Where is broadcasting headed?

By Marina Kanetti

JAKARTA (JP): An ancient story tells of three blind men who were asked to describe an elephant. Their descriptions differed immensely since none of the three could actually see the animal. Naturally, each presented his own point of view and none was close to actually capturing the nature of the object described.

The participants and audience of the Open Skies seminar held at the Horizon hotel last week were by no means blind.

However, they were dealing with a topic that is still quite elusive and intricate to describe: broadcasting in Asia.

The three-day seminar was organized by the Indonesian Institute for Press Studies, the unrecognized Alliance of Independent Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists. Participants and speakers came from around the world, including Australia, England, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, the Philippines.

As William Atkins from the University of Sydney, Australia, mentioned early in the discussions, the standards for broadcasting in Asia do not have to be those of the industrialized countries in the West, namely the United Kingdom and the United States. At the same time, however, different Asian countries, even those within the ASEAN, have had different experiences with broadcasting and there is little that can make for some distinguished Asian broadcasting features.

Thus, a main goal of the three-day seminar was to fill in the gaps in the existing system of broadcasting in Asia. Some of the most debated topics were, on the one hand, the relationship between states and broadcasting companies, national and or international, and, on the other, the role of journalists in presenting information to the public. The different angles from which speakers tackled the aforementioned issues created a lively discourse with the audience.

In fact, creating a discourse with Indonesian journalists was probably the major goal of the seminar. Undoubtedly, now more than ever, a discussion on the relationship between the government, the public and the journalists is very relevant in Indonesia. Recent political turmoil concerning the Indonesian Democratic Party, as well as the Supreme Court ruling in the Tempo magazine case were on the minds of both local and foreign participants.

Most pronounced in this regard was Jens Linde, president of the International Federation of Journalists. His appeal for freedom of expression in Indonesia was directed toward the government as well as the attending journalists. The message was clear: the international community is aware of any developments in Indonesia and the federation will continue working toward this goal.

Viewed from another angle, the problem faced by journalists, as Paul Chadwick from the Communications Law Center, Melbourne put it, was that "journalists operate in a society, not in a vacuum". In other words, delivering information goes both ways and the question is not simply to be able to deliver information, but also the type of information delivered.

Furthermore, as BBC correspondent for South Asia, Iain Simpson, elaborated, a foreign broadcaster might see certain news as interesting and intriguing; nevertheless the same news would not necessarily appeal to audiences with a different culture and values.

As some pointed out, however, it is wrong to use "Asian values" as an excuse and to stop the flow of certain kinds of information because it is against such values. The term "Asian values" has become a cliche with a lack of clear definition and substance. Different Asian countries hardly subscribe to common values and, in fact, many of them have sought to built national identities on the dissimilarities with other Asian countries.

Moreover, the right of information, as well as the freedom of expression to which every human being is entitled, are part of the Charter on Human Rights to which each member of the United Nations has subscribed. To carry the point a little further, although many would argue that this Charter was devised by industrialized countries in the West, hence does not represent universal values, no nation was forced to sign it. In other words, members of the UN have recognized these universal human rights on their own will.

After saying all this, however, it was still clear to speakers as well as the audience at the seminar that there are no easy solutions to freedom of expression in many Asian countries. Nevertheless, as it was pointed out, discussion of different issues and arenas for public debate are still available even if not in the most radical form and not on all possible topics.

As Abdurrahman Wahid, chairman of the Nahdlatul Ulama Moslem organization, said on the first day of the seminar, some kind of forum for discussion is always better than none. The key is that slowly, but inadvertently, people become more willing to express different opinions as well as to listen to the opinion of others.

This, in fact, is one of the main functions of broadcasting in Asia: nurturing and promoting a civil society, providing the forums for different views and opinions.

Who knows, if the three blind men had gotten together and had listened to their different descriptions of the elephant, they might have been able to figure out what it was all about.