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.