memory of
the days when, not so long ago, it was an active arm of state
repression.

The Indonesian media industry has much to do to justify its
demand for unfettered freedom. The end of control by the
information ministry and a reduction in the "telephone culture"
from the military saw a remarkable blossoming of freedom of
speech that in too many cases was abused by the industry for
commercial gain.

Industry training standards, measured by those of developed
nations and close neighbors such as Thailand and the Philippines,
are pathetic. New recruits are sent out into the field with a
tape recorder and nothing else.

The sight of a gaggle of young Indonesian journalists massed
around a source when only one or two have any idea of what to
ask, and who have done their research, the rest following blindly
on, is stark evidence of the lack of empowerment of keen young
workers.

Indonesia is not without its products of excellence.

Tempo magazine has since its foundations followed the most
honorable standards of journalism. It has been attacked not
because of its lack of professionalism or ethical standards, but
because of its biting reporting.

From Tempo to the backstreet of the irregular tabloids is
indeed a long way. In many cases, these backstreet operations are
little more than a license to demand money from sources and from
public relations professionals.

Regrettably, the culture of giving bribes to such
"journalists" also remains alive and well, encouraging what are
little more than standover tactics.

The Press Council, under-funded and under-staffed, is
comprised of a body of respected journalists, but has been
inadequately vocal at a time the media industry has been
undergoing a boom and a severe test of its ethical standards. The
Indonesian Journalists Association (PWI) has also been mute,
and the one-time liberal Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) is riven
with factionalism.

The Indonesian media can only boost its ability to withstand
politically motivated attacks through the courts if it raises its
standards.

Professional, objective reporting is a primary defense in
itself against curtailment of freedom of expression.