Verdict on 'Koran Tempo' daily a deathblow to media

Verdict on 'Koran Tempo' daily a deathblow to media

Ardimas Sasdi, Staff Writer, The Jakarta Post, Berkeley, California
ajambak@uclink4.berkeley.edu

The highly controversial verdict handed down by the South
Jakarta District Court on the Koran Tempo daily last week
highlighted the troubles that have beset the Indonesian media
since the onset of the so-called Reform era, which saw a fair
measure of press freedom introduced coupled with failures on the
part of the media and the public in adjusting their lives to take
account of the new realities taking place amid drastic changes in
the societal, cultural and political landscapes over the last
five years.

Another problem stems from the differing interpretations the
media and the public have on how the press should operate in the
new environment, which evolved after the resignation of strongman
Soeharto, who ruled Indonesia in an iron-fisted manner for 32
years.

The media, capitalizing on a newly-found fair measure of press
freedom, adopted reporting techniques commonly found in advanced
democracies, including critical reports, sharp analyses,
investigative exposes, cynical caricatures and barking headlines.

This type of journalism upset politicians, government
officials and businesspeople, who were used to a "responsible
press" that practiced self-censorship during Soeharto's
repressive regime. The reactions of the public varied from
extreme ones like attacking journalists and media offices to
suing reporters and media outlets for libel.

The latest court verdict, a deathblow to the daily in
particular and the Indonesian media in general, found the Koran
Tempo daily guilty of running libelous reports from January 2003
to April 2003, and ordered the defendant to apologize to business
tycoon Marimutu Sinivasan by running ads in 41 media outlets --
print and electronic -- for three consecutive days. Should the
newspaper fail to comply with the ruling, it will be fined Rp 10
million (US$1,176) per day until it does so. Sinivasan had sued
Koran Tempo for $50 million for carrying reports critical of his
highly diversified but ailing business. However, the court
refrained from awarding damages.

Koran Tempo criticized the verdict and appealed at the
appellate court.

The controversial court verdict will drain Koran Tempo's
coffers, upset its shareholders and demoralize its reporters, and
have far-reaching ramifications for the Indonesian media. Among
the possible scenarios that may emerge are a return to "self-
censorship" and an avoidance of reporting sensitive issues in
order to prevent lawsuits. In sum, the media will practice self-
censorship for fear of being sued by powerful people, not by a
tyrant as was the case during the Soeharto era.

If this is what happens, then democracy will suffer as a free
press is the key to a democracy.

Sinivasan, who is on the brink of bankruptcy, also sued Kompas
daily for $150 million in libel damages in the Jakarta District
Court, but the Sinivasan-Kompas case ended in an out-of-court
settlement.

The Sinivasan-Koran Tempo and Sinivasan-Kompas cases are just
two of dozens of cases pitting the media against the public in
the past five years. In 2000, supporters of former president
Abdurrahman Wahid, who were unhappy with reports carried by the
Jawa Pos daily about their leader, attacked the newspaper's
offices in Surabaya, East Java. Radio 68H in Lampung closed its
local station after receiving threats from local residents, also
unhappy with its reports. The editor of the Rakyat Merdeka daily
was sentenced by a Jakarta court to five-month suspended jail
term recently for printing a caricature critical of House of
Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung.

And the list goes on.

But cases of businessman suing media outlets for mammoth
damages in response to reports critical of their business
activities are relatively new in Indonesia. Another similar suit
involved Tempo magazine and controversial tycoon Tomy Winata, who
sued the weekly magazine for a report on an alleged plan to
rebuild the Tanah Abang market.

The root of conflicts between the press and the public in the
Reform era are mostly similar in nature though not exactly the
same. First, the public see the media as having got out of
control given the prevailing critical reporting techniques.

Second, the media often made blunders in reporting, like
misquoting sources or printing unquotable quotes. These cases
have been taking place amid a significant rise in the number of
media outlets -- both print and electronic -- thanks to easier
requirements for publishing permits following the liberalization
of the media industry in 1999. Indonesia has also seen a jump in
the number of journalists from around 5,000 in 1997 to more than
15,000 in 2003. Most of these young newsmen are better educated
than their seniors, but only a small number of them have received
proper training in journalism.

Third, the public has failed to adapt to the new realities
brought about by the Reform Movement, which requires a new
perspective in seeing things.

The media, in fact, is now in a stronger position since the
adoption of the 1999 Press Law, but the public, especially
powerful people, also have a new and more effective way of
dealing with unfavorable reports in the media. They opt to sue
offending media outlets for libel in the courts instead of using
lengthy and bureaucratic procedures like using the right to
reply.

This worrisome trend has been exacerbated by many unscrupulous
lawyers, who collaborate with the complainants to seek financial
gains and fame by ignoring legal ethics. There are also many
indications that plaintiffs or their lawyers have been using
their power and money to "buy" judgments against the background
of a notoriously corrupt legal system.

The aim of the complainants in suing media outlets is no
longer to defend their name and honor, but to bankrupt the
outlets in question.

Indonesia regained a fair measure of press freedom during the
Reform era, but at the same time the media has seen a mounting
challenge -- a rise in the number of attacks on journalists and
media offices, and increasing numbers of lawsuits. The media must
take up the challenge of putting its house in order, or let
others do it for them as in the case of Sinivasan, Tomy and
Akbar. Inaction or failure to take corrective steps will further
tarnish the media's image in the eyes of the public or even land
media outlets in legal battles with powerful people, which will
finally destroy their businesses.

However, it is unfair to put the blame entirely on the media
for the current messy situation as the public too have a share in
it. Both the media and the public should reflect and work
together to develop a quality media, bearing in mind the
importance of the role of press as a mechanism of control in
democracy.

The writer is currently a scholar of the Graduate School of
Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley.