'Time' did not libel Soeharto: Witnesses
<p>'Time' did not libel Soeharto: Witnesses</p><p> JAKARTA (JP): Two witnesses testified before the Central
Jakarta District Court on Tuesday that a May 24, 1999 cover story
of New York-based Time magazine did not defame the good name of
former president Soeharto.</p><p>Senior journalist Goenawan Mohammad and communication law
expert Andi Abdul Muis said the magazine's cover story was
written within universally accepted standards of journalism.</p><p>"Reports on public figures are common in journalism and cannot
be considered as slanderous.</p><p>"A public figure is like a book, that all people can read,"
said Muis, a communication law professor at the Makassar-based
Hasanuddin University.</p><p>Muis, who was the first witness to testify on Tuesday, cited
the affair between United States president Bill Clinton and
former White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, that received
enormous print media attention in the US.</p><p>Around 40 spectators packed the main courtroom during the four
hour hearing that started at 10 a.m. Soeharto was represented by
lawyers Juan Felix Tampubolon, O.C. Kaligis, Indriyanto Seno
Adji, Mohammad Assegaff and Denny Kailimang, while the magazine
was represented by lawyers Todung Mulya Lubis and Lelyana
Santosa.</p><p>Kaligis, who spoke after Muis, challenged the witness.</p><p>"Is that the cost that a public figure must pay?" he asked.</p><p>The 71-year-old professor answered with a brief, "Yes, that's
about it."</p><p>Goenawan, who testified after Muis, also said the magazine's
cover story did not defame the former president.</p><p>"A harsh criticism against a public figure is not categorized
as defaming him/her, as long as the journalist writes the report
according to journalistic principles, without personal animosity
against the person," Goenawan, former Editor-in-Chief of Tempo
weekly magazine, told the hearing, presided over by judge Sihol
Sitompoel.</p><p>"A public figure should always be criticized and held
responsible for his or her statements or policies," he said.</p><p>Soeharto filed the lawsuit against the magazine in July last
year. The lawsuit demands the magazine pay Rp 189 trillion (US$27
billion) to the former strongman for the article that suggested
that he and his family had amassed a US$15 billion fortune during
his 32-year reign.</p><p>The debate extended into whether the cover of the magazine and
a picture of Soeharto was considered slanderous.</p><p>The magazine's cover showed a picture of Soeharto with a large
US$100 banknote as the background, while on the sixteenth page,
the magazine published a photograph of Soeharto hugging several
luxury houses.</p><p>Muis said the photograph could not be categorized slanderous.</p><p>"People have different perceptions of the pictures. Some
people said it was slanderous, but others might say the former
president is grateful for God's gifts," he said, turning the
spectators into laughter.</p><p>Goenawan supported the statement, saying he categorized the
pictures as caricatures.</p><p>"It is common everywhere that a caricature has a cynical
characteristic," he said, while citing that it was people who
would determine whether the pictures were slanderous.</p><p>Another tenet debated in the hearing was about the
journalistic principle of objectively covering both sides.</p><p>Goenawan said a journalist was considered to be applying the
"cover both sides" principle if she or he interviewed all sources
related to a story, including the source's opponents.</p><p>"If the journalist is not able to interview the primary
source, she or he is allowed to write statements from other
people representing the primary source," Goenawan, now a senior
journalist with Tempo, said.</p><p>He said the magazine printed on the May edition's eighteenth
page, "Neither Soeharto nor his six children responded to
requests for interviews, though lawyers representing Soeharto
(Tampubolon and Kaligis) asserted that their clients did nothing
illegal."(asa)</p>
Jakarta District Court on Tuesday that a May 24, 1999 cover story
of New York-based Time magazine did not defame the good name of
former president Soeharto.</p><p>Senior journalist Goenawan Mohammad and communication law
expert Andi Abdul Muis said the magazine's cover story was
written within universally accepted standards of journalism.</p><p>"Reports on public figures are common in journalism and cannot
be considered as slanderous.</p><p>"A public figure is like a book, that all people can read,"
said Muis, a communication law professor at the Makassar-based
Hasanuddin University.</p><p>Muis, who was the first witness to testify on Tuesday, cited
the affair between United States president Bill Clinton and
former White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, that received
enormous print media attention in the US.</p><p>Around 40 spectators packed the main courtroom during the four
hour hearing that started at 10 a.m. Soeharto was represented by
lawyers Juan Felix Tampubolon, O.C. Kaligis, Indriyanto Seno
Adji, Mohammad Assegaff and Denny Kailimang, while the magazine
was represented by lawyers Todung Mulya Lubis and Lelyana
Santosa.</p><p>Kaligis, who spoke after Muis, challenged the witness.</p><p>"Is that the cost that a public figure must pay?" he asked.</p><p>The 71-year-old professor answered with a brief, "Yes, that's
about it."</p><p>Goenawan, who testified after Muis, also said the magazine's
cover story did not defame the former president.</p><p>"A harsh criticism against a public figure is not categorized
as defaming him/her, as long as the journalist writes the report
according to journalistic principles, without personal animosity
against the person," Goenawan, former Editor-in-Chief of Tempo
weekly magazine, told the hearing, presided over by judge Sihol
Sitompoel.</p><p>"A public figure should always be criticized and held
responsible for his or her statements or policies," he said.</p><p>Soeharto filed the lawsuit against the magazine in July last
year. The lawsuit demands the magazine pay Rp 189 trillion (US$27
billion) to the former strongman for the article that suggested
that he and his family had amassed a US$15 billion fortune during
his 32-year reign.</p><p>The debate extended into whether the cover of the magazine and
a picture of Soeharto was considered slanderous.</p><p>The magazine's cover showed a picture of Soeharto with a large
US$100 banknote as the background, while on the sixteenth page,
the magazine published a photograph of Soeharto hugging several
luxury houses.</p><p>Muis said the photograph could not be categorized slanderous.</p><p>"People have different perceptions of the pictures. Some
people said it was slanderous, but others might say the former
president is grateful for God's gifts," he said, turning the
spectators into laughter.</p><p>Goenawan supported the statement, saying he categorized the
pictures as caricatures.</p><p>"It is common everywhere that a caricature has a cynical
characteristic," he said, while citing that it was people who
would determine whether the pictures were slanderous.</p><p>Another tenet debated in the hearing was about the
journalistic principle of objectively covering both sides.</p><p>Goenawan said a journalist was considered to be applying the
"cover both sides" principle if she or he interviewed all sources
related to a story, including the source's opponents.</p><p>"If the journalist is not able to interview the primary
source, she or he is allowed to write statements from other
people representing the primary source," Goenawan, now a senior
journalist with Tempo, said.</p><p>He said the magazine printed on the May edition's eighteenth
page, "Neither Soeharto nor his six children responded to
requests for interviews, though lawyers representing Soeharto
(Tampubolon and Kaligis) asserted that their clients did nothing
illegal."(asa)</p>