Yuli Ismartono - Independence and reporting violence and disaster - Manila 14 Oct 2011

8/3/2019 Yuli Ismartono - Independence and reporting violence and disaster - Manila 14 Oct 2011

1/4

REPORTING ON VIOLENCE AND EMERGENCIES

ICRC Regional Media Conference for Southeast & East Asia

Manila, Philippines 14 October 2011

Panel 1: Reporting on violence and emergencies: opportunities and challenges

Yuli Ismartono, Deputy Chief Editor, Tempo (English edition)

Independence in Reporting Violence and Disaster

My first education in reporting on conflict situations was when I was posted in Bangkok,

Thailand in 1983. It was then the height of the refugee influx from the civil war in

Cambodia, which had broken out following the fall of the Khmer Rouge. From the

jungles of the border area between Cambodia and Thailand, the Khmer Rouge who

refused to be beaten -- waged a guerrilla war against the Heng Samrin regime in Phnom

Penh, who came to power with the support of Vietnamese troops. Two other groups at

that time loyalist followers of King Sihanouk and the Khmer Peoples National

Liberation Front (KPNLF) led by republican Minister Son Sann further confused the

battlefield. This civil war albeit a low intensity one -- was to last for close to 10 years,

before a United Nations-organized general elections after endless peace talks

sponsored by ASEAN brought an end to the fighting.

In the meantime, a humanitarian problem had developed as a result of the civil war inCambodia. Refugees streamed out of the country heading towards the Thai border

where they joined the armed or political group they related or identified with. So, five

main refugee clusters turned into huge camps almost as big as villages. At its peak, the

total number of Cambodian refugees stranded in the Thai-Cambodian border was more

than 250,000 people. It overwhelmed the Thai government, both in terms of its national

security as well as resources, despite the help from aid agencies, international

organizations and NGOs.

It was overwhelming for a reporter like me who had never seen such a scenario: an

armed war on the one hand and its massive humanitarian fallout. The media headlineswere either about the fighting on the battlefield or the suffering of the thousands of

homeless refugees.

Looking back, it was a great reporting opportunity for journalists, just looking at the

variety of angles to write. Yet, in hindsight, I now realize the lack of depth of our

reporting, of how some of our more careless headlines could have jeopardized the peace

talks, or caused the combatants to cause mistaken attacks. And always, at the end of the

totem pole, were the long-suffering refugees.


2/4

The experience of those years at the Thai-Cambodian border and the complexity of

covering conflicts were to follow me later, when I was assigned to cover Afghanistanafter the Russians left in the late 1980s and the tribal warlords were fighting among

themselves to grab power, only to be beaten by the Taliban.

The need to look at so many facets of a conflict beyond the body-bag count -- also

confronted me when I covered the Tamil Tigers long war against the Sri Lankan

government, and the coup detats in Thailand. And of course, there was the struggle of

the Burmese opposition on the border areas.

Today, I am an editor and I oversee the reports of my journalists out in the field and in

my own country, we have no shortage of conflicts and emergencies. They are right in

our own backyards. And they are different from the conventional wars -- moreinsidious, more difficult to comprehend and more potential for damage if we are not

careful, if we do not fully understanding the origins, the process and the effort towards a

solution, of those conflicts. I refer to communal strife, religious-based attacks and, of

course, acts of terrorism. And given the humanitarian dimensions of conflict, of course,

I include in this portfolio of oversight, the impact of natural disasters of which I have

experienced quite a few since I began my task as editor in 2000.

I dont know whether I should consider myself to be fortunate or not, coming from a

country where everything seems to happen - least where conflicts and emergencies are

concerned -- man made conflicts and natural disasters. You name it we have them.

In just over a decade, we went through a war of independence in East Timor, deadly

communal strife between different ethnic groups in Kalimantan between the

indigenous Dayak tribal people and the migrants from Madura Island, between

Christians and Muslims in the spice island of Ambon, once known as Moluccas or

Maluku, or even between Muslims and the Ahmadiyah a sect considered by

conservatives to be deviant. Of course, I dont have to tell you of the prevailing threats

of terrorism, the Bali bombings and others.

And dont forget, Indonesia has all the natural disasters too the devastating tsunami

which killed more than 100,000 people in Aceh, the massive earthquakes in Sumatra and

Central Java and last years volcanic eruption whose ashes covered a whole village and

sent thousands of residents to emergency camps.

Now, as journalists, the question is did we -- do we -- do a good job in covering conflicts

and disasters? Critics will say no. They complain the general media exaggerate, blow

up the situation, focus only on headline grabbing features, show only the gory details and


3/4

use inflammatory language, that we are biased that we dont cover both sides that we are

inconsiderate when we interview victims of disasters. The list is of grievances against

journalists is a long one. That bad journalism like in the case of the genocide inRwanda and ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia, as some have charged actually worsen

the situation. To many who are distrustful of the media, the media often becomes part of

the problem.

The biggest criticism to our coverage of conflicts and emergencies is that we are like

parachute journalists. In one day, look around, file your story, gone the next. Even local

journalists because the conflicts and disasters are often a distance away from where

mainstream journalists are based have been faulted for failing to do in-depth reporting

on conflicts. Journalists covering conflict have been criticized for not being factual, for

not being neutral, for reporting only for the moment at hand and not being holisticenough to get a comprehensive picture of the situation. Its not just what we write that

gets us into trouble, but what we dont put in print.

Are journalists violating ethical and professional standards when they report on conflicts

and emergencies?

As a practitioner, who has had my share of conflicts and emergencies, I admit at times to

be in a dilemma, to have to choose between humanity and professionalism especially

in emergencies and disasters. Should we have revealed the identity of victims before

notifying the families, should we respect privacy and let the interview go for another

time?

Good reporters on the ground will do their job professionally and following ethics they

have been taught: to be balanced and fair, to look at all sides and avoid advocacy. We

try our best, but there can be issues, one of the biggest being time. The word

DEADLINE looms large to every journalist. Getting the story on time, means

exclusivity, the biggest prize for a journalist. Often, in the interest of speed facts and

truth gets blurred. The tight competition between the media is often the reason why

reporters resort to shortcuts. It is also tight competition that compels sensationalheadlines and photographs of victims beyond decency and good taste, sometimes. At

times, in the race to get the best quote, not only is privacy forsaken, also confidentiality.

Often, when the reporter has no other choice but to go along with a military unit, or an

armed group or any party who will then pressure the reporter to look at their perspective

and not the reporters independent view. The biggest challenge is when the reporter is

part of the conflict whether its his or religious beliefs involved, How does one stay

detached? In some cases, the result can be tragic, in the communal strife in Ambon

between Christians and Muslims, the situation became so polarized that after stability


4/4

was restored, there evolved a Muslim press separate from the Christian press. I

understand from the National Press Council, however, that efforts are being made to

break the barriers.

The question is whether the media is able to report independently on conflicts and

emergencies.

As a practitioner, I would say yes, we can.

The reporter goes out to the fields to do his job to report what he sees, getting accurate

information that can be accountable, getting the facts, the right information from a

multiple of sources mindful that some of the sources might exert pressure, have theirmanipulative slant, remembering to avoid propaganda, not report on second-hand

information he cannot back up and to avoid stereotyping.

Given the complexities of conflicts, editors should not expect his reporters to cover

everything. Good editors will usually make sure there is a back-up team of researchers

mapping the conflict/disasters being covered, seek confirmation or verification or denial

from official or other sources to balance reports from the reporter on the field.

Essentially, it is to present all sides of the story and allowing the audience to make up its

own mind. This is not that much different from good basic journalism.

Of course, the biggest challenge is faced by the electronic media, whose pictures are

more impactful than words. Particularly with the challenge of what is called citizens

journalism.

Now that handphones can record pictures, the new journalism can be anyone, and they

can be famous in You Tube. They have no editors, no censorship, no time limit.

Actually, they do us a great service in times when us journalists cannot be there, as

evident in the case of the monks uprising in Burma a few years ago, and most recently,

of course, in Libya, Syria and in the Middle during the Arab Spring.

Let me conclude by saying that the best policy for independent journalism, is always

preparedness. This means touching all bases, and most importantly, that is to maintain

networks, regular communication with the credible sources in the case of conflict and

violence it is with third-parties like the ICRC.

Covering conflicts and emergencies independently, just means good journalism.

Documents

Yuli Ismartono - Independence and reporting violence and disaster - Manila 14 Oct 2011