Annual Repot AJI 2010 - The Threat from Within

The Threat from Within2010 Annual Report of the Alliance of Independent Journalists

The Threat is from Inside FA.indd 1 8/24/2010 11:33:25 AM

The Threat from Within2010 Annual Report of the Alliance of Independent Journalists

Writer: Abdul MananEditor: Andrew ThornleyCover dan Lay Out: J!DSG, www.jabrik.com

Publisher:The Alliance of Independent JournalistsJl. Kembang Raya No. 6 Kwitang Senen Jakarta Pusat 10420Email: [email protected] Website: www.ajiindonesia.orgCetakan: Jakarta, Agustus 2010


Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter I: Is it the Beginning of a Harsh Winter for Media Workers? ................................................. 7A Short History of Media Workers Unions ................................................................................................................... 8Indosiar Case and Subsequent Demonstration ............................................................................................................. 9Union Busting of Suara Pembaruan ...................................................................................................11

Chapter II: Not Dark, But Still A Blur .................................................................................................... 13Molotov Terror against Media ................................................................................................................................... 17The Murder of Prabangsa and the ‘New’ Deadliest Country ....................................................................................... 19Jakarta’s Fluctuating Statistics and Red Report Card .................................................................................................. 212010 as a Good Beginning? .................................................................................................................................... 24Seven Media and the News of a Gambling Case ...................................................................................................... 26

Chapter III: Freed from the Storm of Crisis ......................................................................................... 35Advertising and the Optimism to Look at the Future .................................................................................................. 36The increasing number of media which are not as fast as circulation ......................................................................... 40The Trend of TV, Radio, and Internet Advertising......................................................................................................... 42

Chapter IV: The Portrait of Indonesian Press Ethics ............................................................................ 45 Infotainment and “its divorce” with Journalism ......................................................................................................... 46 Two interpretations on the rise of complaints to the Press Council ............................................................................. 49

AnnexCases of Violance against Journalists (2009) ............................................................................................................. 53Journalists Who Died and are Missing in Indonesia (1996-2010) .............................................................................. 59Address the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) ................................................................................................ 61


Tabel Contents

Table 2.1 Supporting Environment for Press Freedom ............................................................................................. 15

Table 2.2 Anatomy of 2009 Violence Cases ............................................................................................................ 22

Table 2.3 The Ranking of Red Categorized Provinces (2007-2009) .......................................................................... 23

Table 3.1 Media Advertising Revenue (2005-2010)................................................................................................. 36

Table 3.2 The Advertising Revenue in the First Quarter of 1999 to 2010 ................................................................. 38

Table 3.3 The Advertising Revenue in First Quarter of 2010 Compared to the Previous Quarter ............................... 38

Table 3.4 Main Media Advertising Revenue (newspaper, magazine, television, internet, outdoor media) in US$ Million ............................................... 39

Table 3.5 Global advertising expenditure by medium US$ million, current prices Currency conversion at 2007 average rates ........................................................................ 40

Table 3.6 Share of Total Advertising expenditure by Medium 2006-2010 (%) .......................................................... 40

Table 3.7 The Growth of Number of Media and Circulation (2008 – 2010) ............................................................. 41

Table 3.8 10 biggest cities based on circulation figures (2010) ................................................................................ 41

Table 3.9 Media statistics ....................................................................................................................................... 42

Table 3.10 The Growth of Internet Users in Indonesia (2000-2010)........................................................................... 44

Table 4.1 Public Complaints to the Press Council (2007-2009)................................................................................ 50


5

Introduction

THE world of journalism in Indonesia today has become sharper in facing the contradiction of freedom and social responsibility. In the midst of the victory of press freedom over the last decade, we are witnessing a sharp focus on the “responsibility” of media ethics as a means of freedom of expression.

From 442 complaints to the Press Council in 2009, written or oral, the matter of violation of ethics has become important. Sensational news coverage, which twists the facts, as well as the weakness in accuracy of media reports, have become of serious note for the Press Council. This includes the blurring of the line between “fact” and “gossip” in a number of mass media products.

During ten years of reform, a large opportunity has been open for anyone establishing media and conducting journalistic work. Thus, we see that the media industry is growing, the way of communication has become more advanced, and that competition also seems more exciting.

On the other side, the attitude of the profit-orientated media industry has given journalism a bad reputation. We see how competition for ratings and circulation indeed threaten the heart of the media: credibility.

Needless to say, it is not a problem that competition increases circulation, ratings, or visits. The problem is: has competition resulted in the increase of journalism quality? Media businesses are greedy for profit, and justify their various ways with “as long as it sells”, which can end with the gambling of public trust in those media. If credibility is at stake, then qualified journalism should be the answer.

This 2010 AJI Annual Report, which is published each year to coincide with the celebration of the organization’s birth, on August 7, tries to record the dynamics of the national press. From August 2009 until the middle of 2010, AJI has noted many important things.

Although Indonesia is often praised as having the best press freedom in South East Asia, our ranking is still low. The ranking of press freedom in Indonesia, for example, is still decreasing in 2010. Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF), a nonprofit institution based in Paris, ranked Indonesia 57th in 2002, which then greatly decreased to 117th (in 2004). Up until 2010, Indonesia cannot reach the top 100 again.

The decreasing of Indonesia’s position, according to RSF, is because the Indonesian


THE THrEAT FroM WITHIN

6

government still uses “outdated laws” against the press. In South East Asia today, Indonesia’s ranking is below Papua New Guinea and Timor Leste. Following, in terms of ranking, are Cambodia, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Laos, and Burma.

In 2009, for example, we almost got “a nightmare” should the State Secrets Bill have been endorsed by the DPR. That is because the Bill threatens room for openness, which is guaranteed by the Law on the Openness of Public Information. Moreover, cases of defamation and violence against journalists are still stuck in the last year.

On the other hand, we also see how Indonesia is affected by global crises. Their affects have not been as dramatic as in America or Europe. The print media in Indonesia still can survive. Media business statistics in 2007-2010 showed that there were no negative symptoms in the national newspaper industry, although there was no significant leap in circulation.

Serious concern needs to be directed to the dramatic growth of social media through internet networks in Indonesia, such as Facebook, and Twitter microblogs. As of March 2010, there are 19.5 millions users of Facebook in Indonesia. At the end of 2008, that medium was only reaching 200,000 users across the archipelago.

In November 2009, there were about 1.4 million users of Twitter in Indonesia. Today, Google Ad Planner notes 4.6 million visitors of Twitter in Indonesia. Of course, these social media have become more important because the ability in information distribution is fast and massive. Indeed, the content of the mainstream media is also using this facility.

One important note is that the social media have become new media for information exchange. It is no longer one-way as with traditional “journalism”. Through the internet, a piece of information can skyrocket to every corner of the world, or also be flung. It can be counterbalanced, opposed, or forgotten.

Indeed, the upheaval of social media, for example, is welcomed today by the mainstream media. And, it can be vice versa. From political matters such as Bibit-Chandra to the case of the pornographic video of famous celebrities Ariel-Luna-Tari, those work in this new pattern. The development of information technology also forces “old media” to be side by side with “new media”.

This year, as in previous years, Indonesia has noted a lot of things from the dynamic of development. Nowadays, information has a new way to live and thrive. It is absolutely important to look for a kind of “virtue”, or what benefit can be derived by the public from those new media.

Although the world of information technology changes, there is one thing that remains constant: “content is king”. This means that the public, which is now enjoying great authority—including freedom of expression in social media—will determine which journalism is qualified, or not qualified. The most trusted journalistic work, which represents common sense (logic) and the public’s feeling (ethics), will by itself pass that complicated test.

Nezar Patria

President, Alliance of Independent Journalists


7

CHAPTEr I

Is it the Beginning of a Harsh Winter for Media Workers?

A Short History of Media Workers •Union Indosiar Case and After that Demonstration•Union Busting of Suara Pembaruan•

MEDIA workers nowadays are facing a different challenge from previous generations. Media workers not only face threatening regulations or outsiders like officials and a particular group of society. Media workers often face a threat from inside, as from the management or the capital owner. Often, the capital owner tries to inject personal interests or business relations and politics to disturb the independence of the newsroom. Another problem is that the capital owner also often practices anti-union actions or union busting.

The Alliance of Independent Journalists has actually long detected the danger from “the inside”. Born as a resistance against the government’s repression in 1994, AJI has made the issue of a union and journalists’ welfare as the priority program in the 1997 Congress, when AJI still operated clandestinely as an underground movement, because the New Order still held power.

As a member of the International Federation of Journalists, which also made the issue of media workers’ welfare as the main issue of the struggle, AJI also realizes that media conglomeration that has occurred in the United States of America and Europe will, in turn, occur in Indonesia. Like it or not, the coming of a media conglomeration era in Indonesia, and its follow-on effects, is just a matter of time.

When the crisis hit Indonesia in 1997, which ended up with mass termination of employment, some Indonesian press workers began to realize the importance of welfare issues, besides the press freedom issue itself. When mass media became an industry, some workers begin to turn to the union as their forum to struggle for their rights as workers. Although, admittedly, the media workers’ awareness to struggle for welfare through media unions is very late compared with workers in other industrial sectors.

The global financial crisis wagged its tail back to Indonesia in 2008. At that time, AJI was anxiously waiting: don’t let the crisis, which led to mass termination of employment in some places in the world, also sweep away the media industry in Indonesia. The anxiety was not without reason. The result of AJI’s monitoring, from November 2008 to April 2009, revealed that at least 100 media workers were fired. The number is increasing with time.



8

Until the first semester of 2010, the Labor Union Division of the Alliance of Independent Journalists recorded mass termination of employment, nuanced union busting (the crackdown of labor unions), towards 217 workers of Indosiar television station. The mass termination of employment was also experienced by 144 workers of Berita Kota daily after the newspaper was acquired by the Kompas Gramedia Group (KKG). Besides that, there were still about 50 workers of Suara Pembaruan evening daily and media groups from other Lippo Group entities fired.

The mass termination of employment also haunted the television station employees of ANTV. The General Chairman of ANTV Employee Union, Aries Budiono, stated that the management of ANTV processed the termination of employment for about 100 employees. “We received information that not more than 100 employees are in the mass layoffs. But, until now, it keeps processing,” said Aries Budiono as quoted in Jurnalparlemen.com, on March 17, 2010.

A Short History of Media Workers Unions

IT is not easy to find references about the history of the press industry in relation with the life of media workers unions. Generally, the historical record of the Indonesian press talks more about the struggle against tyranny, so that it touches less on aspects of economy, welfare, and the labor union’s struggle.

The first press in Indonesia was Bataviasche Nouvelles, published in Batavia (1745). This newspaper was published in the period of Willem Baron van Imhoff, General Governor of VOC (1743-1750)1. But, the oldest reference to media workers unions newly emerged in the 1970s, when journalists in Tempo magazine established a Board of Employees. For example, compare this with the establishment of the Nederland Indische Onderwys Genootschap (NIOG) or Union of Dutch East Indies Teachers in 1879.

The young history of media workers unions in Indonesia definitely was not caused by a lack of labour disputes in this industrial sector in earlier periods. According to David T. Hill2, one of the rational explanations for limited labour disputes in mass media is because media management has usually been owned by the senior editor – meaning that the owner and the manager are the same person. This phenomenon does, at least, provide some explanation as to why the labour issue did not resonate until the beginning of the New Order era.

Another reason is that the motivation of a person working in mass media is very different to that of one who works in other industrial sectors. There was a spirit of idealism and voluntarism shown by media workers in the years after independence, when this sector was actually not only carrying out “idealism”, due to the arrival of capital interests.

After the birth of the Board of Tempo Employees, around 14 years later there emerged other similar organizations. They were: Kerukunan Warga Karyawan Bisnis Indonesia (1992), Serikat Pekerja PT Bina Media Tenggara-Jakarta Post (1993), Dewan Karyawan Forum (1997), and Dewan Karyawan PT Abdi Bangsa-Penerbit Republika (1997)3.

1 Abdurrahman Surjomihardjo and Leo Suryadinata, Pers di Indonesia: Ikhtisar Perkembangan Sampai 1945, in Beberapa Segi perkembangan Sejarah Pers di Indonesia, Kompas, 2002, pp. 25.

2 David T. Hill, Merenungkan Sejarah, Menghadapi Masa Depan, in Heru Hendratmoko (ed.), 5 tahun AJI: Tetap Independen, AJI, 1999, pp. 13.

3 Although the ”embryo” of the labor union was only in five media, this did not mean that others had no concern for the issue of welfare. It is only a


9

The media workers union emerged after 1998, when the growth of media also reached a previously unimagined number. From 1998 to 2002, there were 19 established labour unions4. They were the Association of Kompas Employees, the Board of Tabloid KONTAN Employees (1998); the Board of ANTV Labour, Surabaya Post’s Labour Union, the Association of Solo Pos Employees (1999); Communication Forum of Pos Kota Employees (2000); Labour Union of Detik.com, Labour Union of KBR 68H, Labour Union of Neraca Daily, Association of Surya Group Employees, Forum of SWA Employees, SCTV Labour Union, Association of Warta Kota Employment, Waspada’s Press Labour Union (2001); Labour Union of Berita Kota, Board of Jake’s FM Workers, ANTARA’s Labour Union, and Labour Union of Sinar Harapan (2002). Then, there was SP Serikat Pekerja Indosiar.

However, if the comparison is between the amount of media and the emergence of media workers unions recently, the amount of media workers unions is still far from ideal. Just imagine, in the same period, the amount of publications grew from 289 in 1997 to 1,687 in 1999.

In fact, seen from the side of need and relevance, the existence of media workers unions in the reform era cannot be doubted anymore. Understandably, in this era, the role of capital is also more strongly enforced in the media industry. The face of media companies is no longer the same as in the previous era, when media were generally established and owned by a few editors.

After 1998, the ownership trend instead tended to focus to some conglomerates that have no history in struggling for media independence and newsroom independence. What has occurred is the centralization of media in the hands of people who have strong interests in other business sectors. Media businesses operate according to the logic of capital: manage to get a huge profit and maintain the business interests and the politics of the capital owner. Since that, various problems of manpower are continuing to punish media workers, starting from outsourcing, networking systems, contract labour systems, and the like.

The awareness of ever-bigger challenges in addition to various complicated manpower problems triggered the idea to form a federation of media workers unions. Facilitated by the Alliance of Independent Journalists, on July 25 2009, eight media workers unions agreed to join and establish the Federation of Independent Media Workers Unions. Those joining this federation include: the Board of Tempo Employees, the Forum of SWA Employees, the Forum of Smart FM Employees, the Labour Union of 68H, the Association of Solo Employees, Sekar Indosiar, and the Association of RCTI Employees.

Indosiar Case and Subsequent Demonstration

MONDAY, January 11, 2010. Hundreds of Indosiar employees held a demonstration in front of their office, in Damai street, West Jakarta. “A lot of Indosiar employees who have worked for five years still get a base salary below Rp 350,000. Overtime money on holidays

matter of the way, and the choice of strategy in struggle is different. Gatra Magazine established a cooperative in 1995. Long before, in 1978, there was also Sinar Karya cooperative to handle the welfare of Suara Pembaruan Daily’s employees. Of course, a cooperative is not the same as a labor union. The five media workers unions only in newspapers are still a small number, if compared with the amount of press that was published at that time. In the 1970s, when the Board of Tempo’s Employees was established, there were at least more than 1,000 daily and weekly newspapers. The existence of one labour union is clearly a very small number, because it is only more or less 1 % of the existing publishing.

4 Data based on the monitoring of Labor Union Division in AJI Indonesia, in 2006.

Chapter I Is it the Beginning of a Harsh Winter for Media Workers?



10

is only Rp 40,000. It violates the Law on Employment,” said the Head of Sekar Indosiar, an Employee Union, Dicky Irawan, in his oration.

The mass were in black Indosiar uniform, with red headbands on which were written “Salary Increases”. They also brought a lot of posters, and among others were written, “6 Years No Salary Raise”, “Don’t Fool Us”, and “Where is Your Promise?” To complete the action, the mass brought 29-inch TV sets with blur and no picture screen. The television was covered with a poster, “15 Years of Indosiar.”

The demonstration happened after a proposal letter for salary raises sent by employees was not replied to by the management. In a meeting with the employees’ representatives, the board of Indosiar directors stated that they could not raise salaries.

From Damai street, the mass was then in a convoy to Wisma Indocement, on Jenderal Sudirman street, which was Indosiar’s headquarters.

Actions on that day did not run smoothly. There was an effort to cut off the actions. But, there was a bigger threat which had already obscured the protesters. After that demonstration, some of Sekar Indosiar’s personnel got a letter of dismissal.

The activists of Sekar Indosiar did not accept the dismissal. Facilitated by Commission IX of the DPR RI and the Labour Department of DKI Jakarta Province, Sekar negotiated with the management of Indosiar. The result of the bipartite meeting on Thursday, February 18, 2010, on one hand gave a breath of fresh air to Indosiar’s employees. The management promised to comply with all provisions in the law of employment. But, in front of members of Commission IX of DPR, Indosiar management clearly stated that they would layoff 200 employees in the near future.

That nightmare became true on Wednesday, February 24, 2010. Some of Sekar Indosiar’s members were called by Indosiar’s personnel department. They were forced to sign a letter of dismissal under the guise of the company’s restructuring that led to rationalization.

Previously, the management offered a program of “withdrawal with honour” until the deadline on February 12, 2010. Employees who took the program were promised an additional bonus. However, the management made a special selection for that program. Those who agreed generally were the members of Sekar Indosiar. The applicants who were not Sekar’s members were never called, or their process would be very long. At the same time, the management also suspended all administrators of Sekar Indosiar.

That unilateral management action forced Sekar Indosiar to seek legal action with a civil claim against Indosiar’s management to the West Jakarta District Court. “The exception of the defendant’s legal advisor is rejected, and the West Jakarta District Court is authorized to adjudicate this case,” said the Chief Judge Jannes Aritonang when reading the verdict said on last July 1, 2010. The applause from the attendance reverberated. A member of Sekar Indosiar did a prostration of gratitude in the courtroom.

The judge made history. The union busting case had been in trial for the first time in the public court. This judge’s decision became an important breakthrough in the trial of an anti-union busting case. Usually, the public court judges rejected and stated the same claim as the operational territory of the industrial relations tribunal.


11

Union Busting of Suara Pembaruan

THAT Thursday afternoon, on March 13, 2010, should be a turning point which gave hope to Budi Laksono, a Chairman of Suara Pembaruan’s Labour Union. The Industrial Relations Tribunal (Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial/ PHI) of Jakarta decided that the layoff case (PHK) by PT Media Interaksi Utama (MIU) toward Budi was unlawful and void as a matter of law.

Budi, who had been working for 18 years in Suara Pembaruan, was fired shortly after establishing a labor union in his office. A number of Suara Pembaruan’s employees agreed to form a labor union to anticipate the management’s various plans, following the company’s ownership status.

The reaction of the company’s management was as had been predicted by Budi and friends. Management asked the employees who became the union’s administrators to choose whether they joined with the labor union or stayed with the company. They who chose being active in the labor union received sanction. Some of them were downgraded from editor to reporter and some others had salaries lowered.

Budi and friends had complained about the management’s treatment to the East Jakarta Department of Labor. Mediation in the Department of Labor favored Budi and his colleagues, and demanded the company to re-employ them. But, the company did not comply with the recommendation from the Department of Labor, until this case was finally brought to the Industrial Relations Tribunal.

Budi was the last man standing in this case. Initially, Budi brought the union busting case in Suara Pembaruan to the court with full support from about 30 of his fellow workers. However, in the middle of the long series of court hearings, management kept approaching Budi and friends. Management offered them severance pay as much as twice the statutory provisions. One by one of Budi’s friends accepted the layoff offering and severance pay from the company. When the judge lowered the gavel in the last hearing, there was only Budi who stood still in the courtroom to fight for his rights as a worker.

When reading the verdict, the Chairman of panel of judges PHI Jakarta, Sapawi, stated that the working relationship between PT MIU and Budi was not over yet. Budi had to be re-employed as previously, as a reporter in Suara Pembaruan, an afternoon daily newspaper. “The act of layoff is unlawful as a matter of law,” said Sapawi who was accompanied by two judges.

According to the judge, the unilateral dismissal of Budi contravened the provision in Law No. 13 of 2003 on Labor Affairs. Besides asking Budi to be rehired, the Panel of Judges punished PT MIU to pay Budi’s salary since March 2009 and pay forced money (dwangsom) in the amount of IDR 200.000 per day for negligence of Suara Pembaruan’s management.

Responding to the decision of the Panel of Judges, Budi Laksono felt relief. During this time, the chairman of PT MIU always boasted that the company could not be defeated because it had a lot of money. “Apparently, there is still justice in this country, which cannot be bought. This decision breaks the company’s arrogance,” said Budi.

lll

Chapter I Is it the Beginning of a Harsh Winter for Media Workers?



12

BUDI’S long legal struggle resulted in a positive end. However, Budi’s effort to obtain his rights still took a long time. It is because the company where he worked is adamant that the termination complied with regulations. “We will appeal,” said the lawyer of Suara Pembaruan, Andi Simangunsong, as quoted by Tempo Magazine, edition of March 29 to April 4, 2010.


13

CHAPTEr II

Not Dark, But Still A Blur

Molotov Terror against the Media•The Murder of Prabangsa and The ‘New’ Deadliest Country•Jakarta’s fluctuating Statistics and Red Report Card•Seven Media and the News of Gambling Case•Again and Again, Threatening Regulations •

THE issue of a free press in Indonesia frequently becomes part of officials’ favorite rhetoric. On some occasions, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono mentions the important role of the Indonesian press. For example, when receiving the chairman of Globe Media Group, the President mentioned that the Indonesian press was one of the freest presses in Asia1. On another occasion, the President also mentioned that press was “a powerful element’. However, the President also demanded that the press’ authority and power had to be used properly, in a constructive way, and with full responsibility.

So then, are the President’s notes a hidden sign that there is something “inappropriate” and “unconstructive” with our press recently? And, what do our officials have in mind when they are talking about a free press? Is this based on some indicators that can be objectively tested, or is it just a hasty judgment after seeing a number of realities regarding the Indonesian press all this time? Certainly, only the President and governmental officials can definitely answer this line of questions.

In fact, Indonesian Press regulations nowadays are indeed better than during the New Order era. Since 1999, there has been no obligation for newspapers to have a license. In the past, the license was named the Press Publication Business License (Surat Izin Usaha Penerbitan Pers/ SIUPP), issued by the Ministry of Information. In addition, Law No. 40 of 1999 ensures that the press in Indonesia cannot be subjected to censorship and banishment.

1 President: Indonesian Press is the Freest in Asia, in Antara, January 06, 2009. The news writer inaccurately interpreted Andi Malarangeng’s statement. Because, in the body of the news, Andi mentioned that the Indonesian press is one of the most free in Asia. If it was intentional, of course nothing is wrong. Based on the data of Reporter Sans Frontiers (RSF) in 2008, Indonesia ranked 111, which was defeated by other Asian countries, such as Timor Leste (ranking 65), South Korea (ranking 47), Taiwan (ranking 36), and Japan (ranking 29). In 2009, Indonesia’s ranking was better: 101. In Asia, Indonesia’s position still could not defeat Timor Leste (74), Taiwan (59), Hongkong (48), and Japan (17). The Vice President Jusuf Kalla, in the open dialog on “The Presidential candidate’s commitment to build press freedom”, in Jakarta, on June 22, 2009, also mentioned that the Indonesian press was the best in Asia. See JK: Indonesia Press is the Most Free in Asia, Jakarta, in CyberNews, June 22, 2009.



14

Nevertheless, government policies have not changed much, relatively, for television and radio media. The license for broadcasting media is still required, because the two media, television and radio, are using frequencies in very limited amounts and also including in the public sphere. However, since the reform era, there are much more demands for broadcast media licenses compared to the preceding era.

In broadcasting, one situation different from ten years ago is the existence of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia/ KPI). The Commission, which was established in 2001, originally had the authority to issue licenses for broadcasting media. Yet, the authority of the KPI for issuing licenses was discharged after this Commission was involved in an authority dispute with the Ministry of Communication and Information. The Constitutional Court, who judged that authority dispute, decided that the government had the right to issue licenses for broadcast media. Finally, the Broadcasting Commission has simply become more of a recommender—in addition to the function of supervising the content of broadcasts.

Another fact indicating the era of free press is a tendency towards the increasing of complaints to the Press Council regarding news coverage. Most of the public complaints contain reports of alleged violations of the Journalistic Code of Ethics. From the practical side of journalism, the amount of complaints to the Press Council reflects the amount of violations to the code of ethics, which can also be regarded as the “inappropriate” and “unconstructive” side of press freedom.

Even so, in terms of public awareness, the amount of complaints to the Press Council can even be interpreted as something positive. Those trends can be read as the blossoming of a new public trust towards a more elegant resolution of news coverage disputes. Law No. 40 of 1999 states how to resolve news coverage disputes in a “way unthreatening to press freedom”, that is by using the right to reply, right of rectification, and mediation in the Press Council.

In order to measure press freedom in Indonesia more accurately, let us take a look at how the international rating agencies make a country’s rank of press freedom. The Freedom House’s Board of Jury, for instance, formulates three primary conditions in measuring a country’s press freedom. They are political environment, legal environment, and economic environment. For more details, see the following table of questions.


15

Table 2.1 Supporting Environment for Press Freedom

LEGAL ENVIRONMENT POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

1. Do the constitution or other basic laws contain provisions designed to protect freedom of the press and of expression, and are they enforced?

2. Do the penal code, security laws, or any other laws restrict reporting, and are journalists punished under these laws?

3. Are there penalties for libeling officials or the state, and are they enforced?

4. Is the judiciary independent, and do courts judge cases concerning the media impartially?

5. Is freedom of information legislation in place, and are journalists able to make use of it?

6. Can individuals or business entities legally establish and operate private media outlets without undue interference?

7. Are media regulatory bodies, such as a broadcasting authority or national press or communications council, able to operate freely and independently?

8. Is there freedom to become a journalist and to practice journalism, and can professional groups freely support journalists’ rights and interests?

1. To what extent are media outlets’ news and information content determined by the government or a particular partisan interest?

2. Is access to official or unofficial sources generally controlled?

3. Is there official or unofficial censorship?

4. Do journalists practice self-censorship?

5. Do people have access to media coverage that is robust and reflects a diversity of viewpoints?

6. Are both local and foreign journalists able to cover the news freely?

7. Are journalists or media outlets subject to extralegal intimidation or physical violence by state authorities or any other actor?

1. To what extent are media owned or controlled by the government, and does this influence their diversity of views?

2. Is media ownership transparent, thus allowing consumers to judge the impartiality of the news?

3. Is media ownership highly concentrated, and does it influence diversity of content?

4. Are there restrictions on the means of journalistic production and distribution?

5. Are there high costs associated with the establishment and operation of media outlets?

6. Do the state or other actors try to control the media through allocation of advertising or subsidies?

7. Do journalists receive payment from private or public sources whose design is to influence their journalistic content?

8. Does the economic situation in a country accentuate media dependency on the state, political parties, big business, or other influential political actors for funding?

From the above list of questions formulated by Freedom House, it is shown that there are a lot of aspects that must be tested, examined, and answered honestly when we are measuring a country’s press freedom.

For instance, we can take just the legal aspect. The first question that must be examined is, does the Constitution protect press freedom? And, the next critical question: is that constitutional protection enforced? It is well known that there are a lot of laws that are good on paper, but not always followed in practice in the field.

Just in the legal aspect, there are at least eight questions that need to be answered. There are questions as to what laws can penalize journalists, are courts independent enough in handling media cases, are there regulations concerning the freedom of information, are people freely establishing media without interference, are there independent bodies for governing media, and can journalists freely perform their profession?

In the political aspect, there are also many questions. The questions that must be answered are whether there is interference from the government or other partisan interests in the content of the news coverage, access to sources, censorship practice and pre-censorship; whether the public have access to media coverage in order to ensure their various views. There is also the question about treatment of local and foreign journalists. And, another important question is whether journalists and media are subject to intimidation and physical violations from state officials or other actors.

The last aspect is economy. The important question that must be answered is about the

Chapter II Not Dark, But Still A Blur



16

influence of the media owners or the government towards the diversity of news or broadcast content. Also, there is the question of transparency of ownership and whether it is concentrated only in some groups. Then, there are questions concerning its affects on the diversity of point of views, the possibility of restrictions in media production and distribution, the efforts to control media through the allocation of cost and advertising, and whether there is an effort to influence journalists’ news and media through money payments.

In the calculation of Freedom House, those three environmental conditions contribute an average value of 30 percent, except the legal aspect which has a value 10 percent higher. That is the parameter which finally determines whether the status of a country is free, partly free, or not free.

Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF), a global research organization which promotes press freedom, also uses roughly the same parameters in making the index of a country’s press freedom, although not as strictly classified as Freedom House.

There was criticism towards a number of those parameters, which were considered to more greatly reflect conditions or values of the states making the rankings: Freedom House is headquartered in Washington, United States, and Reporter Sans Frontiers is based in Paris, France. But let us take a look at the standards of assessment for other continents. Africa, for example, is through African Media Barometer (AMB). The indicators they use are also more or less the same in principle, although there are differences in some cases.

By using the check list according to Freedom House and Reporter Sans Frontiers, the statement of President Yudhoyono that the Indonesian press is one of the best in Asia does have merit. Based on 2009 RSF Data, Indonesia ranked 101 out of 175 surveyed countries. The index of Indonesian Press freedom in 2009 had become better than the 2008 index, which ranked Indonesia 111. But, with the 101 rating, Indonesia was still defeated by Timor Leste (74) and Papua New Guinea (56). On top of Indonesia there were also other Asian countries, such as Japan (17), Hong Kong (48), Taiwan (59), Kuwait (60), South Korea (69), United Arab Emirates (87), Israel (93), and Qatar (94).

Besides the press freedom rankings, which are not too crucial, from 2009 until the early semester of 2010, there were a number of occurrences that genuinely threatened press freedom in Indonesia. Anak Agung Prabangsa, a journalist of the local Radar Bali daily newspaper, was killed sadistically. His body was found floating in the waters of the Lombok Starit, on February 16, 2009.

The killing case of Prabangsa has become an ugly blot on the history of Indonesia’s press in the past two years. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), an international organization which actively campaigns for journalists’ safety, put Indonesia in the “Deadliest Country” list, ranked 14th out of 20 countries.

After that, in the early morning on July 7, 2010, two Molotov cocktails and one firecracker were thrown by an unidentified person into the office of Tempo Magazine. This attack represents a bad sign for the life of the press in 2010.

On July 26, 2010, press workers in Indonesia were also shocked by the death of senior journalist from Kompas, Muhammad Saifullah, in his service home in Balikpapan, East Kalimantan. (At the time of writing this report, the cause of the Saifullah’s death is still under police investigation).


17

The series of those events mark a strong signal that violence against journalists has not subsided yet. It confirms the statistics of violent cases recorded by the Advocacy Division of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia. From January until December 2009, AJI recorded 37 violence cases. Although the number decreased compared with 2008, in which 58 violent cases were recorded, the amount of violence in 2009 was still above 2004 (27 cases) and 1996 (13 cases).

From the regulatory aspect, 2009 almost produced “a nightmare” which fortunately did not become a reality. In 2009, if not opposed by the media community and other civil society, the government and House of People’s Representatives (DPR) almost legitimized the State Secrets Bill. From the previous discussion, it is clear that the State Secrets Bill diminishes the openness which is provided for by the Law on the Openness of Public Information.

Another important thing to note in 2009 is that there are still a lot of defamation cases. In AJI Indonesia’s note, there are at least two critical defamation cases: the defamation court case brought by the former Chief of Regional Police of South and West Sulawesi, Sisno Adiwinoto, and civil action from Raymond Teddy towards Rajawali Citra Televisi Indonesia (RCTI), a news portal of Kompas Cyber Media, Kompas Daily, Warta Kota Daily, a news portal of detik.com, Suara Pembaharuan Daily, and Seputar Indonesia Daily.

With so many serious threats towards Indonesian press freedom during 2009 and in early 2010, the increase in the index of Indonesian press freedom in 2009 may not be due to the significant improvement of the press freedom climate in this country. It may have occured because the press conditions in other surveyed countries are also worsening.

Molotov Terror against Media

THE Molotov cocktail thrown by a stranger in front of Tempo Magazine’s office on July 7, 2010 was clearly not a usual incident for a country not at war. In addition, the Molotov attack happened not long after Tempo Magazine sold out editions as a result of unidentified persons.

Tempo magazine’s June 28 to July 4, 2010 edition, entitled “Police Officers’ Fat Account”, covers a main report on some police generals who have suspicious bank accounts. On average, balances in their accounts are far above salary accumulation of people who have a regular police career. Tempo, for example, revealed a police officer holding a position as general inspector had an account of IDR 54 billion. Whereas, the National Police Command’s Head of Criminal Investigation Agency, General Commissioner Ito Sumardi, stated that National Police Chief, the highest official in the institution, received a salary of only about IDR 23 million, including various benefits.

The cover of the edition of Tempo Magazine at that time was an illustration, not a photograph. That is, a person in police officer uniform taking three pink piggy banks for a walk. Apparently, the cover of Tempo magazine—and its main report—made the top brass at the National Police Headquarters in Trunojoyo street, South Jakarta, outraged.

“Don’t picture us like that. That’s a forbidden animal. Why is it pictured like us?” said National Police Chief, General Bambang Hendarso Danuri, to journalists after the celebration of the 64th anniversary of the National Police in the Police Mobile Brigade Headquarters, Kelapa Dua, Depok, West Java. The National Police Chief did not show his anger openly.




18

But, he said, “Of course, our officers who were on duty in the border region, working in the hinterland, must have felt piqued when seeing that.”

The reaction from National Police Headquarters was not only offense. They reported Tempo magazine to the National Police’s Criminal Investigation Agency—an agency within its own institution. The National Police Headquarters reported Tempo as violating Article 207 and 208 of the Criminal Code regarding institutional insult. “We choose legal action. Then, let the legal process resolve it,” said the spokeperson of the National Police Headquarters, Edward Aritonang.

The police’s strong reaction provoked solidarity for Tempo Magazine. “Nowadays is not an era for press silencing and criminalization,” said the Rector of Paramadina University, Anies Baswedan, who initiated a statement of support from public figures in Tempo Magazine’s office, Proklamasi street, Central Jakarta. A member of the House of Representatives, Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, who also came to give support, said that the police should be thankful to Tempo magazine. “It must be interpreted as an expression of love in support of the clean police,” said Nursyahbani.

The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia, in the action statement issued on the same day as the police reported Tempo Magazine, also deplored the police’s action that used articles of the KUHP (criminal code), rather than using the mechanism provided by the Press Law. “It is very unfortunate, when the police use colonial ways to silence Tempo,” said Margiyono, coordinator of Advocacy at AJI Indonesia. According to AJI, the National Police should use the report of Tempo Magazine as a mirror to further increase their quality and professionalism in upholding the law, instead of disputing the media that wrote about the findings of the alleged depravity of their institution. The police, said AJI, must not be as the proverb “ugly face, broken mirror”.

In the midst of “the tumult” of news on the police’s anger toward Tempo Magazine and the solidarity that followed, there occurred the throwing of the Molotov cocktail, at around 02.45 am Western Indonesian Standard Time (WIB), on July 6, 2010, at Tempo Magazine’s office. The Molotov cocktail was successfully extinguished at that moment by the security guards who were on guard in Tempo’s office building. No serious damages were caused by the bombs. Shortly after the bombing incident, the police hurried to repulse the possible involvement of their institution in the bombing incident

. However, the case was already making the flow of support toward Tempo Magazine more widespread. Demonstrations condemned the bombing were held in several cities. The International Federation of Journalists, an international journalist organization headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, demanded a serious investigation towards the attack. As did the RSF based in Paris, France.

In the middle of the flow of national and international criticism, the National Police finally looked at the mechanism stipulated in Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press. The police filed a complaint against Tempo Magazine to the Press Council. Not even one week later, the Press Council succeeded in mediating between the National Police and Tempo. Both parties agreed to reconcile and stop processing the news coverage dispute through legal means.

However, demands for the police to reveal the perpetrators of and motive for throwing the Molotov cocktail at the Tempo’s office have not subsided. Moreover, two days after the Molotov throwing, an activist from Indonesia Corruption Watch, Tama S. Langkun, became the victim of persecution in Duren Tiga region, South Jakarta. There is a similarity of activity


19

by Tempo and Tama before the violence: Tempo Magazine wrote a report about some police generals’ suspicious accounts; and Tama also reported a police general who had an unusual account to the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi/ KPK).

As in the case of the Molotov cocktail thrown at Tempo Magazine, the police also strongly refuted that their institution was involved in the attack against Tama. But, the public did not all of sudden believe the objection. In addition, until the end of July 2010, the police investigation of both cases still has not shed any light yet. The press community and civil society in general, including international organizations such as IFJ, are still waiting for the police to fulfill their promise.

The Murder of Prabangsa and the ‘New’ Deadliest Country

THE Molotov cocktail thrown at Tempo Magazine’s office is a bad and dangerous sign for the free press. Undoubtedly, this kind of open intimidation is a very clear threatening message. But, what had happened with Anak Agung Prabangsa was far worse. The body of this journalist of Radar Bali Daily newspaper was found floating in the waters of the Lombok Strait, West Nusa Tenggara Barat, on February 16, 2009.

Prabangsa began his career as a journalist of Nusa Daily in 1997, before finally moving to Radar Bali Daily in 2003, until he was befallen by this tragic incident. With the murder of Prabangsa, there are at least six murdered journalists in the last 14 years in Indonesia. Allegedly, they were murdered because of carrying out their profession as journalists.

The family and management of Radar Bali Daily had reported Prabangsa to the Denpasar District Police because he was missing form his home in Denpasar since February 11, 2009. Strangely, Prabangsa’s motorcycle was found in his home village in Taman Bali, Bangli regency.

Prabangsa’s family in Taman Bali confirmed Prabangsa’s arrival. After that, he went to an unknown destination. The officer from the Karangasem District Police who removed the victim’s body believed that it was Prabangsa’s body after seeing the press card issued by Radar Bali Daily in Prabangsa’s pocket. When it was found, the victim’s body had swollen, his head cracked, his tongue protruding, with a torn left ear, his chest and neck bruised, and missing one eyeball.

Initially, the police only confirmed that Prabangsa was murdered, not because of accident or other accidental causes. But, the police did not find any indication that the murder was related to Prabangsa’s profession as a journalist. “The results of the investigation are narrowing. Viewed from the motive side, at the time of death the victim was not conducting a news investigation. Besides that, he was an editor, not like all of you,” said the Head of the Bali Regional Police, Teuku Asikin Husein, to the journalists who were interviewing him on February 18, 2009.

Later, the police began to find a clear indication when receiving testimony from Prabangsa’s fellow colleagues. The deceased had complained that he was frequently threatened, although he did not clarify who threatened him.

The police then began to discover the linkage between Prabangsa’s death with the




20

news he had written. It was about the direct assignment of a project supervisor for some developments in Bangli Education Department, with a value of IDR 4 billion. This finding led the police to a half-built house in Merdeka Bangli street, owned by Nyoman Susrama, who then became the suspect of this murder case.

In that house, the police found blood-stained pants of one of the suspects. In a Kijang car, police also found a bloodstain. The police had a firm belief after the Denpasar Center of Laboratory ensured that the two samples were both blood group AB, meaning that they matched with Prabangsa’ blood group. On May 25, 2009, the police announced that Susrama along with six other men were suspects. They are Komang Gede, Nyoman Rencana, I Komang Gede Wardana as known as Mangde. “His motive was pain and suffering,” said the Head of Bali Regional Police, Teuku Asikin Husein.

The perpetrators, according to the police, shared a role in taking the life of Prabangsa. Komang Gede, an accounting staff in the development project of an international kindergarten in Bangli, was to pick up the victim. Mangde and Rencana acted as the executors and brought the victim’s body to the Padangbai waters. Dewa Sumbawa was Susrama’s driver. While Endy, a driver and an employee in the Sita water company, was assigned to clean the victim’s blood.

According to the police, they were arrested in their houses, after the 100th day of the victim’s death. The exhibits were the blood spills in Susrama’s house, a green Toyota Kijang Rover numbered AB-8888-MK with blood spots in six points. The police also seized a metallic soft green Honda Grand Civic numbered DK-322-YD, blue jeans, a car carpet, and a white sack.

From the suspects’ testimony, according to the police, Prabangsa was murdered in Susrama’s house in Banjar Petak, Bebalang, Bangli, on February 11, 2009, around 16.30-22.30 local time. Prabangsa was persuaded to go to the house in Banjar Petak, and then executed by being beaten with wooden sticks. After that, Prabangsa’s body was thrown into the sea at Padangbai beach.

The judge reinforced the police’s conviction. In the court on February 15, 2010, the judge sentenced Nyoman Susrama with life imprisonment. That verdict was lower than the demand of prosecutor, which was the death sentence. The panel of judges, led by Djumain, SH, stated that Susrama was guilty of violating Article 340 of KUHP and Article 55 paragraph 1.1 of KUHP regarding joint pre-meditated murder. “The murder was sadistically done, which was in opposition to the teaching of ahimsa,” said Djumain2.

The judge believed that the motive for the killing was the reporting in Radar Bali daily written by Prabangsa on December 3, 8, and 9, 2008 about the projects of the Bangli Education Department, especially the international kindergarten and elementary school projects. Susrama was a chairman of the project’s Development Committee, valued at millions of rupiahs.

2 Koran Tempo Daily, Susrama Sentenced to Life Imprisonment, February 16, 2010

Deadliest Countries in 2009

Philippines 33

Somalia 9

Iraq 4

Pakistan 4

Mexico 3

Russia 3

Afghanistan 2

Sri Lanka 2

Nigeria 1

Venezuela 1

Nepal 1

Turkey 1

Azerbaijan 1

Indonesia 1

El Salvador 1

Colombia 1

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory

1

Madagascar 1

Iran 1

Kenya 1

BAHAN: CPJ, 2009


21

Prabangsa’s death marked a poor record for Indonesia in the eyes of the world. Moreover, Prabangsa was not the first journalist who died because of his profession. The mystery of the previous two journalists’ killing cases hads not even been solved. In the murder case of Fuad Muh. Syafrudin, a journalist in Berita Nasional Daily, on 1996, the perpetrator was never brought to the court until now. While the body of Ellyudin Telambanua, a journalist in Berita Sore Medan Daily, was not found until now. In the CPJ database, Ellyudin was categorized as a missing journalist case.

Prabangsa’s case made Indonesia included in the list of deadliest countries for journalists. In the list released by CPJ, Indonesia is in 14th place of those considered as the deadliest for journalists. Indonesia’s position is in parallel with Columbia, Nigeria, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and El Salvador. This list will be a poor record for the Indonesian press for some time to come.

Jakarta’s Fluctuating Statistics and red report Card

FROM the statistical side, cases of violence against journalists3 have fluctuated over the last 14 years. If the comparison is the situation before 1998, the graphics are far different. The repressive government and the strict media regulations in the New Order era were factors that led to a small amont of media at that time. Journalists also worked in a very careful way (read: full of fear). Consequently, the occurrence of physical violence against journalists was not much. Look at the case data at the end of the New Order era. In 1996, there were only 13 cases of violence against journalists and the media.

In 1997, when the power of the New Order era became increasingly unstable, and the media began to critically question the attitudes of the power holders, the amount of cases of violence against journalists increased to 43. The highest numbers were in 1998 (41 cases), 1999 (74 cases), 2000 (122 cases), and 2001 (95 cases).

After that, the amount of cases of violence went up and down. In 2004, there were only 27 cases, then in 2005 (43 cases), 2006 (53 cases), 2007 (75 cases), and 2008 (59 cases). Although the trend was up and down, until 2010, statistics relating to cases of violence dropped to the lowest number, as recorded during the New Order era.

It is not easy to definitely describe the cause of the up and down statistics of cases of violence against journalists and the media. For some people, venting their anger with violence is considered an “easier” and “cheaper” way than having to deal with the court4. It is necessary to have extensive research to answer why violence is often used by people who are not satisfied with media coverage. A member of the Press Council, Agus Sudibyo5, mentions this peculiar phenomenon as a problem in the transition era, when there were a lot of anomalous events; some were good, but many were bad.

3 At the least, there are nine categories in violence against journalists: (1) killing, (2) imprisonment, (3) attacking, (4) kidnap, (5) censorship, (6) expulsion, (7) harassment, (8) threat, or (9) legal claim.

4 There is a point of view that the quality of Indonesian media coverage is decreasing compared with the New Order era. There is an explosion in numbers of newspapers, television, radio, dotcom and other various media organizations. People compete to publish newspapers. But, the number of journalists and editors who understand journalism well is still inadequate. The effect is a lot of news made with poor procedures. More people feel unsatisfied by media. “Violence way is easier and cheaper to reflect disappointment toward news coverage, than the complicated legal way,” said Solahuddin, Secretary general of AJI Indonesia. See Pantau, A Black Spot of Journalism, no date.

5 Interview of Agus Sudibyo, … July 2010.




22

Throughout 2009, based on the monitoring results of AJI Indonesia’s Advocacy Division, cases of violence were dominated by physical violence against journalists. The amount is 18 of 37 cases. After that, there are lawsuit cases (7 cases) and expulsion and prohibition of coverage (3 cases). It is different with the situation in 2008, when from 59 violence cases, 18 were threats, 9 cases were expulsion and prohibition of coverage, and 3 cases were censorship. From the perpetrator side, there is also a difference. In 2008, 20 of 59 violence cases were conducted by mass supporters during elections of regional heads. The second and third most common perpetrators of violence were government officials and police, respectively 11 perpetrators. While in 2009, the most common perpetrators are government officials (7 cases), cadres of the parties (4 cases), and police (3 cases). From the side of perpetrators of violence, the similarity between 2008 and 2009 is on the police who became the third most common perpetrators in both years.

Table 2.2 Anatomy of 2009 Violence Cases

region Perpetrator Type of Action

DKI Jakarta (6 cases) Government officials (7 cases) Physical violence (18 cases)

East Java (6 cases) Cadres of the political parties (4 cases)

Lawsuit or legal claim (7 cases)

South Sulawesi (5 cases) Police (3 cases) Expulsion and prohibition of coverage (3 cases)

North Sumatra (3 cases) Prosecutors and Judges (3 cases) Demonstration (3 cases)

West Nusa Tenggara (2 cases) A group from society (3 cases) Censorship (2 cases)

Central Java (2 cases) Security or security officers (3 cases)

Hostage (2 cases)

Bali (2 cases) Hoodlums (2 cases) Harassment and intimidation (1 case)

Papua (2 cases) College students (2 cases) Murder (1 cases)

West Kalimantan (1 case) An employee of a company (2 cases)

East Nusa Tenggara (1 case) Unidentified person (1 case)

West Java (1 case) Indonesia Military Forces (1 case)

North Maluku (1 case) Businessman (1 case)

Banten (1 case) Doctor (1 case)

South Sumatera (1 case) Teacher (1 case)

Jambi (1 case)

North Sulawesi (1 case)

Riau Islands (1 case)

37 cases 37 37

The perpetrators of the physical violence against journalists, which was prevalent in 2009, are quite diverse. There are officers of the Indonesian Military Forces (TNI), citizens, and—ironically, also—college students. The triggers of these cases are also not the same. There is the one who refuses for his or her accident case to be reported. But, there is also one because of the perpetrator’s closed stance, because he or she does not want his or her incident to be exposed by the journalist.

In the beating case of a local television station journalist in Palembang, Pal TV, Yudi Saputra, the perpetrator, did not want his family’s traffic accident to be covered by the media. While the violence that was experienced by Norik, a journalist of Indosiar TV station, was conducted by a member of the Indonesian Military Air Force who did not like Nonik taking pictures of a plane that had crashed.

Another interesting violence case to be noted is the case of Septianda Perdana, a journalist of Antara Sumut media online. He became the victim of violence by students of


23

HKBP Nommensen University, Medan, on April 21, 2009. The students were angry because they did not want to be covered when they were in a fight. In this case, Perdana received harsh treatment and was stoned by the students.

In Papua, violence occurred as a reaction to the restriction of coverage access for foreign journalists. It is an old policy that has been maintained by local officials and often ends up with the journalist’s expulsion. Three journalists from NRC Handelsblad, Netherlands—Gabriel, Pieter, and Ronald—were arrested after covering demonstration activities about Papuan Independence in front of the Papuan House of People’s Representative’s office, on March 24, 2009.

Those three journalists were in a group with the pioneer of the Independent Papua Organization’s establishment, Nikolaus Youwe, who was visiting Jakarta and Papua a couple of days earlier. When Nikolaus’ group returned to the Netherlands, those three journalists were still in Jayapura and covering Papuan independence demonstrations. That was when they were arrested. The Class I Immigration officer of Jayapura, Hendiartono, said that the officers arrested those three journalists because they violated coverage permission from the Ministry of People’s Welfare Coordinator. “The permission is only to cover Nikolaus’ visit in Papua,” said Hendiartono6.

AJI Indonesia protested the arrest. That afternoon, in a press release, Chairman of AJI Indonesia, Nezar Patria, condemned the arrest and asked those three journalists to be freed immediately. AJI evaluated that the Immigration officer’s attitude had obstructed journalistic activities7. AJI also regretted the closure of Papua to foreign journalists, resulting in the information flow from Papua to foreign countries becoming obstructed, minimal, and often full of distortions. AJI urged the government to open the widest access for journalists from any country to cover Papua.

In the statistics of cases of violence against journalists, one important note is also the area where the cases occurred. In 2009, Jakarta again became the province with the most violence cases against journalists. The previous year, 2009, Gorontalo placed this first position because there were 11 cases of violence that occurred in the province, which was relatively newly established. The return of Jakarta as the reddest province in Indonesia is actually not too surprising. In 2008, Jakarta ranked first because 17 of 75 violence cases occurred in this area.

Table 2.3 The ranking of red Categorized Provinces (2007-2009)

2007 2008 2009

Ranking 1 Jakarta (17 cases) Gorontalo (11 cases) DKI Jakarta (6 cases)

Ranking 2 East Java (14 cases) Jakarta (9 cases) East Java (6 cases)

Ranking 3 West Java (10 cases) East Java (6 cases) South Sulawesi (5 cases)

Ranking 4 The Province of Aceh (8 cases) East Nusa Tenggara (5 cases) North Sumatera (3 cases)

Ranking 5 North Sumatera (8 cases) North Maluku (5 cases) West Nusa Tenggara (2 cases)

SOURCE: PROCESSED FROM DATA OF ADVOCACy DIVISION OF AJI INDONESIA

Not all violence against journalists and the media are in the form of physical violence. Another violence such as through legal process was experienced by the Jakarta Globe (an

6 A news site, vivanews.com, Three Dutch Journalists Arrested by Immigration, March 24, 2009.

7 Tempo Interaktif, AJI Minta Jurnalis Belanda Dibebaskan, Tuesday, March 24, 2009.




24

English-language daily), Okezone.com (news website), and Daily of Bangsa. Another case is the police investigation of a journalist from Seputar Indonesia Daily and Kompas Daily related to the news about alleged engineering of legal proceedings regarding two chairmen of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), Bibit Samad Riyanto and Chandra M. Hamzah.

The legal process against the Jakarta Globe, Okezone.com and Bangsa Daily related to an alleged defamation case involving President Yudhoyono’s son, who is also one of candidate members of the House of Representatives, Edhie Baskoro. Journalists from those three media were investigated as they reported about alleged money politics conducted by a cadre of the Demokrat Party, by distributing money while campaigning in one of Edhie’s electoral regions in Ponorogo, East Java. The proceedings are related to defamation, with the alleged violation of Article 310, 311 of KUHP and Article 27 of the Law on Information and Electronic Transactions.

The investigation of journalists of Seputar Indonesia and Kompas Daily was done when the ‘Lizard vs. Crocodile’ case became the hottest news headline8. This phrase is a metaphor for the conflict between the National Police and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The conflict’s trigger wass when the National Police felt offended because the KPK intercepted one of the National Police’s top brass in the Bank Century case. The National Police’s Headquarters then announced the Vice Chairman of the KPK, Bibit Samad Riyanto and Chandra M Hamzah, as suspects. Later on, there circulated a tape transcript of a telephone tapping of Anggodo Widjojo – a younger brother of a businessman suspected of corruption, Anggoro Widjojo, who fled to Singapore – with some people including Attorney General officials. The telephone conversation recording revealed the alleged engineering of Bibit and Chandra’s as suspects. And the journalists from Kompas and Seputar Indonesia were investigated by the police for publishing the transcript of that conversation recording.

2010 as a Good Beginning?

BASED on data collection by AJI Indonesia’s Advocacy Division, from January until June 2010, there occurred 17 cases of violence against journalists. This amount is smaller than the amount of violence in the first semester of 2009 (22 cases). The amount of violence in the first semester of this year is also far below the same period in 2008, namely 38 cases.

It is of course a hasty prediction on the tendency of decreasing violence for the next couple of years, if based only on the statistics of violence during the first six months of this year. Moreover, 2010 is also colored by violence, the psychological effects of which cannot be taken for granted. Besides the throwing of the Molotov cocktail into Tempo’s office, there was also violence by members of mass organizations, such as the Islamic Defenders Front

8 The term of Lizard vs. Crocodile becomes a common diction in the media to describe the conflict between National Police and and KPK. The term Lizard vs. Crocodile was first said unintentionally by the Head of the Criminal Detective Department of National Police Headquarters, Susno Duadji, in an interview with Tempo Magazine. He suggested, metaphorically, that what the KPK had done by tapping his conversation with some people related to the Century case was a futile effort and only looking for a problem. Because, Susno said, it was clear that the National Police’s power is bigger than the KPK, a relatively new agency. When this case became the most talked discourse in media, Susno Duadji rectified the definition and said that his definition was the opposite. The police is not the crocodile, and KPK is not the lizard. According to him, from the tapping technology aspect, it was clear that the KPK’s power was like a crocodile because it is stronger. Not the opposite. The Head of the National Police Bambang Hendarso Danuri, who knew that the political winds gave no benefit to him, asked the journalists not to use the term. “We are not lizards,” said the Head of National Police in the meeting with mass media’s chief editors, facilitated by the Minister of Communication and Information, Tifatul Sembiring. The clarification, of course, did not resolve the situation. Because the conversation tapping played in the Constitutional Court had strengthened the case that the legal process on Bibit Samad Riyanto and Chandra M. Hamzah was a conspiracy, which was known—if not supported—by the police and attorneys.


25

(Front Pembela Islam/ FPI) on May 26, 2010. One of the victims was Nanang Octo Brian Purwo Hartanto, a journalist from Lampu Hijau Daily, in Jakarta. Nanang was persecuted by members of FPI when he reported the sweeping actions by the masses from this organization led by Habib Rizieq, in the area of Funeral and Landscaping Service of DKI Jakarta, in Aipda KS Tubun street, Petamburan, Tanah Abang, Central Jakarta. According to the report in the Police Station of Tanah Abang, gangs swarmed over Nanang and stoned him with drinking bottles. Besides head injuries, the victim also suffered loss because his camera was damaged.

The Alliance of Independent Journalists also condemned the brutal actions of FPI’s members. AJI asked the police to immediately arrest the perpetrators. According to AJI, this case can be certainly categorized as an effort of hampering the journalist’s duty in conducting news coverage, which can be threatened with one-year imprisonment or a penalty of IDR 1 billion.

Other cases of violence against journalists which are of very important note in 2010 include a “cowboy” action from the Intel Pasie official of Simeule 0115 Military District Command, First Lieutenant Infantry Faisal Amin, against a journalist of Harian Aceh in Simeulue, Ahmadi, and the beating of a journalist from SCTV, Juhry Samanery, in Ambon District Court.

Ahmadi’s case was suspected as having a connection with news coverage about an illegal logging case launched by Harian Aceh, in its Friday edition, dated May 21, 2010. At first, Ahmadi was called by Faisal in order to appear before him in the Military District Command Headquarters (Makodim). On May 22, 2010, he was with Mohd Aziz (a journalist of Investigasi Medan) coming to Makodim. “We both cover the illegal logging case,” said Ahmadi as written by Harian Aceh.

After arriving in Makodim, Ahmadi was brought by the Intel officer of the Military District Command (Kodim) to the shooting range, while Aziz was asked to go home. Ahmadi tried to ask, “What’s up, Bro?” Instead of being answered, Faisal Amin took Ahmadi’s mobile phone. “Do you want to record me?” said Faisal. After that, he threw the mobile phone into a ditch. Ahmadi’s bag which contained his laptop was also taken and thrown into the street.

When Ahmadi tried to reach for his mobile phone, the Intel Pasie pulled out a pistol and fired it to a tire that was placed in the shooting range. With a snapping tone, the Intel Pasie berated Ahmadi with harsh words. “You are a liar. You are an impostor. You have humiliated me three times. I said, do not publish it, but you still publish it,” said the Intel Pasie at that time.

A moment later, Ahmadi’s face was punched by Faisal’s elbow, which hit Ahmadi’s teeth (mouth) and face. Ahmadi was also beaten on his front. “I will kill your family if you don’t correct the news,” said Faisal. The Intel Pasie fired for a second time. Ahmadi was also asked to open his shirt and pants, but he refused.

After exiting from the shooting range, at about 13:00 WIB, Ahmadi reported his case of beating to Simeulue Resort Police. His face was swollen and his chest was bruised. Ahmadi suffered serious trauma because of that incident. AJI Banda Aceh condemned that violent action. “As a law enforcer, he should not act violating the law,” said the administrator of the Advocacy Division of AJI Banda Aceh, Daspriani Y. Zamzami.




26

The violence case experienced by Juhry Samanery happened on May 7, 2010. At that time, at first, Juhry was going to ask for clarification from the panel of judges’ chairman about the banning of news coverage about a corruption case trial in Ambon District Court. “When I was asking one of the judges, suddenly there were many employees from the District Court office who tried to prohibit and expell me with a loud voice,” Juhry said.

In the middle of that tense situation, suddenly there was someone who kicked him. Juhry had defended himself, but he was outnumbered. He also tried to escape, but was chased by a dozen employees of Ambon District Court Office, until he fell down. That was when he became injured and a target of the court’s employees: he was beaten and kicked wildly. As a result of this brutal action, Juhry suffered a contusion and bleeding in his right temple, as well as abrasions on his left elbow.

Seven Media and the News of a Gambling Case

THE classic problem that also has to be faced by journalists and the media in the post-reform period is the still widespread lawsuits on defamation. The difference from year to year is only the statistics of the number of cases.

In the New Order era, defamation cases related to news coverage actually were rare. In fact, the reference to positive law from defamation claims has existed since the independence of Indonesia, both in the Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana/ KUHP) and in the Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata/ KUH Perdata).

Let us take a look briefly at history. Most of the cases which brought journalists and the media to court from 1945 to 1965 were related to pornography9. It is very different with the legal cases faced by journalists and the media in the next period, which mostly related to politics. From 1965 to 1997, for example, quite a lot of press cases ended up with political solutions: banning. The case of press banning occurred in 197410 and 197811. The last banning which received wide opposition from the journalists and the society was the banning of Tempo, Detik, and Editor on June 21, 1994.

The defamation cases of note from 1965 to 1998 included the defamation lawsuit by the Regent of Tangerang toward Sinar Pagi Daily12. In 1984, there was also a similar case that struck a number of media, such as Mimbar Masyarakat Daily (Samarinda), Merdeka

9 See Bambang Sadono, the Political Resolution of Press Offenses, Sinar Harapan, 1993, p. 103. For political and legal actions toward press in 1952 to 1965, see Edward C. Smith, Press Banning in Indonesia, Pustaka Grafiti, Jakarta, 1986.

10 The banning starts from the publishing of Malapetaka of 15 January, triggered by the coming of Japan’s Prime Minister Tanaka to Jakarta, 14-17 January 1974. The students welcomed Tanaka’s coming with a big demonstration which was followed by a number of fires in several areas. At least, there were 8 daily and weekly media closed because of that incident. They were Harian Nusantara dan Mahasiswa Indonesia (15 January 1974), Harian KAMI, Harian Indonesia Raya, Harian Abadi, and Jakarta Times (21 January 1974), and Harian Pedoman and Mingguan Ekspress (23 January 1974). Besides the banning, the incident also triggered a number of arrests of journalists, as experienced by the Chief Editor of Indonesia Raya, Mochtar Lubis, and the Vice-Chief Editor of Indonesia Raya, Enggak Baha’uddin. About Malari and press banning, see Francois Raillon, Politik dan Ideologi Mahasiswa Indonesia: Pembentukan dan Konsiolidasi Orde Baru 1966-1974, LP3ES, Jakarta, 1985 and Beberapa Segi Perkembangan Sejarah Pers di Indonesia, PT Kompas Media Nusantara 2002, p. 289.

11 After the Malari incident, the next pre-eminent incident in the history of the press was the incident of 1978, when students gave their critical opinions of the governemnet of the New Order era. In that year, at least seven publications were banned for a while by Kopkamtib. They were: Kompas, Sinar Harapan, Merdeka, Pelita, The Indonesia Times, Sinar Pagi and Pos Sore. The argumentation for banning, as stated by Panglima Kopkamtib Soedomo, was in order to maintain peace and order and to avoid the spread of misleading news to the public. See Bambang Sadono, Penyelesaian Delik Pers Secara Politis, Sinar Harapan, 1993, p. 85.

12 This claim started from the news in Sinar Pagi on July 23, 1980 entitled “Dilaporkan ke DPR, Bupati Tangerang Lalap Uang Rakyat Rp. 28 Juta.” This case was finally brought to the court. Sinar Pagi was finally proved not guilty, but not on the charges of defamation. It was ruled guilty for insulting the legal government. For more details on this case, read Andi Hamzah, I Wayan Suandra, BA Manalu, Delik-Delik Pers di Indonesia, Media Sarana Pers, Jakarta, 1987, p. 97.


27

Daily, and Detektif dan Romantika Magazine ( Jakarta). The three media were charged with defamation and sentenced with a penalty, because they were regarded to have denigrated Fachrie Domas. After that, there were also some cases of note: Probosutedjo vs. Tempo Magazine (1987), Head of Subang (West Java) District Court vs. Terbit Daily (1989), and Attorney Naek Marpaung vs. Pos Kota Daily (1990)13.

In the 1990s, the prominent defamation case was the lawsuit case of PT Anugerah Langkat Makmur toward Garuda Daily published in Medan (1991). Garuda Daily was sued for writing news which was regarded to have denigrated Anif14. This case was important because the Constitutional Court’s decision that favored Garuda Daily was regarded as a landmark and a reference15-–at least, that was the hope of the press community–for future decisions on press cases. Another case that has to be mentioned was the dispute of Selecta Magazine vs. Mrs. Jokosoetono16.

Apparently, before 1998, the amount of defamation cases toward media can be counted on one hand. However, the situation was different after Soeharto stepped down in 1998.

In 2009, there were a number of lawsuit cases brought to the courts. Some of these were the continuaton of previojus legal processes. While a case newly occurring in 2009 was a defamation lawsuit by Raymond Teddy Hutomori toward seven media in some separate courts. Raymond sued Republika Daily and the news website, detik.com, in the South Jakarta District Court, Suara Pembaruan Daily in the East Jakarta District Court, Seputar Indonesia Daily in the Central Jakarta District Court, and Kompas, Warta Kota, and RCTI in the West Jakarta District Court17.

This case started from the discovery of a gambling syndicate in the Sultan Hotel on October 24, 2008 by the National Police Headquarters. The discovery was followed by the arrests of 16 men, including Raymond who later was determined to be a suspect. At the end of 2009, Raymond sent a legal claim to the seven media that reported his arrest. Raymond objected that the seven media wrote his real name, not a pseudonym or initials. According to Raymond, the news was only based on the statement of National Police Headquarters, without asking for confirmation from him, as he was being arrested at that time. In his civil lawsuit, Raymond claimed huge compensation. In his lawsuit to Republika and Detik.com,

13 Bambang Sadono, op cit p. 88.Bambang Sadono, op cit p. 88.

14 This case started from the news in Harian Garuda entitled “Buat Masalah”, in the 14 November 1989 edition. The content was describing that Anif, as the managing director of PT Anugerah had done deviations by evictions, and replacement of a school building and station to Langkat. The news also stated that a group of citizens also sent their representative to the North Sumatra House of Representatives related to the evictions. In its claims, he asked for compensation of Rp 5 billion. In the trial’s decision dated February 11, 1991, the judge of Medan District Court sentenced Harian Garuda to pay compensation of Rp 50 million. Harian Garuda proposed an appeal to the High Court, which on June 10, 1991 ruled with the same decision as the district court. On September 12, 1991, Harian Garuda proposed cassation to the Supreme Court, which finally won in cassation trial on April 12, 1993.

15 There were a number of important foundations from the Supreme Court’s decision in the lawsuit case of Anif vs Harian Garuda. First, was about the right of reply. According to the cassation’s panel of judges, based on the historic foundation and the function of press freedom to provide criticism and corrections, related with the responsibility of news coverage and review by the press, to the society and each person was given the right of reply to writings considered disadvantageous. It was to unite press freedom and press responsibility. Second, it was about the definition of the truth in the journalistic world. According to the Supreme Court Justice, the truth of an event which was going to be told by the press, was an elusive truth. It means that news which was searched and found to be reported has difficulty in holding its truth. It is like an eel. Sometimes the truth of news cannot be known. The truth which is going to be reported, often floats between one person’s opinion and view with someone else’s or between one group with another group. When facied with the reality of intentionally elusive truth, what is going to be reviewed and reported by the press is not often an absolute truth, if the absolute truth may be reported, this means that from the beginning the free and responsible press has died before it’s born. Besides, it is impossible to find an absolute truth, especially in a pluralistic society with various interests.

16 This case started form the news in Selecta Magazine No. 1031, June 22, 1981, entitled “Kasus Pengemudi Taksi Blue Bird.” Mrs. Djokosoetno, the Managing Director of PT Blue Bird saw the news was tendensious and insulting her name. The end of this case was very different with the case of Harian Garuda. The District Court and the High Court rejected the lawsuit of Mrs. Djokosoetno, but the Supreme Court accepted her cassation and punished the Chief Editor of Selecta, Syamsudin Lubis, and the person in charge of Selecta, Sahala Siregar, with compensation of Rp 100,000 awarded. See Rossa Agustina, “Pencemaran Nama Baik dan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum”, in Jurnal DICTUM ed. 3, 2004, p. 43-44.

17 Interview of the Director of Legal Aid Agency (LBH) Pers Hendrayana, July 12, 2010




28

for example, he claimed compensation of USD 3.5 million (about IDR 30 billion)18.

In addition to suing the seven media, Raymond also sued the National Police Headquarters and the Press Council.

Raymond’s action invited a reaction from the press community. Three journalist’s organizations—the Alliance of Independent Journalists, the Association of Indonesian Television Journalists, and the Association of Indonesian Journalists—had one voice regarding this case. In their statement issued on May 17, 2009, the three organizations reminded the judge to use the Press Law in handling this case. The three organizations also reminded that civil defamation lawsuits with unproportional values of compensation were a threat towards press freedom. Excessive compensation would result in widespread fear, which could lead the press to self-censorship in the end. Claims with excessive compensation also had the potential to bankrupt media companies.

It was not only media and associations of journalists that showed deep concern regarding the case of those seven media. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, through the staff of his legal division, Denny Indrayana, also expressed concern over this case. The President asked law enforcement officials to be careful in handling this case in order not to harm press freedom.

Fortunately, the hope of the press community and the public in this case came true. In the trial, dated May 14, 2010, the judges of the South Jakarta District Court rejected Raymond’s claims toward Republika and detik.com. The East Jakarta District Court had the same decision: rejecting Raymond’s lawsuit against Suara Pembaruan. One month later, on June 14, 2009, the judge of the Central Jakarta District Court also rejected Raymond’s lawsuit toward Seputar Indonesia.

The judge in the West Jakarta District Court sentenced the same conviction as the other three judges. On the hearing, dated June 22, 2010, the judge rejected Raymond’s lawsuit toward Kompas, Warta Kota, and RCTI19. The judges assessed that Raymond could not prove his statement that the three media had committed an unlawful act. According to the judge, the media had used the right sources. Regarding the mentioning of the suspect’s name in a criminal case in the news, this is not prohibited by the Journalistic Code of Ethics.

lll

GIFTS from the Makasar District Court. One hot defamation case in 2009 was a civil and criminal case which ensnared a Makassar journalist, Jupriadi, known as Upi Asmaradhana. The case’s trigger was the statement of the Head of the South and West Sulawesi Regional Police, General Inspector Sisno Adiwinoto, that everyone who felt disadvantaged by media coverage dis not need to use the right of reply, but could directly report this as a crime. This statement was published in several media in Makassar. In Fajar Daily, for instance, the news became its headline on May 31, 2008, entitled “Sisno: Disadvantaged, No Need to Use the Right of Reply”.

18 Compensation in civil cases in Indonesia is not limited. In the lawsuit against Time magazine, Soeharto complained materially for Rp 280 million, and immaterial damages of Rp 189 trillion. In the civil lawsuit of Tomy Winata toward Tempo Magazine related to the news “Ada Tomy di Tenabang”, he asked for material compensation of Rp 100 billion, and immaterial damages of Rp 100 billion. When Wonohito and Harian Kedaulatan Rakyat claimed Harian Radar Jogja, they asked for US$6.128.500,00 (six million one hundred and twenty eight thousand and five hundreds dollars). If the calculation used the rate of Rp 9000 per US dollar, then the compensation was about Rp 55 billion.

19 Kompas.com, Kompas: Ini Kemenangan Semua Media, June 22, 2010


29

Sisno’s statement invited strong reaction from journalists in Makassar. They thought, as an important official in Makassar, Sisno had launched a campaign attacking press freedom. It was because, at all times, the activists of press freedom campaigned for the use of the right of reply to the public when they felt disadvantaged by media coverage.

In the early June 2008, the journalists and activists in Makassar formed a Journalist Coalition of Press Anticriminalization, which announced a fight over Sisno’s negative campaign. The three journalist organizations—the Alliance of Independent Journalists, the Association of Indonesian Television Journalists, and the Association of Indonesian Journalists—gave full support to the coalition.

The Coalition launched a statement urging Sisno to immediately apologize to the public, stop the effort of press criminalization, and end the effort to discredit the role of journalists. On June 3, 2008, thousands of Makassar journalists with the coalition held a demonstration in front of the Makassar Monument of Mandala to declare the claim.

A few days later, the Coalition sent Upi Asmaradhana as the Coordinator of the Coalition to Jakarta to denounce the case to the National Human Rights Commission, National Police Commission, AJI Indonesia, and the House of Representatives.

Sisno gave a reaction by accusing that Upi and his friends’ action was driven by another interest. Not long after, on November 13, 2008, the Makassar Police called Upi to be investigated as a suspect. Upi was charged with multiple articles, namely Article 317 paragraph 1, Article 311 paragraph 1, and Article 160 of the KUHP. Upi’s establishment as a suspect aroused reaction and solidarity. In Jakarta, for example, the journalists and members of AJI held a demonstration in front of the National Police’s Headquarters. The solidarity for Upi was also spread widely to several regions.20

Upi’s inaugural session was held on February 17, 2009. In the indictment, the prosecutor stated that Upi had defamed Sisno Adiwinoto through writing and instigation.

In the middle of the criminal trial, Sisno also sued Upi with a civil claim, with compensation of IDR 10 billion. The claim aroused a strong reaction form the journalists’ organizations. Pressure toward the police became stronger. On May 25, 2009, Sisno revoked the civil lawsuit.

On September 14, 2009, a Panel of Judges of the Makassar District Court freed Upi. The judges led by Parlas Nababan stated that Upi was not proven to have violated Articles 310, 317 and 207 of the KUHP.

Upi’s consistency and hard work and the coalition were not futile, because he finally could win the case. Upi also won the Udin Award, given on August 6, 2009 in Jakarta21. AJI gives the Udin Award to journalists who have become victims of violence while conducting their profession.

Again and Again, Threatening Regulations. 2009 noted a number of regulations that had to be regarded as a serious threat toward press freedom, namely the revised plan of Law No. 40 of 1999 about the Press and the State Secrets Bill. These regulations, such as in the indicators of Freedom House, are important indicators for assessing a country’s press freedom climate. Although it sometimes gets less attention compared to cases of violence, the threat through regulation can emerge as a more serious danger for press freedom.

Revision of the Press Law and the New Threat of Banning. Among a number of laws that are being prepared by the government, the planning for revision of the Press Law also received attention from many parties. On 2009, the government was not only showing intention, but it already had shown its seriousness. In addition to the revision

20 The protest action also widely spread to some areas in Indonesia. In Makassar, about 50 people consisting of members of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Makasar, various mass media’s journalists, and the students held a demonstration against the District Police of South and West Sulawesi. In Ternate, 100 journalists from various media and a number of students form various universities held a solidarity action at the District Police of North Maluku. The same action was also conducted by the members of AJI Palu by coming to the District Police office of Central Sulawesi.

21 Jurnalis Upi Asmaradhana Terima Udin Award, Thursday, August 06, 2009 | 15:51 PM




30

planning in the national legislation program (2004-2009), the government had also prepared its revision draft, after holding marathon discussion in several regions together with a number of universities.

The draft worried the press community and freedom of expression activists. This was because in the draft the government opened the opportunity for censorship and banning with several conditions. In fact, the Press Law No. 40 of 1999 that is applicable today—even, also, the Primary Press Law in the New Order era, at least textually—prohibited censorship and banning. Also, the most important thing is that the draft gave an opportunity for government interference into the press world through a number of “governmental regulations”. While Law No. 40 of 1999 does not give the same opportunity because its formulation is based on the spirit to make the press self-regulate.

On some occasions, the Minister of Communication, M. Nuh, denied22 that the government had an agenda to revise the Press Law. In a working meeting with Commission I of the DPR, for example, M. Nuh stated that the government did not intend yet to take an initiative to revise the Press Law, and also had never delivered the draft to the DPR or other parties. “I think I was surprised when it was said that the government has an initiative to deliver a revision of the Press Law,” said M. Nuh23. “Although there is a draft which is already in the public’s hands, it may be just some reviews, and the draft is not completed yet.”

In the press community, there is no agreement upon this revision planning, whether to reject or agree. The Press Council, for example, on some occasions, argued not to amend the law, although the voting of the Press Council’s members also was not in full agreement24. The concern generally concentrated on one problem: who can guarantee that the revision will make the Press Law better? In addition, what if the revision was delivered when the sense of the members of parliament and government towards the press was negative because of the strong criticisms of the DPR’s and government’s performance.

In the last meeting on June 2007, the Press Council stated a rejection to revision of the Press Law if the revision inhibits press freedom25. The meeting also decided that the Press Council will struggle for amendment of Article 28F in the Constitution, “In order that press freedom can receive legal protection with the status of a constitutional right.” Because it still gave the note “If the revision can inhibit” press freedom, this Press Council statement was not a complete rejection. Their stance also can be read from the statements of some members of the Press Council on some occasions26.

However, the Alliance of Independent Journalists took different action to that of the Press Council. In the National Working session in Jakarta on July 16-17, 200727, AJI also rejected the revision of the Press Law. However, in the next discussions, as an organization, AJI’s statement of “only rejecting” was not enough. Because of that, AJI began a serious study of the Press Law through a series of Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and seminars in several cities. The results of that study included the conclusion that the Press Law was not sufficient to address all of the cases of violence against

22 This objection was quite strange, considering that it was widely known that the government had this planning for such a long time. The previous Minister of Communication, Sofyan Jalil, more or less two years, previously had the effort at revision through a number of Focus Group Discussions held by two preeminent state universities, Indonesia University and Padjajaran University of Bandung.The Minister of Communication and Information has done it with some basis. To the extent to be easily traced, the Ministry seemingly referred to the agreement between the government and DPR in the National Legislation Program (2005-2009). In the discussion program of the five yearly law that was legitimized on February 1, 2005,the revision of the Law No. 40 of 1999 was included as number 220 of 284 of the targeted laws to be discussed by the DPR and the Government in the government period of Susilo Bambang yudhoyono-Jusuf Kalla. By this establishment, the DPR and the government actually established an agreement previously made between the government of Megawati Soekarnoputri with the DPR during that period. In the meeting dated February 20, 2004, the Minister of Communication and Information, Syamsul Muarif, and Commission I of the DPR agreed to revise the Press Law. One of the reasons was that the authority of the Press Council was regarded as inadequate to maintain press freedom, funding problems because the members of the Press Council were not chosen by the DPR, and the assessment that the Press Council was not well supported by the public. This agreement was seemingly continued, so that the idea was included in the National Legislation Program for the next period of DPR. In addition, the draft of the Bills (revision) upon the Law on Press No. 40 of 1999 was tendered with the cost of plavon as much as Rp700 million, and announced in a newspaper in Jakarta, April 22, 2007. See in Antara News, Dewan Pers “Terpecah” Tolak revisi UU Pers, June 22, 2007.

23 80 Hari Depkominfo Bersama Mohammad Nuh dalam http://blogs.depkominfo.go.id/artikel/2007/07/27/80-hari-depkominfo-bersama-mohammad-nuh/

24 Antara, DEWAN PERS “TERPECAH” TOLAK REVISI UU PERS, 22 Juni 2007

25 The statement was decided in the Plenary Meeting of the Press Council held at the end of June 2007.

26 In the coffee morning, dated April 24, 2007, in Departement of Communication and Information, the Press Council’s statement was not total. See Asmono Wikan, Janji Sofyan Djalil, in his blog, dated April 30, 2007.

27 Minutes of AJI National Working Meeting in Jakarta, 16-17 July 2007.


31

journalists, including lawsuits, as well as the large numbers of fake journalists. AJI then formulated some things to be added and changed in the Press Law, so that the law became more “powerful”. However, before deciding to deliver the revision, AJI kept considering the map within the DPR and the Government, which was still inhabited by a group of people whose attention to press freedom is not good. This made AJI more careful in conducting discourse about the revision of the Press Law.

Broadly speaking, in press freedom activities in Indonesia, there developed two main ideas to answer the contemporary problems of the press world. Firstly, to motivate Constitutional amendment as well as the Press Council’s wish, by including one final article such as the First Amendment of The United States of America’s Constitution, in which laws that restrict press freedom are prohibited. This idea was agreed by most of the press freedom activists. However, most of them also had not believed yet that struggling for Constitutional amendment would encounter no obstacles. Following several amendments of the UUD 1945, today’s political map seemed not to be conducive to new amendment. As a result, this idea was very ideal, but its opportunity was rather doubted.

The second idea was to make a counter draft to the draft of the Press Law which had been circulated. The logic of this idea was: the wish of the DPR and government to push that revision had been very real. Its indication, besides the circulated draft, was also the inclusion of the revision planning of the Press Law in the National Legislation Program (2005-2009). Definitely, this was a risky choice, considering that the power of the law making is still held by the DPR and government, even if the idea came from press organizations or civil society. Anyway, after a number of debates, AJI chose this second way28.

AJI’s choice invited a number of criticisms, especially from some people haunted by their worry that the revision’s direction would not play out according to the wishes of the press community. But, according to AJI, again and again, it was not enough only by rejecting to answer the strong flow of criticism of the Press Law. The choice to survive by rejecting also did not give an opportunity for the press to explore opportunities for remedy. As an organization, AJI also realized that preparing a counter draft was not enough29. The effort had also to be followed by collecting support from all press organizations and journalists and the public, by convincing them that press freedom was not only in the press’s interests, but also to service the public. Nevertheless, until the end of the working period of the DPR in 2004-2009, the updated news of the revision planning of the Press Law in parliament had not been heard—nor for how long this would be the case.

State Secrets Bill and Subsequent Worries. Since the first discussion, the State Secrets Bill has already invited a lot of debate. The crucial things in that bill are the definition of state secrets, which is too broad with the authority to declare something confidential too loose. The determination of the scope of state secrets is also done categorically. There is no mechanism of consequence testing and public interest testing to ensure whether the information should be kept open. There is no mechanism that can calculate which is of greater benefit to the public, to open or close the information.

Developing public opinion also determined that this planning is dangerous for the corruption eradication process. Understandably, the regime of state secrets, which denies information openness, will cultivate greater corrupt practices. Fortunately, among the House of Representatives the support for civil society’s aspirations like these are strong enough. The difference is only in its argumentation. There are members of the House who have delivered substantial reasoning, but there are also those who only state that the time for discussing the draft is too short.

Indeed, discussion on the State Secrets Bill, especially related with crucial material, is certainly tough. In a meeting on April 28, 2009, for example, the DPR was involved in debate with the government representatives for about three

28 Association of Indonesian Journalists (PWI) also agreed with the revision idea of the Law on Press. It was mentioned in the Declaration of Banda Aceh, the result of the PWI Congress XXII in Banda Aceh, read in front of President RI Susilo Bambang yudhoyono in Istana Merdeka, 31 July 2007. With the revision, PWI hoped that press freedom and the reporters could really be protected in doing their profession. See PWI Serukan Segera Revisi UU Pers in http://www.kompas.com/index.php/read/xml/2008/07/31/12513119/pwi.serukan.segera.revisi.uu.pers

29 AJI’s counter draft published in a book, entitled: Menguji Ide Revisi UU Pers, Oktober 2009.




32

hours, only to discuss the government’s proposal asking to keep soldiers’ salaries secret. In fact, it was only one item of an article, not one complete article. The thorough discussion in the DPR can have a double meaning. First, it showed the excessive spirit of government protection upon things that they want to keep secret. Even in matters of salary, they also requested these to be hidden from the public. Second, the material of the State Secrets Bill could not be discussed quickly.

The press community, who judged that the design would have a direct affect towards their profession, initiated a meeting with the Minister of Defense, Juwono Sudarsono. In that meeting that was facilitated by the Press Council on August 13, 2009, the press community expressed a proposal of remedy—which was later known to have not been well accommodated.

On September 14, 2009, the Press Council sent a letter to President Susilo Bambang yudhoyono, requesting cancellation of the government’s approval of the State Secrets Bill draft discussed in the DPR. According to the Press Council, the State Secrets Bill still contained dangerous content, namely because it had the potential to close press access for information that had to be known by the public.

The Press Council also regarded that the State Secrets Bill could hinder journalistic tasks, especially in doing investigation coverage. The State Secrets Bill spread a threat that a journalist who investigated and reported something categorized as a state secret could be arrested before being judged, because the sentence was up to five years. ”The State Secrets Bill is opposed to the Press Law,” said the Chairman of the Press Council, Prof. Dr. Ichlasul Amal, MA, at that time.

The next day, more than 100 national figures made a declaration rejecting the legitimation of the State Secrets Bill. Those who joined in the Alliance of Society Rejecting the Confidentiality Regime assessed the design would threaten democracy, freedom of information, and press freedom. ”We are the civil society, rejecting the legitimation of the State Secrets Bill, demanding to postpone the discussion until the future government period,” said Agus Sudibyo, a member of the alliance, when reading the declaration to reject the legitimation of the State Secrets Bill in the Atlet Century Hotel, Jakarta.

Subsequently, on September 16, 2009, the President invited Minister of Defense, Juwono Sudarsono, asking for an explanation about the State Secrets Bill. Before the meeting with the Minister began, the President gave a signal to accommodate the public’s opinion. According to the President, he had communicated with elements of the public who had expressed their pro and contra opinions upon the Bill.

According to the President, in any democratic country there are opposing factors. First, the liberty or independence or freedom factor, which according to him is a breath of democracy. The second is security, or safety. ”If liberty is too strong, and security is neglected, a bad life can occur. People often call it as an anarchic and insecure life,” said the President. Conversely, if the security approach is applied too much, without freedom, thus the situation will be fearful and authoritarian. Those statements, in fact, are signals that the President will not continue the discussion.

After meeting with the President on that day, the Minister of Defense came to the DPR to have a meeting with Commission I. Commission I is the sparring partner of the Minister of Defense and his colleagues in the discussion of the State Secrets Bill. The government revoked the State Secrets Bill from the discussion in the House of Representatives. The withdrawal of the Bill automatically suspended discussion of the State Secrets Bill. ”Because approval in this working period is impossible, thus the government will revoke,” said Minister Juwono in front of the members of the House of Representatives’ Defense Commission.

Juwono stated that the withdrawal of the bill was based on the President’s direction. The reason was that the government still needed more time to finalize the substance of the bill. Especially, Juwono said, about the state serets with full respect for Human Rights and press freedom. “It will be modified, so that there will be a balance between security and liberty,” said Juwono. He continued, the government also still needed more time to hear more of the public’s aspirations that had rejected the bill.


33

The government’s decision could not be accepted gracefully by all members of the House of Representatives. After the decision was read, there occurred an incident. Ali Muchtar Ngabalin, a politician of the Bulan Bintang Party who did not agree with the President’s decision, became angry and pulled the collar of the Head of the Democrat Faction, Syarif Hasan, who supported the government’s decision30. But, Ali Muchtar’s action did not change the direction of the discussion about the State Secrets Bill. The House of Representative’s Defense Commission stated that they could accept the government’s decision which revoked the bill31. “The House of Representatives will stop the discussion,” said the Head of the Defense Commission, Theo Sambuaga.

The discussion on the State Secrets Bill was finally cancelled. But, it had to be kept in mind that it only cancelled the discussion. The Bill would possibly be discussed and became the priority of the 2011 National Legislation Program32.

The Minister of Communication and Information’s Regulation Designs for Multimedia Content. Another regulation prepared by the government with the potential to threaten press freedom and freedom of expression is the planning to enact cyber censorship through a Regulation of the Minister on Multimedia Content. This is not a new regulation. The idea was around since 2006, triggered by the coming of negative content in cyber space, such as pornography, defamation, and SARA (ethnicity, religion, race, and group affiliation)33.

After the ups and downs as protested from all sides, the threatening regulation re-emerged in early 2010. As a pretext or a real reason, the trigger was the emergence of a page in Facebook which invited people to join a drawing competition of the Prophet Muhammad SAW (Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!).

The regulation design invited criticism because it is potentially dangerous for the freedom of expression. According to the study of AJI Indonesia, the articles in RPM are potentially opposed to Law No. 40 of 1999 about Press, because it prohibits internet service providers from distributing content which are regarded as “illegal” and requires the blocking and filtering of all content which is regarded as illegal. In fact, the definition of illegal in the regulation design is also too loose, so that arbitrary interpretations are likely.

Another problem, according to AJI, is that the Minister’s regulation design also creates the formation of a Content Team who can be a censorship agency. If the RPM of Multimedia Content is ratified, according to the Coordinator of AJI Indonesia’s Advocacy Division, Margiyono, “It also means killing a mouse with cannon.”

According to AJI34 Indonesia, the Facebook account which harms the issue of SARA is inappropriate to be the basis for approval of this new regulation. “Don’t filter and block lots of internet pages because of only one event in the Facebook.”

30 See the news online site, Vivanews, “Ngabalin Tarik Kerah Ketua Fraksi Demokrat”, 16 September 2009. The incident started from the government’s action that revoked the draft of the State Secrets Bill. Initially, Ali Mukhtar Ngabalin who represented Bintang Pelopor Demokrasi Faction stated the general view on the revocation of the State Secrets Bill. “Without the Bill, our country will be so naked,” said Ngabalin. He also teased President Susilo Bambang yudhoyono’s fear of a small group of society who rejected the State Secrets Bill. Ngabalin then closed his satire by saying, “The President’s statement is of no consequence and the Minister of Defence has acted badly because of revoking the Bill.” When the time for the Demokrat Faction began, Syarif Hasan stated the general opinion upon the government’s action. Syarif directly criticized Ngabalin’s statement. “As a well-educated person, we must express everything in a good way. Don’t mention the Qur’anic verses, but wrongly placing it,” said Syarif. Ali became offended hearing that statement and yelled asking the head of Commission I, Theo Sambuaga, to stop Syarif’s explanation. “Chairman, stop his talking,” while pointing at Sjarief Hasan who sat across the room. “Chairman, that kind of man is better out from this room. There are no uneducated persons here. Everyone is well-educated.” Syarif who felt pointed out was fighting back. “you are uneducated, because you say unrespectfull words to the President,” he said. Ngabalin then walked approaching Syarif’s table and pulled his collar’s coat. Syarif seemed standing as pulled up, but with a calm face. Ngabalin’s anger was calmed down by his colleagues who asked hiim to let loose his grip. Ngabalin finally calmed down and returned to his table. During the incident, the Minister of Defence only kept silent.

31 The Vice Chairman of the Defence Commission from the PDI-P Faction, Sidarto Danusubroto, assessed the government’s decision for the revocation of the bill was a wise decision. A member of the Demokrat Party faction, Marcus Silano, said that the continous discussion could not be forwarded to the next members of parliament. “It will start from the beginning again,” said Marcus. The member of another commission, Effendy Choirie, stated that the revocation of the bill showed that the government did not prepare the substances of the bill thoroughly since the beginning.

32 Tempo Interaktif, Dewan Ingin Bahas RUU Intelijen Sebelum RUU Rahasia Negara, 4 December 2009.

33 RPM Konten Multimedia, Batasi Kebebasan Informasi, on 15 February 2010. The source was downloaded on 27 July 2010 through http://www.askindonesia.com/rpm-konten-multimedia-batasi-kebebasan-informasi/.

34 AJI: RPM Konten Multimedia adalah “Sensor 2.0”, 20 May 2010




34

The rejection from AJI and a number of civil society organizations of the Minister’s regulation design did not restrict the government’s intention, nor that of the House of Representatives. In a meeting on June 16, 2010, Commission I of the DPR recommended re-discussion of the Minister’s regulation design. Unlike previously, this time the trigger of the discussion planning about multimedia content regulation is the rampant distribution of pornographic videos of persons resembling artists. With a fresh breeze behind his sails, the Minister of Communication and Information, Tifatul Sembiring, said that the Regulation on Multimedia Content will be finished at the end of 2010.

The enforcement of the Law on the Freedom of Public Information. Actually, it does not mean that there is no good news in the beginning of 2010. The important thing to be noted is the application of the Law No. 14 of 2008 regarding Openness of Public Information. This law was actually legalized by the House of Representatives, through a difficult process35, two years ago. But, the application is postponed until May 1, 2010, in order to give an opportunity to the government to prepare the Information Commission and give time to public agencies to assign managing officers for public information. But, until the deadline passed, the law is still far from being ready to be implemented36.

Constitutional Court’s Decision on the Law on General Elections. Another development that can be noted is the Constitutional Court’s decision related to the Law on General Elections. In the trial on February 24, 2009, the Constitutional Court stated that article 98 paragraph 2 and 3, and 4, then also article 99 paragraph 1 and 2 caused legal uncertainty, injustice, and were against the constitution.

The Law on General Elections was the subject of complaints by the chief editors of media because it is considered threatening to press freedom. The articles in the law govern the authority of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) or the Press Council in conducting supervision on news coverage, broadcasting, and the advertising of election campaigns in the mass media. The two institutions are also given the authority to impose sanctions such as the revocation of permission to broadcast or the revocation of permission to print mass media publishing37.

According to AJI’s evaluation, the two articles in Law No. 10 of 2008 bring back the banning of the press, through sanctions such as the suspension of broadcast, the reduction of news coverage duration and time, penalties, the freezing of events, the revocation of permission to broadcast and mass media publishing. In fact, numerous forms to control media, such as banning and censorship, are norms which are opposed to the principles of press freedom38.

35 In order to get the description about the discussion of the Law on the Public Information Openess, see Mulus by Note, Tempo Ed. 37/VII/07 – 13 April 2008.

36 The unpreparedness was variously commented upon. But, generally, this unpreparedness was seen as a challenge. Until July 2010, two and a half months since the Law on the Public Information Openess was effectively applicable, the Information Commission started to receive a lot of requests concerning information disputes from the society. Until 16 July, last week, the amount of requests to the Commission had reached 12 cases.

37 Article 98 (2) on the evidence of violation on the regulation as meant in Article 93, 94, 95, the Indonesian Broadcast Commission or the Press Council give sanction as determined in the Law. (3) A sanction as stated in paragraph (2) was told to the KPU and the KPU of the Province. (4) about the Indonesian Broadcast Commission or the Press Council did not give a sanction as mentioned in paragraph (3) about the period of 7 (seven) days since the evidence of campaign violation is founded KPU, KPU of the Province, and KPU of the Regency/ city gave a sanction to the campaign implementer.

Article 99 (1) Sanction as meant in Article 98 paragraph (2) can be: written warning; a temporary suspension of a troubled event; the reduction of news coverage duration and time, also broadcast, and advertising of General Election campaign; Penalties; the freezing of coverage activities, broadcast, and advertising of General Election campaign at a particular time; or the revocation of permission to print mass media publishing. (2) the further determination about the procedure and the sanction given as meant in paragraph (1) established by the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission or the Press Council with the KPU.

38 2008 Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) end of yeat statement, 30 December 2008. Besides the law on General Election, there are also a number of other laws which have the potential to threaten press freedom. They were Law No. 11 of 2008 about Information and Electronic Transactions, Law No. 14 of 2008 about the Freedom to Gain Public Information, and Law No. 44 of 2008 about Pornography. According to AJI, the birth of Law No. 11 of 2008 about Information and Electronic Transaction (ITE) was progress in governing electronic transactions. The Law became the legal umbrella for electronic trading in Indonesia. But, the Law on ITE caused concern for journalists because it contained the threat of imprisonment (6 years) for perpetrators of defamation via the internet. This punishment was not parallel with the global trend of decriminalizing defamation. Instead of deleting Criminal Defamation, there was now a law on ITE threatening punishment six times greater than the Criminal Code for the same offense. Law No. 14 of 2008 was born to bring a fresh breeze of democracy. This law provided legal guarantees for citizens to obtain public information that had always been regarded as state secrets. However, the Law of KMIP still contained weaknesses that need to be noted. The weakness was the one year sentence for people who used information exempt from the Law as stipulated in rticle 51. Threats to the information user are incorrect. It should be addressed only to the person who leaked it. Law no. 44 of 2008 about controversial Pornography is also a potential threat to press freedom. The Law on Pornography contains a threat of severe criminal penalties. Criminal sanctions in this legislation, once again, will be a legal land mine for the press. Journalists can be convicted under this Law, while the definition of pornography in the law is very flexible.


35


CHAPTEr III

Freed from the Storm of Crisis

Advertising and the Optimism to Look at the Future •The increasing number of media which are not as fast as circulation•The Trend of TV, Radio, and Internet Advertising•

THE year 2009 exuded an aura of optimism among the business players in the media industry, especially those engaged in the newspaper industry. The Chairman of the Newspaper Publishers Union (Serikat Penerbit Suratkabar/ SPS), Dahlan Iskan, stated that 2010 is a “fairly calm year”1, at least for newspaper publishers. The future of newspapers, which previously some observers had predicted would be over, was not as bad as imagined. The newspaper and magazine publishers, primarily mainstream ones, generally have concluded that newspapers will not die soon.

What upsets the newspaper owners in Indonesia, and in the world, was mostly triggered by the unfriendly news published in the print media in United States of America. Time Magazine, in its 2 March 2009 edition, published an illustration as advertising, “HELP WANTED. Immediate opening. American newspapers seek individual who can rescue the print media from impending bankruptcy…” Walter Isaacson’s report discussed the emergency situation of American newspapers following the financial crisis in that country since 2007.

The report entitled “How to save Your Newspaper” explored the American newspaper crisis: circulation which tended to decrease, a number of layoffs, and print media that had switched to be entirely online media such as The Christian Science Monitor. The message of the writing of the former managing editor of TIME magazine was fairly clear: American newspapers were not in a good condition. Writing reflecting a similar tension could also be seen in the monthly American Journalism Review, edition of June/July 2009.

The bad news, not unrelated to that article, had spread out to the world. However, the crisis did not unequivocally hit the Indonesian publishing industry. At least, that was the impression on the surface. Indeed, there was a tendency for the Indonesian media to continue to grow, although not fast enough. The experience of the media in the rest of the world, with comparison to the American situation, raised the question as to whether the crisis in that democratic country is a claim toward print media journalism in general or only a matter of the unstable confidence of the American public toward its newspapers industry.

1 Dahlan Iskan, Tahun-Tahun yang Menantang bagi Media Cetak, in The Power of Print Media, 2010



36

Statistical data of the media business in the period of 2007 to 2010 showed that the Indonesian newspaper industry did not experience the turmoil which could give a bad signal, at least from the side of its growth in numbers of media and circulation. In Indonesia, at least there are no media which took a drastic step, totally switching to online media and burying the print version, such as The Christian Science Monitor, or The Rocky Mountain News, which published its farewell edition on February 27, 2009, after having survived for more than 100 years.

Advertising and the optimism to Look at the Future

WHAT does make the media’s owners in Indonesia, as stated by the Chairman of SPS, Dahlan Iskan, more calm in looking at the future of this industry? It is not easy to answer this question with certainty. Nevertheless, this belief is surely not without basis. Data released by a rating agency, AC Nielsen, about the comparison of advertising expenditure in 2008, 2009, and the first quarter of 2010 might contribute better argumentation. Understandably, in the media business, nothing else can speak clearer about optimism besides than that advertising continues to increase.

Like it or not, advertising is the simplest and clearest indicator to prove whether this industry is growing or having a serious sickness. We know that advertising is the main source for the media’s gravy train, even for print media, which actually can still hope for additional income from sales revenue. With newspaper sales still below production price, advertising in the end becomes the most important source of money. In other words, advertising is still the main blood donor for the heart of this industry.

Table 3.1 Media Advertising revenue (2005-2010)

MeDIA 2005 (%) 2006 (%) 2007 (%) 2008 (%) 2009 (%) 2010* (%)

Total

Television

27,869

17.756 (63,7)

32,294

20.623 (63,9)

37.668

23.073 (61,3)

44.491

26.241 (59)

51.081

29.887 (58,5)

58.481

34.370 (58,8)

Newspaper 7.498 (26,9) 8.995 (27,9) 11.759 (31.2) 15.032 (33,8) 17.747 (34,7) 20.409 (34,9)

Magazine 890 (3,2) 920 (2,8) 1,010 (2,7) 1,223 (2,7) 1,292 (2,5) 1,371 (2,3)

Tabloid 398 (1,4) 402 (1,2) 446 (1,2) 562 (1,3) 609 (1,2) 670 (1,1)

Radio 537 (1,9) 527 (1,6) 535 (1,4) 559 (1,3) 593 (1,2) 622 (1,1)

Outdoor 790 (2,8) 827 (2,6) 845 (2,2) 875 (2) 954 (1,9) 1,040 (1,8)

SOURCE: MEDIA SCENE, VOLUME 21-2009/2010.

Looking at the above data, there are a number of things that can be noted. First, advertising in the mass media shows that the trends continue to grow. If we refer to the data in 2005, it is clear that in 10 years there is a quite big leap in advertisement allocation to mass media. From 2005 to 2010, advertisement in the media increased by 200 percent, with an average increase around IDR 4 trillion per year. It is clearly not a small amount.

The advertisements will increase, that’s for sure. But, to where this increase flows, that’s the difference between this year and the previous years. In the last five years, one thing which has not changed is the fact that television remains the biggest lover of the advertising pie. That position is seemingly unshakable for an unpredictable length of time. However, slowly but surely its configuration begins to change. The tendency of the last five years has been that there was a constant decreasing in television advertising revenue.


37

Chapter III Freed from the Strom of Crisis

In 2005, the advertisement allocation flowing to television was 63.7 percent from the total revenue of mass media advertising. That amount dropped to 63 percent in 2006, 61.3 percent in 2007, 59 percent in 2008, and 58.5 percent in 2009. In fact, in 2009, television acquired a more remarkable flood of political advertising than print media, radio, or online media. In an optimistic scenario, Media Scene estimated that the percentage of television advertising revenue from the total advertising expenditure in 2010 could be around 58.8 percent. But, even if that were to happen, its increase would be only 0.3 percent from 2009.

Let us compare this with newspaper revenue, which tended to increase in the last five years. In 2005, the newspapers’ ad pie was still in the range of 26.9 percent from the total advertising expenditure. In the following years, the trend continued to move up: 27.9 percent in 2006, 31.2 percent in 2007, 33.8 percent in 2008, and 34.7 percent in 2009. In 2010, the percentage of newspaper advertising revenue is predicted to keep moving up, although only 0.2 percent (around IDR 3 trillion).

What’s happening in the magazine, tabloid, and radio sectors is interesting to observe. The amount of advertising allocation is increasing, but its percentage tends to decrease. For example, in 2005, magazines acquired IDR 890 billion or 3.2 percent from the total share of advertising. The amount of magazine advertising revenue was up to IDR 1.371 trillion in 2010. But, looking at its percentage, magazines “only” acquired 2.3 percent of the advertising pie.

This also happened to tabloid and radio. Tabloids, in 2005, scooped up advertising in the amount of IDR 398 billion, with the share of 1.4 percent. Five years later, in 2010, the coming of advertising to tabloids has increased almost 200 percent. But, in percentage, the share is decreasing from 1.4 percent to 1.1 percent. Radio also has the same fate. In 2005, radio acquired IDR 537 billion, with a 1.9 percent share. Five years later, the value of its advertising is increasing though not spectacularly enough: to IDR 622 billion, but its portion is sliding from 1.9 to 1.1 percent.

In the realm of print media, the star in the past consecutive five years is the daily newspaper. See the daily newspaper advertising revenue, which is a rising curve. In 2005, newspaper advertising revenue was around IDR 7.498 trillion, with a share of around 26.9 percent of total advertising revenue. Then, see the data of the next consecutive five years: to IDR 8.995 trillion (27.9 percent) in 2006, IDR 11.759 trillion (31.2 percent) in 2007, IDR 15.032 trillion (33.8 percent) in 2008, IDR 17.747 trillion (34.7 percent) in 2009, and IDR 20.409 trillion (34.9 percent) in the projection for 2010.

Let us also take a look at the trends in the first quarter of 20102. The statistics of advertising in the period of January-April 2010 give a good signal. If compared with the same period in the previous year, the increase is also very big, from IDR 10.367 trillion in 2009 to IDR 13.67 trillion in 2010. Its increase of percentage is up to 26 percent. This increase is bigger than the previous years, from 24 percent in the first quarter of 2007 compared with the first quarter of 2008, up to 19 percent from the first quarter of 2008 to the first quarter of 2009.

2 The result of this first quarter consists of newspaper (103 titles), magazine and tabloid (165 titles), and television (24 stations). As with the result of Nielsen Media’s calculations in general, it is based on the published rate card, which has not taken into account discounts, promotions, and classified ads. This means that the actual number can be bigger, although it must include calculation of the amount of discounts and bonuses, which are not counted in the calculation.



38

Table 3.2 The Advertising revenue in the First Quarter of 1999 to 2010

However, the statistics of daily newspaper advertising pie revenue cannot be considered special if its reference is the third quarter of 2009. Data from Nielsen Media show that the advertising value acquired by the media in the first quarter of 2010 is actually smaller than the revenue of the previous quarter, which reached IDR 13.033 trillion—smaller than the revenue of the third quarter of 2009. If the comparison is the situation in first quarter of 2009, there is an increase in the revenue of advertising.

Table 3.3 The Advertising revenue in First Quarter of 2010 Compared to the Previous Quarter

Before we read the statistics of advertising revenue with too much optimism, we have to remember one thing: Nielsen’s calculation can differ from the value in the pockets of the media. Nielsen’s calculation value is bigger because it has not yet calculated discounts or bonuses given by media to advertisers. The standard of Nielsen’s calculation is a published rate (official price), not actual money received by the media.

Nielsen cannot ensure how much discount or bonus is given by the media to agents and


39


advertisers. However, a number of advertising practitioners and media marketing divisions give the following estimation: for mainstream media, the standard of the highest discount that can be given is around 30 percent. But, for the some media whose circulation is relatively small, the discount can be up to 70 percent. If the average is taken, and referring to a number of factual calculations, then 50 percent discount is a moderate value3.

One thing that can be read from the statistics issued by Nielsen is that the mass media will continue to grow. The indication for this is the allocation of advertising funds, which are still larger than commercial products, which continue to grow every year.

This optimistic report is not only unique to Indonesia, which has been relatively free from the bombardment of the global crisis in 2008. The report of ZenithOptimedia also estimated that global advertising allocation grew 4 percent in 2008 and 2009, although the world economy was anemic. The advertising allocation for the Asia Pacific region, for example, is showing this gradually rising trend, from US$ 94.758 million in 2006 to US$ 122,121 million in 2010.

Table 3.4 Main Media Advertising revenue (newspaper, magazine, television, internet, outdoor media) in US$ Million

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

North America 183,417 188,300 191,639 193,365 200,810

Western Europe 113,449 119,922 121,846 125,062 130,490

Asia Pacific 94,758 101,939 108,693 114,398 122,121

Central & Eastern Europe 25,843 31,629 36,463 41,097 46,169

Latin America 22,701 26,406 29,058 31,876 34,911

Africa/M. East/ROW 14,043 17,258 18,657 20,815 23,974

World 454,211 485,454 506,356 526,614 558,475

SOURCE: ZENITHOPTIMEDIA

Different with the trend of media advertisement in Indonesia, ZenithOptimedia estimated that the advertising allocation for print media, including newspaper, fluctuated greatly. In 2007, advertisements in print media increased compared to 2006. But in 2008, advertising in print media decreased compared to 2007. Advertising revenue in 2009 was also smaller than in 2008. Then, in 2010, its value is estimated to increase from US$ 127.217 million to US$ 128.444 million.

Let us compare this with television advertising revenue, which is constantly increasing. In 2006, advertising revenue in the television world was increasing to US$ 168.355 million. In the following year, 2007, it was up to US$ 179.268 million, then US$ 187.496 million in 2008, US$ 193.854 million in 2009, and the projection in 2010 was estimated to be US$ 203.770 million. Another important thing from ZenihtOptimedia data is the advertising allocation for the internet, which has a constantly increasing trend from US$ 30.404 in 2006 to (estimation) US$ 75,803 in 2010.

3 Calculations made by Gunawan Alif are an interesting reference to assess the real value to media from advertisements. One he examines is the advertising revenue of RCTI, which in Nielsen’ radar is the the most ad-winning: approximately IDR 44 trillion. In 2006, RCTI got a share of 15.1 percent of advertisements, getting 14.9 percent in 2007, in 2008 getting 13.8 percent, and in 2009 is 13.5 percent. Alif found data that, based on Nielsen, RCTI’s revenue from advertisements in 2006 was IDR 2.64 trillion. In RCTI’s audit report, it was found that RCTI gained around IDR 1.26 trillion. This meant that there was a considerable bonus given by RCTI, up to 50 percent, to their advertisers. Alif wondered, with RCTI in their top position giving such a bonus, how the smaller televisions, with a lower bargaining position, can sell advertising. The amount of bonus given by media to advertisers varied. He assessed the amount of 40-50 percent is very likely. Interview of Asmono Wikan, July 7, 2010.



40

Table 3.5 Global advertising expenditure by medium US$ million, current prices Currency conversion at 2007 average rates

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Newspapers 127,473 130,032 128,277 127,217 128,444

Magazines 56,040 57,920 58,433 59,407 61,279

Television 168,355 179,268 187,496 193,854 203,770

Radio 36,990 38,391 39,469 40,033 41,324

Cinema 2,031 2,265 2,458 2,664 2,910

Outdoor 28,048 31,050 33,132 35,117 37,752

Internet 30,404 41,038 51,054 61,729 75,803

Total * 449,341 479,964 500,319 520,021 551,283


* The totals here are lower than the totals in the Advertising expenditure by region’ table above, since that table includes total advertising expenditure figures for a few countries for which spending is not categorized by medium.

Table 3.6 Share of Total Advertising expenditure by Medium 2006-2010 (%)

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Newspapers 28.4 27.1 25.6 24.5 23.3

Magazines 12.5 12.1 11.7 11.4 11.1

Television 37.5 37.4 37.5 37.3 37.0

Radio 8.2 8.0 7.9 7.7 7.5

Cinema 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Outdoor 6.2 6.5 6.6 6.8 6.8

Internet 6.8 8.6 10.2 11.9 13.8


The increasing number of media which are not as fast as circulation

IT seems easy to read the data of Nielsen Media about the development of mass media advertising. But it is not easy when looking for things that contribute to the increase of advertising.

Executive Director of the Newspaper Publishers Union, Asmono Wikan, said that actually there was not much innovation by newspapers in the past one or two years. There was also not much publishing of new newspapers. If any, it is only in the regional publishing. Some new developments are that a number of media have started to publish e-paper editions as the supplement of the regular edition.

If anything is making advertising increase more, it may be because a number of products today dare to advertise after seeing that the 2009 General Elections ran safely. If in 2009 media were supported by the advertisements of the general election, in 2010 media are possibly helped by the political situation, which is relatively stable after the five-yearly celebration of democracy.

Ika Jatmikasari from Nielsen Media has another explanation for the increase of advertising revenue. According to her, the advertising revenue for this year is increasing because the number of media surveyed by Nielsen also increased. This makes the mass media advertising revenue bigger. However, she adds that it is not the one and only factor.


41


The factor of economic growth also makes advertising allocation survive. Because when crisis hits, one action generally taken for financial savings is to cut the budget for advertising in mass media. But, according to Ika, not all producers choose to wait for advertising in a crisis. Some people even think otherwise: during crisis, there must be communication with consumers. This kind of perception makes mass media advertising revenue, in good or difficult times, tend to be stable.

The number of media also increases albeit at different speeds each new year. If in 2008 there were 1,008 publications, which added with the 28 new publications in 2009, becomes 1,036 publications. In 2010, the number of media was 1.076 publications, after adding 40 publications.

Table 3.7 The Growth of Number of Media and Circulation (2008 – 2010)

Type 2008 2009 2010

Media Circulation Media Circulation Media Circulation

Bulletin 3 7.809 3 7.809 5 33.809

Magazine 318 5.925.857 322 6.234.357 294 6.235.243

Daily newspaper 290 7.490.252 302 8.080.694 349 8.744.483

Weekly newspaper 224 1.039.853 232 1.063.353 240 1.084.075

Tabloid 173 4.621.055 177 5.427.955 188 5.400.803

1.008 19.084.826 1036 20.814.168 1.076 21.498.413

PROCESSED FROM MEDIA DIRECTORy 2010: THE POWER OF PRINT MEDIA PUBLISHED By SPS

For the composition of growth and circulation of media, most come from Jakarta, which in 2010 had circulation of around 13.2 million. After that is East Java whose circulation is around 1.5 million; West Java with 752,000; Aceh 738,000; and Central Java 731,0004.

The number of media is different with circulation. Observing the table of cities with the comparison of circulation and number of media, we can see that a province which has a lot of media does not always have bigger circulation. The linear growth is only applicable for Jakarta and East Java. The rest is not following that pattern, such as in North Sumatra. Although the number of media is bigger than Aceh, the media’s circulation in North Sumatra is smaller.

Table 3.8 10 biggest cities based on circulation figures (2010)

SKH SKM Magazine Tabloid Bulletin Total

Media Circulation Media Circulation Media Circulation Media Circulation Media Circulation Media Circulation

Jakarta 42 2960312 17 186500 213 5736843 70 4356255 4 32809 346 13272719

East Java 25 1167220 12 89500 13 198000 20 88000 - - 70 1542720

West Java 15 617660 11 41500 6 17000 11 76000 - - 43 752160

Aceh 7 136000 4 14500 1 2000 7 586000 - - 19 738500

Central Java 13 503500 7 103500 7 50500 10 74000 - - 37 731500

Lampung 11 219800 14 186520 1 200 2 81300 - - 28 489620

North Sumatra 33 378600 27 44000 3 15000 5 10000 - - 68 447600

yogya 5 282465 2 72866 12 81400 - - - - 19 436731

Pekanbaru 12 228330 18 42500 6 12500 23 56000 - - 59 339330

South Sumatra 16 325417 1 1000 - - - - - - 17 326417

SOURCE: MEDIA DIRECTORy 2010: THE POWER OF PRINT MEDIA PUBLISHED By SPS

4 According to the Executive Director of the Newspaper Publishers Union (SPS), Asmono Wikan, the data on number and media is based on the report on number of printed newspapers submitted to SPS. It did not show the actual circulation. Because there was newspaper circulation given as a supplement to the advertiser. Asmono Wikan, interview dated July 7, 2010.



42

According to Asmono Wikan, the dynamic of each city is different. It usually depends on a city’s amount of big players. One of the cities which, according to SPS, has tight competition is Pekanbaru, Riau. Compared with South Sumatra, Riau has a greater number of media: 59. Circulation is 339,330 copies. But, South Sumatra has 17 media with 326,417 copies in circulation.

Media statistics from year to year also reveal fluctuations, which are never easily explained. There is one city which had circulation figures of only 94,000 in 2008, which then jumped to 756,000 in 2009. But, some are the reverse. One of these is Banten, which in 2008 had 112,000 copies, which in the next year dropped to 108,000 copies.

Table 3.9 Media statistics

Provinsi Circulation 2008

Circulation 2009

(%) Circulation 2009

Circulation 2010

(%)

Aceh 94500 756520 700.55 756520 738500 -19.07

Sumatera Utara 356000 430000 20.79 430000 447600 21.24

Sumatera Barat 130660 203000 55.44 203000 104250 9.76

Riau 268830 302830 12.65 302830 339330 22.88

Kepulauan Riau 158975 361000 127.08 361000 181000 9.75

Jambi 152200 324400 113.14 324400 175200 8.54

Bengkulu 42450 93900 121.20 93900 46950 0.00

Sumatera Selatan 316200 634870 100.78 634870 326417 1.26

Bangka Belitung 97020 200040 106.18 200040 95020 -5.15

Lampung 203300 209300 2.95 209300 489620 136.41

Banten 112000 108000 -3.57 108000 138000 31.25

DKI Jakarta 12845778 12402233 -3.45 12402233 13272719 -2.36

Jawa Barat 644115 612614 -4.89 612614 752160 28.86

Jawa Tengah 683100 707500 3.57 707500 731500 6.15

yogyakarta 381031 392031 2.89 392031 436731 12.26

Jawa Timur 1226220 1475220 20.31 1475220 1982720 43.26

Bali 267406 281037 5.10 281037 286037 7.11

NTB 70000 70000 0,00 88000 70000 -25.71

NTT 51200 57200 11.72 57200 64200 25.39

Kalimantan Barat 48800 322656 561.18 322656 186328 51.23

Kalimantan Tengah 63000 83000 31.75 83000 98500 37.30

Kalimantan Selatan 236900 478336 101.91 478336 241223 4,67

Kalimantan Timur 237851 237851 0.00 237851 241.758 1,64

Sulawesi Selatan 162000 159000 -1.85 159000 177.000 14,81

Sulawesi Tenggara 28000 42000 50.00 42000 21.000 -25,00

Sulawesi Barat 10000 31000 210.00 31000 15.500 -35.00

Sulawesi Tengah 23000 19000 -17.39 19000 20000 0,00

Gorontalo 12800 21600 68.75 21600 10800 -15,63

Sulawesi Utara 76850 116850 52.05 116850 144.850 85,88

Maluku 26500 56000 111.32 56000 28000 5,66

Maluku Utara 13200 39000 195.45 39000 20500 55,30

Papua 39000 45000 15.38 45000 45000 0,00

Papua Barat 6000 90000 1400.00 90000 10000 0,00

SOURCE: MEDIA DIRECTORy 2010: THE POWER OF PRINT MEDIA PUBLISHED By SPS

The Trend of TV, radio, and Internet Advertising

THE growth of television and radio stations in the past two years has not noted large increases as seen in the print media. Data in Media Scene, Volume 21-2009/2010, shows that


43


there are 1,248 radio stations in Indonesia5. Details include 819 radios using FM frequency, and the rest using AM. The city which has the most radio stations is West Java (181 stations), followed by Central Java (178 stations), East Java (146 stations), North Sumatra (102 stations), and Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (61 stations). Jakarta was positioned after Aceh, with 53 stations.

The growth in the number of television stations also seemed not to show many significant additions. Referring to data explained by S. Djuarsa Sendjaja6, the number of television stations up until May 2009 was 79. This number would increase quite drastically if 176 proposed permissions had been agreed. There were 176 proposals which consisted of 6 local public televisions, 121 local televisions, 31 digital televisions, and 18 community televisions.

Although there were not many additions in number, the advertising in both media was still quite significant. Based on the estimation of Media Scene, the allocation of television advertisements is still very big – as much as IDR 34 trillion, or 58,8 percent of the total advertisement share. This number was greater compared to revenues in 2009 of IDR 29,8 trillion. But, the amount of advertisement share experienced a decrease of about 0.3 percent.

For radio advertising, in 2010 it is estimated to be IDR 622 billion, increasing from IDR 593 billion in 2009. Nominally, the value of radio advertising has continued to increase since 2007. In that year, radio advertising was at IDR 535 billion and became IDR 559 billion in 2008. In 2006, the value of its advertisement revenue was lower than in 2005, which reached IDR 537 billion.

Seeing the statistics of ZenithOptimedia, there is the same tendency in advertisement for both types of media. The advertisement share for both media tended to decrease if compared with the situation in 2006. The trigger was not really clear. Different from radio and television, ZenithOptimedia gave an illustration pleasing for the players in online media. It was because the allocation of advertisement for this type of media had a tendency to grow. In a period of five years, the allocation of advertisement for internet increased almost two-fold.

It is too hasty to give an evaluation as to whether the internet will be booming again and quite promising from the business side. Some people surely still remember the phenomenon of the rise of online media around the year 2000 where, in fact, prospects were not as bountiful as imagined. Consequently, the online media are forecast to fall after they were previously predicted to be a new important player in the mass media industry. In Indonesia, there has been a booming of website news, although a lot of these fall by the wayside.

However, seeing the potency of advertisement predicted by ZenithOptimedia, as well as a trend of internet users that keeps growing, it is definitely a space that still could be used. With the growth of about 5 millions new users in a year, that was not regarded as a small opportunity. Asmono Wikan noted there are a number of newcomers to online media in Indonesia which also began to receive advertisements, although the figure could not yet be stated with certainty.

5 Media Scene Volume 21: 2009/2010, pp. 95.

6 Paper of S. Djuarsa Sendjaja in a discussion at The Press Council, May 4, 2009



44

Table 3.10 The Growth of Internet Users in Indonesia (2000-2010)

TAHUN PENGGUNA PoPULASI % PENDUDUk GDP

2000 2,000,000 206,264,595 1.0 % US$ 570 ITU

2007 20,000,000 224,481,720 8.9 % US$ 1,916 ITU

2008 25,000,000 237,512,355 10.5 % US$ 2,238 APJII

2009 30,000,000 240,271,522 12.5 % US$ 2,329 ITU

2010 30,000,000 242,968,342 12.3 % US$ 2,858 ITU

SOURCE: INTERNET WORLD STATUS, NOTE: PER CAPITA GDP IN US DOLLARS, SOURCE: UNITED NATIONS DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS.

The Nielsen research institution survey results also showed internet penetration in Indonesia in 2010 reaching 17 percent of the population, or a double-fold increase compared to 2005, for which the figure was only about 8 percent. According to Associate Director of the Nielsen Company Indonesia, Ika Jatmikasari, the increase was because of the shifting of other media users, such as print and electronic to internet. “The growth in the number of internet users is increasing drastically, defeating other media,” Ika said.

The shifting of public interest to the internet is because of the appeal of social networking sites, such as facebook and twitter, which continue to grow significantly in the virtual world. Data from Nielsen also notes that the users of Facebook in 2009 in Indonesia were increasing almost 700 percent from the previous year. It is also the same with the users of Twitter, which increased 3,700 percent. Mostly, the users are 15-39 years old7.

7 Kompas.com, Penetrasi Internet di Indonesia Naik Dua Kali Lipat, December 8, 2009. According to Ika, users who previously consumed music via radio shifted to the internet to listen to the music as well as downloading a song or music video. The consumers of print media, such as newspapers, have also begun to shift to the internet, beca use they can access news faster.


45


CHAPTEr IV

The Portrait of Indonesian Press Ethics

Infotainment and (the divorce of) Journalism•Two interpretations on the rise of complaints to the Press Council•

“GO Spot, an in-house production infotainment program, gives new nuance from each celebrity’s story presented. It is broadcast live every morning. Go Spot presents celebrities’ news as what it is; nothing less, nothing more, even heating things up….”

What had been written by Dandy Dwi Laksono, a senior journalist who had worked in all types of media, was surely not to promote Go Spot, one infotainment program in a media company where he once worked: RCTI. That was an opening sentence in his series of writings about infotainment which currently question whether it is better that this be a member of the journalism family or explicitly separated.

It was not without cause when Dandy Dwi Laksono finally wrote a long review in five writings in a series published on his Facebook account from July 16 to 22, 2010. Since the beginning of July, the theme of infotainment became a hot topic of conversation.

The debate on infotainment has become a hot topic again not only because the Indonesian Broadcast Commission (KPI) plans to include infotainment programs in the category of non-factual programs—a category that today also invites debate concerning the appropriateness of its term and definition. The KPI also receives many complaints about gossip programs, which cover numerous time slots in television stations. The complainers are complaining that the impact of gossip programs about celebrities is more harm than help.

Out of the controversy of infotainment, there are still a number of ethics issues that should be noted in this report. One of them is the numerous complaints to the Press Council. Some complaints are resolved by the Press Council through mediation, but some others are finally brought to the court. From numerous complaints to the Press Council, there are cases triggered by journalists’ unprofessional attitude. However, there are also complaints that are based more on the too sensitive attitude of a particular person or group in the face of criticism from the mass media. Some other complaints are caused by the actions of people who claim to be journalists, but their attitudes absolutely have no relevance with the journalistic profession. These fake journalists only use their journalist profession as a mask to cover their criminal acts.



46

Infotainment and “its divorce” with Journalism

THE debate on infotainment was recently revived at the end of 2009. At that time, infotainment also became a byword when workers of infotainment were involved in a fierce dispute with Luna Maya, a celebrity. At that time, the case started from the incident of a quarrel between Luna Maya and infotainment workers who cover her personal activities. Luna Maya then wrote in her twitter account, mentioning that, “infotainment was more despicable than prostitutes”1.

Luna Maya’s writing provoked the anger of infotainment workers. They complained about Luna Maya to the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Regional Police with the charge of humiliation. Besides being charged with violating articles of humiliation in the Criminal Code, Luna Maya was also reported for violating the Law on Information and Electronic Transaction (ITE)—a controversial law that had imprisoned a housewife, Prita Mulyasari, because of writing an e-mail about her complaint on the service of an international hospital.

The action of infotainment workers invited strong criticism from the activists of freedom of expression because of penalization by the Law on ITE. The Alliance of Independent Journalists, which had been campaigning against defamation in the KUHP (Indonesian Criminal Code) and other regulations, assessed that the infotainment workers’ steps had gone too far.

AJI’s statement at that time was not only a defense of Luna Maya as an individual who almost became the next victim of the Law on ITE. Organizationally, AJI also continued to endeavor to campaign for the deletion of the articles of defamation in the realm of criminal law, as has been a trend in developed democratic countries. Altogether with a number of other civil society organizations, AJI had asked for review of the articles of defamation to the Constitutional Court. Unfortunately, the Constitutional Court still regarded that those criminal penalties for the perpetrators of defamation were needed to protect the honor or reputation of every citizen.

As had been predicted, the area of dispute extended not only between the infotainment workers and Luna Maya. Infotainment received support from a leading organization, the Indonesian Journalists Association (PWI). This action of support also made two organizations which had strongly clashed in the past confront each other again, even though they had begun to improve relations related to issues that could be fought together.

Less than a year later, infotainment became a hot topic again. It was not because the high rating of infotainment, but because of a lot of complaints about what the Press Council referred to as a program of ”journalism in bad taste”.

In 2009, for example, the KPI issued a warning and appeal as often as 121 times to a number of television stations. There were various programs which had been warned or asked to be more disciplined. There were news programs, advertisements, soap operas, and also

1 The precise and accurate quotation is: “The level of infotainment is more despicable than PROSTITUTES, MURDER!!! May Ur Soul Burn in Hell.” That tweet is Luna’s expression of vexation after being intercepted by reporters after watching the premier of Sang Pemimpi which also starred Ariel in EX Plaza, MH Thamrin street, Central Jakarta, on February 15, 2009, at night. At that time, Luna watched the film accompanied by Ariel’s daughter from his marriage with Sarah Amalia, Alleia, and Ariel’s father. Exiting from the theater, Luna was holding Alleia who slept with her head leaning on Luna’s shoulder. Seeing there were a lot of reporters, Luna asked that the interview be conducted in the lobby. While walking down from the second floor of the theater to the lobby, the infotainments’ cameras still highlighted Luna. Apparently, there was a little incident. Luna felt Alleia’s head was bumped by the camera of one of the infotainment cameramen, and it made her annoyed.


47

Chapter IV The Portrait of Indonesian Press Ethics

infotainment programs. For the latter, their frequency had become greater and greater. In June 2010, the KPI received around 200 complaints about infotainments programs because these broadcasts were ethically considered inappropriate and improper. However, not all of the KPI’s warnings were complied with.

The problem of infotainment, and our television shows which are regarded as having less quality, also invited concern from many people, including the Press Council and the House of People’s Representatives. Commission I of the DPR also called the Press Council and KPI in a working meeting on July 14, 2010. The Press Council and KPI are both dealing with the media, although their working scope and authority are somewhat different. Television and radio programs are the KPI’s domain to control, while the implementation of print media ethics is monitored by the Press Council. However, the separation is not totally strict. There is also a ”dispute” between the KPI and the Press Council because of a difference in perception on the scope of their functional tasks.

In an approximately 3.5- hour meeting, members of Commission I complained about infotainment2. The statement’s message requested immediate discipline and changes to infotainment to be a non-factual category3. At the end of the meeting, those three institutions agreed on four decisions. Two of them are that Commission I of the DPR fully supports the effort and steps conducted by the KPI to revise the Guidelines of Broadcast Conduct and Standards of Broadcast Programs (P3SPS), primarily the categorization of infotainment broadcast programs, reality shows, and similar programs from factual to non-factual.

Answering questions from reporters after that working session, the Head of the Indonesian Broadcast Commission, Dadang Rahmat Hidayat, said that the KPI is ready to cooperate with the Film Censorship Institution (LSF) to conduct censorship towards infotainment programs and reality shows. ”In P3SPS, it is clear that a non-factual program must pass through censorship. And, we will discuss it with the Film Censorship Institution,” he said.

The result of that meeting, which was reported in a number of media, provoked strong reaction from the people who work in infotainment. One of them is Ilham Bintang, the founder of Check and Richek and also the Secretary of the Honorary Board of the National PWI. In some statements quoted by the media, Ilham alleged that Commission I-DPR-Press Council-KPI were engaged in conspiracy to exclude infotainment from factual categorized programs to become non-factual. Ilham reasoned that infotainment is a journalistic product, so it should not be censored.

The following is Ilham’s argumentation, which still considered that infotainment is journalism. ”Infotainment programs comply with the Press Law (Law No.40 of 1999), so that it is proper to call it as a work of journalism,” said the Secretary of the Honorary Board of the Indonesian Journalist Association, Ilham Bintang4. ”Besides, PWI Jaya has admitted that infotainment workers are journalists.” Ilham, besides suggesting that the institutions which met on July 14, 2010 conspired, also states that three members of the Press Council who attended that meeting—Uni Lubis, Agus Sudibyo, and Bekti Nugroho—were present in a private capacity, not representing their institution.

2 Website of www.dpr.go.id, Komisi I DPR Masalahkan Status Infotainmen, July 5, 2010

3 DPR, KPI, dan Dewan Pers Sepakati Sensor Infotainmen, July 14, 2010

4 Tempo Interaktif, PWI: Infotainmen Adalah Karya Jurnalistik, July 15, 2010



48

Ilham’s statement provoked a long debate. Members of Commission I of the DPR held a special conference to answer the accusation of the infotainment’s boss who was also a former reporter in Angkatan Bersenjata Daily. “It insults the parliament,” said Efendy Choirie. Besides Commission I, one other institution which reacted was the Press Council. Ilham’s accusation, which mentioned that three representatives of the Press Council in that meeting did not represent the institution, made the Press Council convene especially to discuss it. The Press Council’s meeting on July 18 firmly argued Ilham’s accusation and stated, “All of them officially represent the Press Council.”

The debate continued to be a hot topic because the arena of it became wider. Ilham Bintang’s defense, by bringing support from PWI, aroused a lively debate not only in the media, but also in mailing lists and social network sites such as Facebook. A member of AJI, Dhandy Dwi Laksono, for example, made a long and argumentative review about infotainment and the good and bad side of that kind of the program for the public. The writing which had quite a provocative title, ”Infotainment divorced from Journalism” made a bright illustration on how these programs were more about the matter of earning money than complying with the public’s need for information.

Institutionally, the Alliance of Independent Journalists, in its statement, explicitly stated that “Gossip which is related with someone’s personal life (private) and not in the public interest, even though got through means similar to the working journalistic steps and packaged in the form of news, is not a work of journalism, but only rumor or gossip. Therefore, all private rumor or gossip which is published through mass media (print or electronic) cannot be categorized as news”5.

According to AJI, gossip which is related with someone’s personal life (private) and not in the public interest, even though got through means similar to the working journalistic steps and packaged in the form of news, is not a work of journalism.

AJI also emphasizes the importance of obedience to the Journalistic Code of Ethics in implementation of the coverage and presentation of journalistic work. For journalists who also cover news of public figures, AJI reminds about the importance of obedience on the ethics code that outlines about respecting sources’ privacy and the professional journalistic ways of working.

Anyone who intentionally denies and repeatedly violates the Journalistic Code of Ethics, according to AJI, has no rights to claim recognition as a journalist. Their work in seeking, collecting, and presenting information, also cannot be protected by the Press Law. Sources and the public who feel disadvantaged can directly propose a legal claim, without being bound to provisions of the right of reply, right of correction, and asking mediation to the Press Council.

Former member of the Press Council, Amir Effendi Siregar6, in his written opinion in Tempo newspaper, stated that journalism is a factual program, but not all factual programs are journalism. There is an ideology which must be included: idealism, that is an effort to give information for society’s empowerment.

In connection with journalistic activities, the Law on Broadcasting states that a broadcast

5 AJI’s statement upon infotainment, Utamakan Kepentingan Publik, Patuhi Kode Etik, Wednesday, July 22, 2010, 13:06 WIB

6 Amir Efendi Siregar, Infotainmen, Jurnalisme dan Sensor, Tempo Newspaper, July 24, 2010


49


journalist in carrying out journalistic activities is subject to the Journalistic Code of Ethics and applicable regulations (article 42). It means this refers also to the Press Law, article 1, which states that the press is a social institution and a means of mass communication which conducts journalistic activities, including seeking, obtaining, possessing, storing, processing, and presenting information by using print media, electronic media, and all types of available channels.

This article is used as the basis by infotainment practitioners to declare their activities are journalistic. In fact, according to Amir, the Press Law must be read more deeply, for what kind of information that has to be sought and for what. It must be read concerning the principle, function, and role which states, among others, that the national press conducts the role of fulfilling the public’s right to know, enforces the values of democracy, supports the realization of law and human rights supremacy, conducts monitoring and criticism and advice on matters related with the public interest, and fights for justice and truth (article 6).

With that basis, Amir confirmed, journalism is not only about technical presentation, but also contains idealism and ideology in it. “Clearly, based on various references and regulations of law, infotainment that we know now in Indonesia does not implement the principles of journalism, so that it is not a product of journalism,” said Amir.

The Press Council itself does not give a clear definition about infotainment. In its press release after a meeting on July 20, 2010, the Press Council stated that a program which can be called as a work of journalism is in accordance with the Press Law and complying with the Journalistic Code of Ethics. This equivocal statement of the Press Council invited criticism. This stance was suspected as a product of compromise because this institution is filled with representatives of organizations and the public, some of whom are considered to have an interest in defending the infotainment industry.

The Press Council is seemingly facing a dilemma in addressing infotainment. The Chairman of the Press Council, Bagir Manan, said that internally in the Press Council itself there was still a lot of debate as to whether infotainment can be categorized as part of the press.

Two interpretations on the rise of complaints to the Press Council

STATISTICALLY, the number of complaints to the Press Council has tended to increase. Only in the past three years, complaints increased significantly, from 319 complaints in 2007 to 424 complaints in the next year, 2008. In 2009, it also increased to 442 complaints. With this number, the Division of Complaints in the Press Council received an average of 26 complaints per month, more than 34 complaints per month in 2008, and 36 complaints per month in 2009.

Table 4.1 Public Complaints to the Press Council (2007-2009)

Year 2007 2008 2009

Total Complaints 319 complaints 424 complaints 442 complaints

Type of Complaints

Direct Complaints 56 complaints 99 complaints 89 complaints



50

Indirect Complaints 268 complaints 325 complaints 353 complaints

Details of Complaints

Government complaining about media 141 complaints 144 complaints 222 complaints

Media complaining about government 24 complaints 20 complaints 21 complaints

Public complaining about media 117 complaints 145 complaints 147 complaints

Media complaining about public 14 complaints 17 complaints 11 complaints

Journalist complaining about media 11 complaints 7 complaints 17 complaints

Other Complaints (out of press cases) 12 complaints 91 complaints 24 complaints

PROCESSED FROM REPORT OF PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PRESS ETHICS, PRESS COUNCIL, 2007-2010

How do we interpret this increasing number of reports? Member of the Press Council, Agus Sudibyo, said that the statistics of complaints could be read in two different ways. On one hand, it could indicate that the Press Council achieved more public trust. Of course, it is a positive signal because more of the public began to choose means of resolution through this institution as something precious enough, rather than directly complaining to the police and courts.

On the other hand, it is also interpreted as a mirror that there are still a lot of cases of improper misuse of the profession and practice by the Indonesian press. It shows the bad side of the profession. Because there are still a lot of cases, it is certainly very troubling. In a number of cases that came to the Press Council, the public’s complaints are not only about the news and journalists’ attitudes to ‘the fake media’, whose credibility must be doubted. There are also complaints about news and journalists’ attitudes from the mainstream media.

Common complaints received by the Press Council relate to bias or pushing of news coverage. This kind of case arises much in the regions. One example was the complaint of PT. Perkebunan Nusantara II (Persero) Tanjung Morawa, Medan, related to a series of news reports in Sumut Pos daily and Pos Metro Medan daily. PT Perkebunan complained to the Press Council on August 29, 2009. They stated that the news was tendentious and untrue. The next month, exactly on November 12, 2009, the Press Council conducted mediation in Medan. In that meeting, all parties agreed to choose a peaceful way by giving an opportunity to PT Perkebunan to clarify the news that they regarded as untrue for so long.

A similar case also happened to Agus Supriadi, a Regent of Garut (2003-2008). Agus complained to the Press Council because he felt disadvantaged by the program of Trans TV entitled “Kumpulan Perkara Korupsi (KPK)” broadcast by Trans TV on December 1, 2008. In the mediation on March 3, 2009, Trans TV agreed to make news coverage of human interest about Agus Supriadi and his family as compensation that would be broadcast on a different Trans TV news program7.

There were also complaints about loading sadistic photos by the media. A report that was received by the Press Council from Ahmad Karim is one example. Ahmad complained about news accompanied by a picture (photo) of a terrible accident published by Gorantalo Pos. Following up the complaints, the Press Council directly sent a letter to Gorontalo Pos, asking the daily to apologize to the readers. Gorontalo Pos complied with the Press Council’s advice.

In 2010, there is a case of the National Police versus TV One that has caught the public’s attention. This case begins from the broadcasting of case broker perpetrators by TV One in “Apa Kabar Indonesia”, edition of March 18, 2010. In this program, the anonymous source

7 The source is from the Report of Complaints Commission of the Press Council (2007-2010)


51


who appeared wearing a mask confessed to being a case broker who can “help” people who are ensnared in a case in the Indonesian National Police Headquarters.

The police did not accept this and brought this case to the Press Council. The police accused TV One of not being balanced in reporting the case. The police also accused that there was engineering in the case broker’s confession. In this case, the police presented Andris Ronaldi, the masked informant, in the press conference. In that press conference, Andris denied the accusation that he was a case broker.

After mediation by the Press Council, the Indonesian National Police and TV One agreed to make peace. In its review, the Press Council declared that the alleged case of a fake case broker, which became the conflict between the Police and TV One, happened because that television station used a less than competent source. The source’s weak credibility caused the inaccuracy of the confession and information. In that program, Andris confessed as a broker of big cases. In fact, the findings of the Press Council stated that Andris is only a broker of small cases. But, the Press Council did not find evidence of engineering of news coverage or interview manipulation in TV One’s program8.

The Indonesian National Police were also involved in a dispute about news coverage with Tempo magazine, besides with TV One. Although first choosing a legal process, the National Police finally came to the Press Council. The National Police’s problem was the title of Tempo magazine’s edition on June 14-20, 2010, which read, “Kapolri dalam Pusaran Mafia Batu Bara” and Tempo magazine’s cover in the edition of June 28-July 4, 2010, which illustrated a police herding three pink piggy banks.

In the mediation on July 8, 2010, the Indonesian National Police and Tempo agreed four decisions. Among others was the title of Tempo’s news in the cover’s edition of June 14-20, 2010, “Kapolri dalam Pusaran Mafia Batu Bara”, did not fully reflected the content of Tempo’s news. The party under complaint understood the objections from the complainer related to the cover of Tempo’s June 28-July 4, 2010 edition and regretted the cover’s picture that had offended the Indonesian National Police. Tempo would also serve the police’s right of reply9.

Complaints to the Press Council did not solely come from outside the media. There was also one media organization which complained about another. The example was the case of plagiarism. On January 5, 2009, the Press Council accepted an e-mail from Imam Kurnia, an officer of technology of information from the portal www.infojambi.com. Imam complained about alleged plagiarism by a contributor of www.okezone.com. Through that electronic mail, infojambi.com asked the Press Council to resolve the problem.

There were two news reports suspected of plagiarism. First, a news report entitled “Dipidana Seumur Hidup, Caleg PBR Terancam Dicoret” published on December 27, 2008. Second, a news report entitled “Oknum TNI Ditangkap Polda, Saat Mengambil Paket Berisi 1929 Pil Ekstasi” published on December 27, 2008. In the website of okezone.com, the first

8 Koran Tempo, Kepolisian dan TV One Sepakat Berdamai, May 27, 2010, and Koran Tempo, Dewan Pers Menilai Narasumber TV One Tak Kompeten, May 29, 2010

9 According to Agus Sudibyo, in the review of the Press Council, the news of Tempo magazine, edition of June 14-20, 2010, entitled ”Kapolri di Pusaran Mafia Batu Bara” also was unbalanced, because there was no interview with the head of National Police. Probably, Tempo had tried to confirm with the head of National Police, but the effort was not mentioned in the news. However, that assessment was not included in the draft of agreement of the two parties, because it was not included in the complaints of Indonesian National Police or the Head of National Police. Interview of Agus Sudibyo, July 16, 2010.



52

news appeared with the title “Dipidana Seumur Hidup, Caleg Terancam Dicoret”, and the title’s second news was “Temukan 1929 Ekstasi, Polda Jambi Bekuk Oknum TNI.”

After requesting clarification from infojambi.com and okezone.com, the Press Council concluded that the report from infojambi.com was quite reasonable. The Press Council affirmed that the action of plagiarism was a violation of Article 2 of the Journalistic Code of Ethics. It was a violation for journalists. The Press Council punished okezone.com to apologize. On February 27, 2009, okezone.com issued a letter of apology, a copy of which was also sent to the Press Council10.

Another quite interesting case of ethics to be noted was the use of media for practical political interests. A member of the Press Council, Agus Sudibyo, gave an example of the use of television in the competition to be Golkar’s general chairman, last September 2009. In the Press Council’s observation, there was a strong indication that Surya Paloh used Metro TV and Aburizal Bakrie used ANTV and TV One to “campaign” to seize the banyan party’s seat11.

It was not only the Press Council that gave attention to this problem. The Indonesian Broadcast Commission (KPI) and Alliance of Independent Journalists also had the same notings about this case. That was why on September 28, 2009, for example, the KPI advised three television stations “not to use television stations as a medium in the competition to win the position as General Chairman of Golkar.”12

10 Bulletin Etika, no 70/February 2009

11 Interview of Agus Sudibyo, July 16, 2010. An interesting and unique case handled by the Press Council was the dispute between a candidate for Surabaya Mayor, Arif Afandi, who complained about Jawa Pos because the news was considered unbalanced. We know, Arif Afandi was a former chief editor of Jawa Pos. In his complaint to the Press Council, Arif Afandi considered Jawa Pos’ news related to the process of the Surabaya Mayor Election was unbalanced and disadvantaged him as one of the candidates. One of the news items written in Jawa Pos was about the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) related to the election of the Surabaya Mayor, which through the content of its decision, required a re-election in some areas. Arif considered that there was an effort of information misdirection related with the decision. “As if the decision was not in accordance with the fact of the trial and sensed an intervention toward the MK,” said Arif. See the website of Beritajatim.com, Arif Afandi Laporkan Jawa Pos ke Dewan Pers, Monday, July 05, 2010, 15:26:48 WIB. See also DetikSurabaya, Pilwali Surabaya - Dewan Pers akan Panggil Jawa Pos, Monday, 05/07/2010 17:14 WIB

12 The Recap of KPI’ Reprimand and Appeal, 2009.


53


ANNEx I

Cases of Violance against Journalists (2009)



54

Tim

e Lo

catio

nPe

rpet

rato

r Vi

ctim

Type

of A

ctio

nDe

scrip

tion

2 Ja

nuar

y Bo

gor

Secu

rity

Iman

Abd

urah

man

, jou

rnal

ist o

f M

egas

war

a TV

Phys

ical a

buse

and

del

etio

n of

the

reco

rdin

g Im

an A

bdur

ahm

an w

as p

rohi

bite

d by

the

secu

rity

of Ta

man

Topi

Squ

are

to c

over

a m

ass

tranc

e of

the

empl

oyee

s in

that

sho

ppin

g ce

ntre

.

14 Ja

nuar

y M

edan

6 yo

ung

men

De

de B

asry

, Har

ian

Berit

a So

reBe

atin

g or

phy

sical

abu

seDe

de B

asry

was

app

roac

hed

by 3

mot

orcy

le d

river

s. He

was

ber

ated

, so

he re

spon

ded

back

with

the

sam

e.

Then

, the

per

petra

tors

gan

ged

up o

n De

de.

15 Ja

nuar

y Ba

li Bu

sines

sman

Mift

ahud

din

Halim

, a jo

urna

list o

f Ra

dar B

ali

Beat

ing

or p

hysic

al a

buse

Paul

Han

doko

, a b

usin

essm

an w

ho w

as th

e su

bjec

t of a

crim

inal

cas

e, h

it M

iftah

uddi

n Ha

lim b

ecau

se h

e di

d no

t wan

t to

be c

over

ed w

hile

und

er in

vest

igat

ion

by s

tate

pro

secu

tors

.

11 F

ebru

ary

Bata

mPo

rter o

f Sek

upan

g Ha

rbor

Nur

ul Im

an a

nd Z

abur

, jou

rnal

ists

of

Haria

n Tr

ibun

Bat

amPh

ysica

l abu

seA

porte

r of S

ekup

ang

harb

or a

buse

d N

urul

Iman

and

Zab

ur b

ecau

se o

f the

ir qu

arre

l with

a m

embe

r of t

he

Indo

nesia

n M

ilita

ry F

orce

s w

ho d

id n

ot w

ant t

o be

cov

ered

by

the

jour

nalis

ts

16 F

ebru

ary

Denp

asar

, Bal

iN

yom

an S

usra

ma

AA, N

aren

dra

Prab

angs

a, a

jour

nalis

t of

Rad

ar B

ali

Mur

der

AA P

raba

ngsa

was

foun

d de

ad in

the

wat

ers

of th

e Lo

mbo

k St

rait.

The

mur

der w

as s

uspe

cted

of h

avin

g a

conn

ectio

n w

ith th

e ne

ws

writ

ten

by P

raba

ngsa

abo

ut th

e di

rect

app

oint

men

t of a

pro

ject

sup

ervi

sor f

or

num

erou

s de

velo

pmen

t pro

ject

s by

the

Bang

li De

partm

ent o

f Edu

catio

n w

ith th

e va

lue

of ID

R 4

billi

on.

27 F

ebru

ary

Kupa

ngO

ffice

rs o

f KP3

L Ku

pang

Robb

y M

ooy,

a co

ntrib

utor

of S

un

TV, N

TTPh

ysica

l vio

lenc

eRo

bby

Moo

y ex

perie

nced

phy

sical

vio

lenc

e by

the

offic

ers

of K

P3L

Kupa

ng w

ho p

rohi

bite

d hi

m fr

om c

over

ing

the

arriv

al o

f Ind

ones

ian

labo

rers

24 M

arch

Jaya

pura

Offi

cer o

f Jay

apur

a Im

mig

ratio

nN

iene

l, Pe

ter M

ario

w S

mith

, and

Ro

nald

Wig

man

, jou

rnal

ists

from

NRC

Ha

ndel

sbla

d.

Impr

isonm

ent b

y th

e Im

mig

ratio

n of

ficer

Thre

e jo

urna

lists

wer

e im

priso

ned

by th

e im

mig

ratio

n of

ficia

ls be

caus

e th

ey w

ere

cons

ider

ed to

hav

e v

iola

ted

cove

rage

per

miss

ion

7 Ap

ril

Jaka

rtaG

reat

er Ja

karta

M

etro

polit

an R

egio

nal

Polic

e an

d Ea

st Ja

va

Jour

nalis

ts a

nd th

e ch

ief e

dito

r of

Jaka

rta G

lobe

, Oke

zone

.com

and

Har

ian

Bang

sa in

Pon

orog

o, E

ast J

ava

Tim

ur.

Defa

mat

ion

law

suit,

arti

cle 3

10, 3

11

KUHP

and

Arti

cle 2

7 of

the

Law

on

Info

rmat

ion

and

Elec

troni

c Tra

nsac

tion.

Thre

e m

edia

wer

e ac

cuse

d of

def

amat

ion

rela

ted

to t

he n

ews

whi

ch a

llege

d th

at E

dhie

Bas

koro

, the

Pr

esid

ent’s

son

, dist

ribut

ed m

oney

whe

n ca

mpa

igni

ng in

Pon

orog

o

14 A

pril

Mak

asar

Form

er h

ead

of S

outh

Su

law

esi R

egio

nal

Polic

e, B

ar Ir

jen

Pol.

Sisn

o Ad

iwin

oto.

Upi A

rmar

adha

na, M

akas

sar j

ourn

alist

, co

ordi

nato

r of J

ourn

alist

Coa

litio

n to

Re

ject

Pre

ss C

rimin

aliza

tion

Civi

l cla

im w

ith m

ater

ial c

ompe

nsat

ion

as m

uch

as ID

R 25

mill

ion

and

imm

ater

ial c

ompe

nsat

ion

of ID

R 10

bi

llion

.

Upi A

smar

adha

na w

as b

roug

ht to

cou

rt by

Sisn

o Ad

iwin

oto

beca

use

he w

as c

onsid

ered

to h

ave

defa

med

, be

caus

e as

coo

rdin

ator

of t

he M

akas

sar J

ourn

alist

Coa

litio

n he

mob

ilize

d su

ppor

t to

prot

est S

isno

since

he

advi

sed

the

publ

ic no

t to

use

the

right

of r

eply,

but

dire

ctly

use

the

lega

l pro

cess

,if th

ere

was

a c

over

age

disp

ute

with

the

med

ia.

15 A

pril

Mak

assa

rSa

mpa

ra (a

legi

slativ

e

cand

idat

e of

the

Gol

kar P

arty

)

Andi

Wah

yudi

, a c

ontri

buto

r of T

V O

ne.

Phys

ical a

buse

The

perp

etra

tor d

id n

ot w

ant t

o be

cov

ered

whe

n co

nduc

ting

a pr

otes

t abo

ut th

e re

capi

tula

tion

of g

ener

al

elec

tion

resu

lts in

the

PPK

offic

e, in

the

sub-

dist

rict o

f Tur

atea

, Jen

epon

to, S

outh

Sul

awes

i.

18 A

pril

Mak

assa

rTe

ache

rs o

f SM

P 1

Mak

ale.

Five

jour

nalis

ts: T

V O

ne, K

oran

Sin

do, a

co

rresp

onde

nt o

f Met

ro T

V, S

CTV

and

Sun

TV.

Phys

ical a

buse

The

teac

hers

of S

MP

1 M

akal

e di

d no

t wan

t to

be c

over

ed b

y re

porte

rs w

ho w

ante

d to

con

firm

alle

ged

abus

e by

the

teac

hers

of o

ne o

f the

ir st

uden

ts in

that

sch

ool.

21 A

pril

Tern

ate,

Nor

th M

aluk

u

Empl

oyee

of S

PBU

Kam

pung

Pisa

ng

Tern

ate

Udin

Sid

ik, a

cam

eram

an o

f RC

TIBe

atin

gTh

e em

ploy

ee o

f SPB

U di

d no

t lik

e to

be

cove

red

durin

g a

sudd

en in

spec

tion

by Te

rnat

e Vi

ce M

ayor

, Am

mas

Di

nsie

.


55

Annex I Cases of Violance against Journalists (2009)

21 A

pril

Med

an,

Stud

ents

from

Un

iver

sity

of H

KBP

Nom

men

sen

Med

an

Sept

iand

a Pe

rdan

a, a

jour

nalis

t of

onlin

e m

edia

, Ant

ara,

Nor

th S

umat

raHa

rsh

treat

men

t and

sub

ject

ed to

sto

ne

thro

win

g Th

e st

uden

ts o

f Nom

men

sen

did

not w

ant t

he re

porte

r cov

erin

g a

quar

rel a

mon

g st

uden

ts.

5 M

ay

Jaka

rta

Indo

nesia

n Co

nstit

utio

nal C

ourt

(MK)

Reje

ctin

g Ju

dicia

l rev

iew

of A

rticle

27

(3) i

n th

e La

w o

n In

form

atio

n an

d El

ectro

nic T

rans

actio

n

In it

s de

cisio

n, th

e M

K sa

id th

at d

efam

atio

n an

d hu

mili

atio

n th

roug

h on

line

med

ia a

re n

eede

d to

be

gove

rned

bec

ause

KUH

P (th

e cr

imin

al c

ode)

doe

s no

t cov

er th

ese,

and

the

puni

shm

ent a

lso h

ad to

be

heav

ier

beca

use

the

affe

cts

wer

e bi

gger

than

thro

ugh

othe

r med

ia.

6 M

ay

Sura

baya

The

secu

rity

of P

LN.

Akba

r Ins

ani,

a ph

otog

raph

er o

f Su

raba

ya P

agi.

Phys

ical v

iole

nce

Ham

perin

g co

vera

ge w

hen

a te

am fr

om th

e Co

rrupt

ion

Erad

icatio

n Co

mm

issio

n lo

oked

for e

vide

nce

at th

e PL

N E

ast J

ava

Dist

ribut

ion

offic

e in

Em

bong

Ken

ongo

stre

et, S

urab

aya.

13 M

ay

Jaka

rta

Mar

lon,

a s

ecur

ity o

f BI

Build

ing.

Carlo

s Pa

rded

e, a

repo

rter o

f SCT

V.Ph

ysica

l vio

lenc

e Th

e se

curit

y of

BI b

uild

ing

was

ham

perin

g Ca

rlos

and

frien

ds to

ent

er th

e BI

bui

ldin

g fo

r cov

erin

g an

d in

terv

iew

ing

Boed

iono

, who

at t

hat t

ime

was

ask

ed b

y Su

silo

Bam

bang

yud

hoyo

no t

o be

a c

andi

date

for v

ice

pres

iden

t.

13 M

ay

Tang

eran

g Ta

nger

ang

Dist

rict

Pros

ecut

or

Prita

Mul

yasa

ri, a

writ

er o

f an

e-m

ail.

Impr

isonm

ent

Crim

inal

cla

im b

y us

ing

artic

le 3

10, 3

11 K

UHP

and

artic

le 2

7 (3

) of t

he L

aw o

n In

form

atio

n an

d El

ectro

nic

Tran

sact

ion

20 M

ay

Mag

etan

, Eas

t Ja

va

Indo

nesia

n M

ilita

ry, A

ir Fo

rces

, Mad

iun.

Nor

ik, a

repo

rter o

f Ind

osia

r.Co

nfine

men

t N

orik

was

arre

sted

by

pers

onne

l of t

he In

done

sian

Air F

orce

whe

n re

cord

ing

a pi

ctur

e of

an

accid

ent

invo

lvin

g a

plan

e ow

ned

by th

e Ai

r For

ce. T

hat p

erso

nnel

then

con

fisca

ted

her c

amer

a.

25 M

ay

Pem

atan

g Si

anta

r, N

orth

Su

mat

ra

A ga

ng o

f hoo

dlum

sSi

anta

r Dai

ly, 2

4 Ho

urs

Dam

agin

g an

d ra

nsac

king

the

Edito

r’s

Offi

cePr

otes

ting

the

new

s of

Sia

ntar

24

Hour

s, ed

ition

of 2

6 M

ay, w

hich

wro

te a

bout

5 B

ranc

h M

anag

ers

of th

e De

mok

rat P

arty

, pro

posin

g th

e Re

gion

al B

oard

of C

hairm

en o

f the

Dem

okra

t Par

ty in

Nor

th S

umat

ra to

de

cide

a st

atem

ent c

onfir

min

g RE

Sia

haan

as

the

head

of B

oard

of D

irect

ors

of P

emat

angs

iant

ar D

emok

rat

Party

Bra

nch.

The

five

chai

rmen

of P

AC a

sses

sed

that

RE

Siah

aan

had

not c

ondu

cted

his

func

tion

in th

e pa

rty.

15 Ju

ne

Jaka

rtaDr

End

ang,

a d

octo

r in

Raw

a Lu

mbu

Hos

pita

l, Be

kasi

Ham

ludi

n, a

jour

nalis

t of T

empo

ne

wsp

aper

.De

fam

atio

n la

wsu

it.Re

late

d to

the

new

s en

title

d “P

atah

Tula

ng S

etel

ah O

pera

si Ke

lenj

ar G

etah

” in

Kor

an Te

mpo

, edi

tion

of 2

3 De

cem

ber 2

008.

17 Ju

ne

Mal

ang

Org

aniza

tion

of

Kasu

nyat

an Ja

wi l

ed b

y Ki

Age

ng S

ri W

idad

i

Haria

n M

alan

g Po

st (J

awa

Pos

grou

p)

and

Mem

o Ar

ema

Lega

l war

ning

Re

late

d w

ith th

e ne

ws

of M

alan

g Po

st, e

ditio

n of

15

June

ent

itled

“G

edan

gan

Dihe

bohk

an A

liran

Ses

at”,

an

d al

so th

e m

emo’

s ne

ws,

editi

on o

f 16

June

, and

ent

itled

Aja

ran

Kasu

nyat

an Ja

wi M

eres

ahka

n W

arga

G

edan

gan,

had

misl

ed a

nd tr

oubl

ed th

e co

mm

unity

of a

ctiv

ists

and

socie

ty a

t lar

ge.

26 Ju

ne

Jaya

pura

Rudo

lf Ka

mbu

buy,

a ca

dre

of D

emok

rat

Party

Ode

adat

a Ju

lia, a

jour

nalis

t of S

inar

Ha

rapa

n.Ph

ysica

l vio

lenc

eRu

dolf

was

ham

perin

g Ju

lia w

hen

cove

ring

a ca

ndid

ate

for v

ice p

resid

ent,

Boed

iono

, in

the

Papu

a Tr

ade

Cent

er a

nd y

oute

fa M

arke

t, Ja

yapu

ra, P

apua

.

3 Ju

iyPo

ntia

nak,

Wes

t Ka

liman

tan

Team

of B

oedi

ono’

s bo

dygu

ards

.Ri

zky W

ahyu

ni, a

wom

an jo

urna

list o

f Bo

rneo

Trib

une.

Phys

ical v

iole

nce.

Ham

perin

g Ri

zky

whe

n co

verin

g th

e ca

mpa

ign

of B

oedi

ono,

a c

andi

date

of v

ice- p

resid

ent,

in a

bre

ak ro

om

in M

ujah

iddi

n M

osqu

e, P

ontia

nak.



56

9 Ju

lyPa

lem

bang

Fam

ily o

f a p

atie

nt

vict

imize

d in

hit-

run

accid

ent

yudi

Sap

utra

, a jo

urna

list o

f Pal

TV,

Pa

lem

bang

.Ph

ysica

l vio

lenc

eTh

e vi

olen

ce b

egan

whe

n he

took

a p

ictur

e of

a h

it-ru

n vi

ctim

in a

n Em

erge

ncy

Room

. The

fam

ily o

bjec

ted

and

hit y

udi

10 Ju

ly Ja

mbi

P

T Lo

ntar

Pap

ayru

s Pu

lp a

nd P

aper

, an

affil

iate

d fir

m o

f PT

Sina

rmas

in re

genc

y of

Te

bing

Ting

gi, J

ambi

.

Thre

e jo

urna

lists

: tw

o fo

reig

ners

, Cyr

il Pa

yen

(the

Head

of S

outh

Asia

Biro

), an

d G

illau

me

Mar

tin (a

cam

eram

an),

and

one

Indo

nesia

n w

oman

, Dew

i Ar

ilaha

(a fi

eld

prod

ucer

)

Host

age

and

cens

orsh

ip.

Not

allo

wed

to c

over

the

man

ufac

ture

r’s a

ctiv

ities

.

10 Ju

ly M

anad

oA

stud

ent o

f Law

Fa

culty

, Uni

vers

ity

of S

am R

atul

angi

(U

NSR

AT)

Muh

amm

ad R

idw

an, a

con

tribu

tor o

f Tr

ans

7.Ha

mpe

ring

A st

uden

t ham

pere

d Ri

dwan

whe

n ta

king

a p

ictur

e of

the

chao

s af

ter a

dia

log

betw

een

stud

ents

and

un

iver

sity

adm

inist

rato

rs a

t the

Reg

iona

l Hou

se o

f Rep

rese

ntat

ives

. The

dia

log

was

as

an e

ffort

of th

e DP

RD

to re

solv

e th

e in

tern

al c

haos

of t

hat u

nive

rsity

.

7 Au

gust

Mat

aram

Lalu

Har

diar

ta

(a m

embe

r of

Regi

onal

Hou

se o

f Re

pres

enta

tives

of

Wes

t Lo

mbo

k)

Igit

Rasin

ah (

a jo

urna

list o

f Har

ian

Kora

n Be

rita)

and

Sum

ade

(a jo

urna

list

of H

aria

n Su

ara

NTB

)

Hara

ssm

ent w

ith a

busiv

e w

ords

in fr

ont

of th

e pu

blic.

Star

ting

from

the

new

s ab

out p

ublic

min

ing

in S

ekot

ong

Wes

t Lom

bok,

Lal

u Ha

diar

ta (a

t the

tim

e of

the

incid

ent,

a m

embe

r of F

actio

n of

the

Dem

okra

t Par

ty, a

nd n

ow in

the

Indo

nesia

n Bu

sines

smen

Ass

ocia

tion

Party

) was

disa

ppoi

nted

bec

ause

his

stat

emen

t was

not

who

lly p

ublis

hed

by a

num

ber o

f med

ia. T

he

disa

ppoi

ntm

ent w

as s

how

n by

his

bera

ting

the

jour

nalis

t with

the

wor

d “S

unde

l” to

thos

e w

ho a

ttend

ed in

th

e W

est L

ombo

k DP

RD.

9 Au

gust

M

akas

sar

Taka

lar p

eopl

e.Ag

us, a

stri

nger

of M

etro

TV

Phys

ical a

buse

The

peop

le d

id n

ot w

ant t

o be

cov

ered

by A

gus

whe

n th

ere

was

a q

uarre

l bet

wee

n th

e pe

ople

and

the

polic

e ab

out a

land

disp

ute

of P

TPN

XIV

, in

the

rege

ncy

of Ta

kala

r

12 A

ugus

t So

loA

grou

p of

peo

ple

know

n as

‘par

amili

tary

tro

ops’

Jour

nalis

t of T

V O

nePr

ohib

ition

of n

ews

cove

rage

TV

One

was

pro

hibi

ted

to c

over

the

fune

ral o

f Ari

Sety

awan

and

Eko

Joko

Sar

jono

, ter

roris

t sus

pect

s w

ho d

ied

durin

g ca

ptur

e in

Jatia

sih B

ekas

i, be

caus

e th

at te

levi

sion

stat

ion

was

rega

rded

as

unba

lanc

ed w

hen

repo

rting

te

rroris

m.

1 Se

ptem

ber

Mat

aram

, NTB

A gr

oup

of h

oodl

ums.

Tele

visio

n jo

urna

lists

: yos

ibio

(Tra

ns T

V )

and

Herm

an Z

uhdi

(TVO

ne).

Phys

ical a

buse

Did

not l

ike

to b

e co

vere

d w

hen

a re

stau

rant

was

raid

ed b

y cit

y go

vern

men

t pub

lic o

rder

offi

cers

(Sat

pol P

P)

of N

TB P

rovi

nce,

in Is

mai

l Mar

zuki

stre

et, W

est M

atar

am s

ub-d

istric

t, M

atar

am d

istric

t, M

atar

am c

ity. T

he

rest

aura

nt w

as ra

ided

bec

ause

it s

till o

pera

ted

in d

ay ti

me

whe

n M

osle

ms

wer

e fa

stin

g.

3 Se

ptem

ber

Sura

baya

, Eas

t Ja

vaM

ass

of Is

lam

De

fend

ers`

Fron

t (FP

I)Ja

wa

Pos

Dem

onst

ratio

nA

grou

p of

FPI

pus

hed

the

owne

r of J

awa

Pos

Gro

up ,

Dahl

an Is

kan,

to a

polo

gize

to M

osle

ms

and

Indo

nesia

n cit

izens

bec

ause

of h

is op

inio

n pu

blish

ed in

the

Jaw

a Po

s en

title

d “S

oem

arso

no, T

okoh

Kun

ci da

lam

Pe

rtem

pura

n Su

raba

ya”.

This

serie

s of

writ

ings

in th

e Ja

wa

Pos

daily

was

bas

ed o

n th

e re

sult

of a

n in

terv

iew

w

ith S

oem

arso

no, w

ho is

now

resid

ing

in S

ydne

y, Au

stra

lia. D

ahla

n re

fere

d to

Soe

mar

sono

as

the

mai

n ch

arac

ter i

n th

e Su

raba

ya b

attle

(194

5) w

ho is

stil

l aliv

e. H

e w

as c

onsid

ered

influ

entia

l in

mak

ing

Sura

baya

th

e Ci

ty o

f Her

oes.

14 S

epte

mbe

r So

loTh

ousa

nds

of m

embe

rs

of L

azka

r Hisb

ulla

h,

Suna

n Bo

nang

Di

visio

n.

Radi

o So

lo, a

radi

o st

atio

nDe

mon

stra

tion

and

intim

idat

ion

They

wer

e pr

otes

ting

the

play

ing

of G

enje

r-Gen

jer,

on 1

1 Se

ptem

ber,

at d

awn.

They

thou

ght t

he s

ong

was

pr

opag

anda

of t

he In

done

sian

Com

mun

ist P

arty

(PKI

).

26 S

epte

mbe

rKe

diri,

Eas

t Jav

ayo

ung

men

of K

eras

vi

llage

, Diw

ek s

ub-

dist

rict,

Jom

bang

re

genc

y.

Muh

tar B

agus

, a c

ontri

buto

r of R

CTI,

regi

on o

f Nga

njuk

-Jom

bang

.Ph

ysica

l abu

se

The

youn

g m

en d

id n

ot li

ke it

whe

n a

jour

nalis

t was

goi

ng to

cov

er a

fire

crac

ker p

arty

hel

d by

the

resid

ents

in

Kera

s vi

llage

. The

act

ivity

was

hel

d ev

ery

year

afte

r Idu

l Fitr

i pra

ying.


57

Annex I Cases of Violance against Journalists (2009)

6 O

ctob

er

Bulu

kum

ba,

Sout

h Su

law

esi

Andi

Tiar

, a fa

mily

m

embe

r of t

he H

ead

of B

KDD,

Bul

ukum

ba

rege

ncy.

Baha

rudd

in, w

arta

wan

Sep

utar

In

done

sia (S

I) ne

wsp

aper

Ph

ysica

l abu

seSt

artin

g fro

m B

ahar

uddi

n an

d a

num

ber o

f jou

rnal

ists

who

wan

ted

to m

eet t

he H

ead

of B

KDD

Bulu

kum

ba,

Andi

Har

tatia

h. Th

ey w

ante

d to

con

firm

the

claim

of h

onor

ary

teac

hers

. Tia

r exi

ted

from

And

i’s ro

om w

ith

ange

r and

ram

page

d an

d hi

t the

vict

im.

5 N

ovem

ber

Kedi

ri, E

ast J

ava

Rege

ncy

gove

rnm

ent

of K

ediri

All j

ourn

alist

s in

Ked

iriPr

ohib

ition

of n

ews

cove

rage

Th

e re

genc

y go

vern

men

t of K

ediri

pro

hibi

ted

mas

s m

edia

to c

over

the

build

ing

of th

e co

nven

tion

hall,

whi

ch

was

val

ued

at ID

R 51

bill

ion.

The

proh

ibiti

on w

as is

sued

follo

win

g m

uch

criti

cism

of t

his

supe

r lux

urio

us

build

ing.

The

area

was

clo

sely

guar

ded

and

prot

ecte

d w

ith a

two-

met

er-h

igh

corru

gate

d iro

n fe

nce.

If th

ere

wer

e jo

urna

lists

app

roac

hing

, the

y w

ould

be

expe

lled

by th

e se

curit

y an

d ha

d to

hav

e pe

rmiss

ion

from

the

Kedi

ri Re

gent

, Sut

risno

.

21 N

ovem

ber

Jaka

rtaIn

done

sian

Nat

iona

l Po

lice’

s He

adqu

arte

rs.

Two

daily

new

spap

ers:

Sepu

tar

Indo

nesia

(Sin

do) a

nd K

ompa

s.Su

mm

on to

giv

e ex

plan

atio

nKo

mpa

s an

d Si

ndo

wer

e ca

lled

rela

ted

to th

e ne

ws

on N

ovem

ber 4

, 200

9 ab

out t

he re

cord

ing

of a

llege

d en

gine

erin

g on

the

case

of K

PK le

ader

s (B

ibit-

Chan

dra)

whi

ch p

laye

d in

the

Cons

titut

iona

l Cou

rt.

23 N

ovem

ber

Jaka

rtaM

inist

ry o

f Co

mm

unica

tion

and

Info

rmat

ion

The

owne

r of B

logs

pot,

a co

nsum

er o

f Fi

rst M

edia

Bloc

kadi

ng (c

enso

rshi

p)Th

e M

inist

ry o

f Com

mun

icatio

n an

d In

form

atio

n bl

ocka

ded

blog

spot

sys

tem

bec

ause

it w

as fi

lterin

g to

war

ds

the

raisi

ng o

f SAR

A iss

ues

(eth

nicit

y, re

ligio

n, ra

ce, a

nd in

ter g

roup

rela

tions

)

OUR

CE: A

DVO

CACy

DIV

ISIO

N, A

JI IN

DON

ESIA


58


59

ANNEx II

Journalists Who Died and are Missing in Indonesia (1996-2010)

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) list*

Time Victim Location Explanation

February 11, 2009 Anak Agung Prabangsa, Radar Bali Bali, Indonesia Confirmed motive

April 29, 2006 Radar Surabaya and Jember News, Probolinggo

Probolinggo, East Java Confirmed motive

August 17, 2005 Elyuddin Telaumbanua, Berita Sore daily

Nias, North Sumatra Missing

July 25, 1997 Naimullah, Sinar Pagi Penibungan Beach, Pontianak

Confirmed motive

December 29, 2003 Ersa Siregar, RCTI East Aceh, Aceh Confirmed motive

June 17, 2003 Mohamad Jamal, TVRI** Banda Aceh, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam

Unconfirmed motive

June 11, 1997 Muhammad Sayuti Bochari, Pos Makasar

Luwu, South Sulawesi Confirmed motive

August 16, 1996 Fuad Muhammad Syafruddin, Bernas Bantul, yogyakarta Confirmed motive

16 August 1996 Fuad Muhammad Syafruddin, Bernas Bantul, yogyakarta Motif Terkonfirmasi

MATERIAL SOURCED FROM THE COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALIST AND ENRICHED By RESEARCH

* The Committee to Protect Journalists differentiates between the lists of journalists who died and are missing. Motives are divided into two: confirmed and unconfirmed. This list only consists of journalists who died related to their profession. Journalists who died because of other causes are not on this list.

** The Committee to Protect Journalists does not provide data of the death date of M. Jamal. According to news on Detik.com, on June 18, 2003, Jamal died tragically after having been kidnapped for almost a month. The victim was picked up by some unidentified men from his office, in the area of Mata Ie, Banda Aceh. Jamal’s body was found on Tuesday afternoon (18/6/2003) under Krueng Cut Bridge, Banda Aceh. Jamal was found with his hands tied behind his back and only wearing his underwear.



60

AJI Banda AcehJl. Angsa No. 23, Batoh, Kec.Lueng Bata, Banda AcehTel./Faks. 62-651-637 708Email: [email protected]

AJI LhokseumaweJl. Haji Navi No.20, Meunasah Masjid, Cunda, Lhokseumawe 24351Tel/Faks. 62-645-44 153Email: [email protected]

AJI MedanJl. Bahagia No. 29, Medan 20159Tel/Faks. 62-61-456 2433Email: [email protected]

AJI PekanbaruJl. Pisang No.7, Wonorejo, Pekanbaru 28125Tel/Faks. 62-812-752 7281Email: [email protected]

AJI BatamPerumahan Legenda Avenue/Malaka Blok B1 No.5A, Batam Centre 29432Tel/Faks. 62- 812-611-5562Email : [email protected]

AJI PadangJl. Gandaria I No.9C, MadangTel/Faks. 62- 751 812 492Email : [email protected]

AJI Palembangd/a Vivien Roedjito Komplek OPI Jakabaring, Jln Nusa tenggara VI BLOK AP 16 RT. 054/018 15 Ulu Palembang Kec. Seberang Ulu 1, Palembang 30257Tel/Faks. 62-711-814 964Email: [email protected]

AJI LampungJl. Perintis Kemerdekaan No. 87, Kel.Tanjung Raya, Kec.Tanjung Karang Timur, BandarLampungTel/Faks. 62-813-794-46596Email: [email protected]

AJI JakartaJl. Prof Dr. Soepomo No. 1 A, Komp. BIER, Menteng Dalam, Jaksel.Tel/Faks. 62-21-8370 2660Email: [email protected]

AJI BandungJl. Tubagus Ismail no. 40 (lantai 2), BandungTel/Faks. 62-22- 4261548Email: [email protected]

AJI YogyakartaJl. Suryo Mentaraman No. 2, Kec. Gondomanan, yogyakarta Tel/Faks. 62- 274- 380-385Email: [email protected]

AJI SemarangJl. Durian I No.10 Lampersari, Kec. Semarang Tengah, SemarangTel/Faks. 62-24- 345 3512Email: [email protected]

AJI SurakartaSanggir Permai 22, Paulan, Colomadu, Karanganyar Tel. 62- 271- 203-4049

AJI SurabayaJl. Gubeng Airlangga 1/07, SurabayaTel/Faks. 62-31-503 5086Email: [email protected]

AJI kediriPerumahan Griya Indah Permatasari Blok E/44Jl. Penanggungan, Bandar Kidul, Mojoroto, Kota Kediri 64118Tel. 62- 813-352-16667Email : [email protected]

ANNEx III

Address the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI)

AJI IndonesiaJl. Kembang Raya No. 6, Kwitang, Senen, Jakarta Pusat 10420Tel. 62-21-315 1214, Faks. 62-21-315 1261Website : www.ajiindonesia.org E-mail: [email protected] ; [email protected]


61


AJI JemberKantor Radio Prosalina, Jl. Karimata No. 98, Jember Tel. 62- 0815-591-4463Email : [email protected]

AJI MalangWisma Kali Metro, Jl. Joyosuko Metro 42A, Kelurahan Merjosari, Kecamatan Lowokwaru, Kota Malang 65144Tel. 62-341-573 650, Faks. 62-341-560 437 Email : [email protected]

AJI DenpasarJl. Pandu No. 34 Denpasar - BaliTel/Faks. 62-361-307 3298Email: [email protected]

AJI MataramJl. Bung Hatta, Kompleks Akasia 3 No. 12, MataramTel. 62-818-365-843Email: [email protected]

AJI PontianakJl. Karimata No. 43 Pontianak, Kalimantan BaratTel/Faks. 62-561-706 2738Email: [email protected]

AJI MakassarKomplek Maizonette, Jl. Bougenvile Raya No.1, Makassar 90222Tel. 62-411-531.6804 , Faks.62-411-454 430Email: [email protected]

AJI PaluJl. Rajawali No. 28, Palu, Sulawesi TengahTel. 62-451-426 028 / 423 028, Faks. 62-451-424-828Email: [email protected]

AJI kendariBTN Kendari Permai Blok U.4 No.7 Kendari, SultraTel/Faks. 62-401-321.072 Email: [email protected]

AJI Manadod/a Harian KomentarKawasan Mega Mas Blok 1.B/38, ManadoTel. 62-813-5656-5496Email: [email protected]

AJI JayapuraRedaksi Tabloid Jubi Jl. Sakura, Gg Jati I, No 5ªPerumnas II - Waena, Jayapura – PapuaTel/Faks. 62- 967-574- 209Email: [email protected]

AJI kupangJl. Wj Lalamentik Kel. Oebobo,RT. 12/ RW.005Kec. Oebobo,Kota Kupang, NTT 85111Tel. 62-811-384-075

AJI Persiapan GorontaloJl.Durian, Perum Asparaga Pondok Indah Permai, Blok F No 43Kelurahan Tomolobutao, Kecamatan Dungingi, Kota Gorontalo, 96128Tel. 62- 852-5661-7494Email. [email protected]

AJI Persiapan PolewaliD/a Farhanudin, Jl. RW Monginsidi No.28, Lipu, Majene, SulbarTel. 62- 813-4233-4073Email. [email protected]


News & Politics

Annual Repot AJI 2010 - The Threat from Within