TV coverage
TV coverage
The newly enacted Broadcasting Law seems to have the potential
to clash with public interests. Its first test case, which made
nobody happy, took place Monday when the government abruptly
banned a planned live TV broadcast from the House of
Representatives.
Two private TV stations, ANteve and SCTV, were ready to start
live coverage of Minister of Finance Mar'ie Muhammad's
explanation on the economic reform package in a meeting with the
House. The meeting was one of national significance with issues
concerning a broad spectrum of society.
Minister of Information R. Hartono said later that he had
intervened in the case because it was against the new law, which
stipulates that private TV stations can only relay direct
coverage of such events by state-owned TVRI.
In Monday's case, TVRI -- the only government TV network --
seemed to have no interest in covering the session live despite
it being the first time the finance minister was to brief the
House since the announcement of the substantial economic reforms
early last week. The economic reform package has been readily
accepted by many people as an effort to save the nation's
economy, but to those with connections to 16 recently liquidated
banks, it has been viewed as a calamity.
In this instance, one could understand that the government ban
on the direct coverage by the two private TV stations not only
shocked the public but also the House speaker and his deputies.
The new speaker, Harmoko, who is former minister of information,
had voiced a wish to see House sessions directly covered by the
electronic media.
The incident, while not provoking a crisis, did inconvenience
many in the public since the minister's statements directly
concerned people from all walks of life.
The plan to broadcast the session live came about because many
parties involved were unaware of the law's stipulations, which
seems rather illogical in this age of sophisticated information
technology and the current trend of openness.
We fully understand that the two private TV stations believed
that the House meeting was newsworthy and that their planned
coverage was based on good intentions, sincerity and professional
obligation. We also understand that the government wished to
faithfully implement the letter of the law, especially since the
law was only enacted in September.
However, in view of the public interests involved and the
degree of transgression by the two TV stations, we are of the
opinion that the government should have acted less drastically in
handling the case. It may have been more prudent, for example, to
have allowed the two stations to continue with their planned
coverage and later question or reprimand them if necessary. This
would have permitted millions of curious Indonesians, who have
the constitutional right to know what the government is doing for
them, to have benefited from the information given by the
minister.
Many may find it a problem that the new law gives TVRI sole
broadcasting rights of House sessions.
That TVRI has a monopoly on direct coverage of the House does
not seem very democratic -- if not contradictory to the spirit of
openness and transparency. On top of this, the law is somewhat
illogical since some private TV stations are financially more
capable of these activities than TVRI.
The ideal relationship between the private and state-owned TV
stations should be one characterized by cooperation. Should there
be cases in which TVRI does not have the capability to carry out
direct coverage of an event, a private station should be allowed
to take it over.
With so many questions being raised over the absence of TVRI's
direct coverage of Monday's House session, perhaps it would be
wise for the House of Representatives to reevaluate the new law,
and make changes should they be in the best interests of the
country.