Violence against media: Another `dictator' is here

Violence against media: Another `dictator' is here

Solahudin, Secretary-General, Alliance of Independent Journalists
(AJI), Jakarta

A former chief editor once said of press freedom: "Press
freedom means that I can rest well at deadline. I no longer need
to scrutinize and correct all the copy which could make the
country's leaders mad."

Today we indeed no longer have dictators. But this does not
mean the end of threats toward the press. The latest case was
Saturday's demonstration by supporters of businessman Tomy Winata
at the Central Jakarta office of Tempo magazine. While it was
perfectly valid and legal for them to protest against the report
regarding Tomy which they saw as slander, violence was also
involved through the assault on chief editor Bambang Harymurti
and one of the editors, according to witnesses. This occurred
despite the fact that on Friday Tempo had received a written
complaint and the parties had agreed to a dialog or legal
recourse to settle the matter.

The report in the edition of March 3 revealed indications of
Tomy's business interests in his Artha Graha Group following the
recent fire which destroyed the Tanah Abang market in Central
Jakarta; Tomy was said to have proposed to the city authorities a
renovation project worth about Rp 53 billion, three months prior
to the fire. The business group has in turn accused Tempo of
character assassination.

Saturday's incident is not the first this year, and data from
the Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) shows that in this era
of press freedom, intimidation and violence has increased
significantly compared to the time of the New Order.

Most of the above cases were triggered by dissatisfaction with
media reports. But why did they resort to intimidation and
violence? Why not legal recourse? The problem is that press
freedom in this transition toward democracy has not occurred
together with legal reform, which has remained largely unchanged
since the New Order -- with regards the laws and also the
personnel.

The result is that legal action is unpopular when it comes to
parties dissatisfied with press reports. Both the parties unhappy
with the reports and also the press then stand to lose; while the
perpetrators have almost always got away with their acts of
intimidation, assault or murder of journalists. Last year 90
percent of 70 cases of intimidation and violence toward members
of the press were reported to the police -- but the police hardly
followed up on any of the reports.

This is where law enforcers contribute to continued violence
against journalists. The absence of penalties has become an
incentive for parties disappointed with the press to opt for
violent means to express their dissatisfaction. The popular
reaction to offensive reports has been to attack and vandalize
media offices.

Moreover, in the past three years the police been most often
known to assault journalists. Instead of arresting the
perpetrators of violence and protecting journalists, the police
have instead been party to those driving away reporters and
hitting them.

Amid low public trust in the law attempts to reduce cases of
violence have been far from easy. But there are at least three
measures which can be taken in this regard.

First, raise solidarity within the media. Cases of violence
have mostly been faced only by the media concerned or
journalists; joint resistance has been rare, while this is
crucial to reduce violence against the press.

This is evident in Yogyakarta, where cases of violence against
journalists are quite low. This may be at least partially
attributable to the strong solidarity created following the 1996
death of Bernas daily journalist Muhammad Fuad Syafrudin (Udin).
Following his death Yogyakarta journalists immediately set up the
"White Kijang" team (after the vehicle they used) to investigate
the murder. The results led to heads rolling among suspected
officials, though his killer remains free. Those thinking of
intimidating journalists in Yogyakarta now think twice.

Second, the role of mediators such as the Press Council must
be strengthened. One of its tasks is to be a mediator in disputes
between the press and any party dissatisfied with reports. The
Council would then impose moral sanctions on the said media
following its investigation into the matter. Some think this is
not enough, nevertheless the press must be regulated by the
public without government interference.

The last measure would be to increase professionalism through
enforcing the code of ethics among the press. Many incidents of
violence and intimidation have been triggered by reports
considered unfair or inaccurate.

In any case violence against the press must end as it is a
threat not only to press freedom but to freedom of expression.
Intimidation and violence also threaten the public's basic right
to know because such cases unwittingly lead to self censorship
which in turn results in distorted reports hiding possibly vital
information. The public thus becomes the ultimate victim of
despotism when it can no longer exercise control through the
press.