Rule of law through free press

Rule of law through free press

By Todung Mulya Lubis

JAKARTA (JP): Recently the Jawa Pos daily was occupied by
members of the Banser civilian guards organization, and since
then much criticism has been raised regarding the lack of
professionalism in the press.

Banser had protested a mistake in the daily's reporting of
alleged corruption involving leaders of the Nahdlatul Ulama, the
affiliate of Banser.

Given the frequent misleading reporting, allegations of lack
of professionalism are not entirely wrong. Fears of the tyranny
of the press have strong grounds; amid the thousands of dailies,
tabloids and magazines it is difficult to have a code of ethics
for reporting that is applicable and binding to all.

Such a code of ethics is generally found among established
media organizations, while many new publications are not too
concerned with quality. This is even more true in the current
contest of sensational reporting.

Reporters seem to place priority on their egos, while accuracy
and balance, and the possibility that the story may be
misleading, is less important.

So far there is no "fit and proper test" for reporters, so
hoodlums and brokers might also find their way into the press.
Sources have often displayed disappointment, citing wrong and
confusing quotes.

A recent survey by the prominent Kompas daily indicated that
54.3 percent of respondents were of the view that the press
played a role in making things worse; while only 37.1 percent
thought the press had a positive role.

The survey at least suggests the feeling of readers regarding
press freedom in the country.

It cannot be denied that the press here needs to increase its
work ethos, discipline and code of ethics. Eventually, it will be
up to the press to formulate rules of reporting so that the
definition of accuracy, balanced reporting and covering both
sides becomes crystal clear.

The press should avoid feeling spoilt and that they have the
"license to publish everything". It must be ready to accept
criticism and lawsuits because it is through the legal process
that the limits of press freedom will be formed.

An example is the Soeharto vs Time magazine case.
The court said coverage on public interest issues such as the
abuse of power and eradication of corruption, collusion and
nepotism is neither an insult or defamation, and is not against
the law as long as it follows all journalistic standards, such as
checking and rechecking.

The panel of judges also said a public figure is an open book,
and therefore should accept being a subject of criticism and
being made fun of.

The cost of being a public figure is the loss of part of his
or her privacy. The decision in the above case brings to mind the
famous cases involving the press in the United States such as New
York Times vs Sullivan (1964), Curtis Publishing Co vs Butts and
The Associated Press vs Walker (1967).

The judges in the above cases were also of the view that
"public figures," similar to "public officials", had a
significant role in public life, and therefore they should be
open to both criticism and ridicule.

Nevertheless the plaintiffs could still demand compensation in
what was referred to as "extreme departure from the standards of
investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible
publishers" -- as judge Harlan was quoted as saying in the Curtis
Publishing Co vs Butts case.

We are still in a transition period and the public should
understand that the occasionally exaggerating press is part of
the dynamics after a 30-year period of terror through censorship
and press closures.

People should not get angry so quickly. Increasing competition
among the press will in time lead the public to choose quality
media that they can trust.

In this context the "raid" against Jawa Pos was a mistake
which could bring us back to the days of press censorship.
Imagine a nervous press censoring itself in this time of reform.
What would follow would be a growing ignorance among the public
and, worse still, we would find ourselves awash in pamphlets and
flyers with questionable contents. Politics of divide and conquer
could flourish even more.

Democracy and the rule of law can only be realized through a
free press. In the long term, poverty and hunger could be avoided
if a free press were guaranteed, as the public would obtain more
comprehensive and accurate information.

A review of history would show, as in the words of Nobel prize
laureate Amartya Sen, that "no substantial famine has ever
occurred in any independent and democratic country with a
relatively free press". A free press might not be the only
factor, yet much of his words ring true.

The writer was the lawyer for defendants in the Soeharto vs
Times case which decided in favor of defendants last Tuesday.