|
US:
Does the revolution in advanced communication
technology foster dissemination and exchange of information
and ideas in a tolerant and rational spirit? Does the
invention of modern media promote the freedom for living?
Although the answers maybe yes, there is no a clear-cut
answer. The
rise of democracy practice is historically linked to the
invention of printing. The growth of literacy spreads ideas,
through mass media and other means of communication, that
challenged the long-established authoritarian political
regimes.
It is
hard to imagine the diffusion of democratic ideals without a
mass communication system. Just as student demonstrators at
Tiananmen Square used fax messages to encourage their
colleagues, the Internet and press helped nurturing the New
Order regime in Indonesia.
Satellite
broadcasting and the Internet have a global reach that is
difficult to control or impossible for repressive government
to control. Out of hundreds of nations in the world today,
only the ex-Taliban regime in Afghanistan reported banned its citizens
from using television and the Internet. Some countries in
the Middle East put restrictions on their citizens for using
the Internet.
A sober
look at how media work in today’s world suggest that they
remain vulnerable to manipulation, either by political
authorities motivated by ideological zeal or by economic
forces that limit their resources and their integrity. They
are not inevitably an agent of democracy.
Media
power is political power. The function of the media,
according to totalitarian doctrine is to guide the masses.
Germany’s press, radio and film industries were as
advanced as any in the world in technology when the Nazis
took over. By the time the owners of the Frankfurter Zeitung
presented their once-respected newspaper to Adolf Hitler as
a birthday present, it was then a comprehensive propaganda
machine of Nazis. Many governments in the world today
control the television broadcasting and newspapers and use
them as propaganda machines of their regimes. To some
extent, TVRI in Indonesia and a government back newspaper
such as Suara Karya were the New Order propaganda machines
in communicating the regime’s economic achievements and
agendas, telling people only the good side of the regime.
Media
power is market power. In some democratic countries, media
ownership has reached what many would consider to be
dangerous levels of concentration. In the United Kingdom,
Rupert Murdoch controls more than 25 percent of the daily
national newspaper circulation. Robert Hersant accounts for
over a third of the national circulation in France. In
Italy, Silvio Berlusconi owns top television channels along
with newspapers and magazines. In Indonesia, to some extend,
Gramedia Group owns a large percentage of newspaper
circulation nationwide which has created suspicion among
other groups.
Is this
market-controlled media system essential to serve the
democratic process? Media choice requires an economic
groundwork. A media market can only exist in a thriving
economy. A good example is the recent situation in
Indonesia. When the financial crisis broke out in Indonesia
in July 1997, suddenly mass media industry was faced with
two double evils, a decrease in the demand and a
short-supply of paper which drove the price of papers up,
meaning than newspapers have to sold at higher prices, which
then further decreasing the demand for newspapers. Many
papers were reported facing decisions, either closing down
the operation or suffering continual losses.
A purely
market driven media can create distortion in the flows of
accurate and constructive information essential for building
democratic society. They can manipulate facts and present
only news and facts that relevant to the consumption of a
certain segment market.
Media operating by the rules of the market
subordinate the deadly realities of journalism into
temporary gain.
If market
forces can both expand and diminish the democratic
possibilities of the media, the same can be said for
practice journalists. On the good side, as what Howard
Fineman from NEWSWEEK wrote,
“Journalists,
believe it or not, are patriots, too. They generally are
aware of the privilege the Constitution affords them, and
that the line of work they practice does not exist in many
countries — and that you can get killed for practicing it
in others. They know what the Founders were after: a
citizenry making informed decisions.
And on
the bad side,
“On the
other hand, the press was, in Bush’s mind, The Enemy:
untrustworthy by definition, opposed to him by inclination
— a bunch of snobs with an agenda. Wooing us, he felt,
largely was a waste of time.
Source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/641387.asp
US
journalists versus US President perhaps not a perfect
example in portraying the good and bad sides of journalist,
but at least it can give us a general picture of the
profession.
The
interesting question now is, what about our mass media? It
is hard to argue that our media not contribute to the fallen
of New Order regime and to the rise of democratic practices
in the country. Not long before and after the New Order
regime collapse, there many new newspapers were established,
although to some extend they operate on a low scale
production which raises question to their long term survival
(Note: If someone knows the number of new newspapers were
established in the last for years, I greatly appreciate if
she/he could inform me. Thanks).
However,
quantity does not necessary imply quality. Our media are
still lacking a vision on how to educate our people and thus
foster the growth of our infant democracy; how to take
position in a delicate situation where the nation’s future
is at stake; and how to deliver news and facts in a balanced
way.
Democracy
can’t grow in a low knowledge, intolerant and emotional
society since its strong foundation and principle are
understanding, tolerance and rationality. The pluralistic
nature of our nation and the low knowledge of our people
(around 65 percent of our population have only elementary
education) make it arduous to build an ideal democracy we
are dreaming of.
Although
publishers understand these circumstances well, they do not
necessary put them into practices. The lack of
professionalism, the limited number of skilled and
knowledgeable journalists and the lack of commitment on
national unity are the main factors that make our mass media
fail to foster our democracy.
Our mass media have evidently failed to compensate
for the deficiencies of our national character and our
educational system.
Mass
media can support democracy only through information and
ideas. One of the hottest media nowadays is the Internet.
The Internet has grown at an exponential rate. Its
devotees speak of the rise of a new sense of community as
computer-linked interest groups form and multiply, their
sharing intimate thoughts and evolving emotional ties. With
its open access to any form of specialized knowledge, the
Internet represents a new form of egalitarian democracy
tool.
This
optimist view, however, can be damped by the fact that a
nation can be more divided into information have and
have-nots and thus widening the gap in mastery of technology
and access to the Internet. In addition, since its harder to
control the flows of the information on the Internet, this
new media can pose a danger risk to an infant democracy.
Thus, this media can be used to undermine democratic order
as well as to enhance it.
Media,
after all, are instruments. They can serve different
objectives. They are dispensable to a democratic society
because they make information available regardless social
and geographical boundaries. They are essential as critics
of government, as investigators of wrongdoing and as
advocate of good. They
are forum for discussion and debate. They create and define
communities whose compromises make democracy work. They
offer a constant reminder of national identity and idealism.
However,
the existence of advanced and diverse media does not
guarantee that it will serve democracy. Mass media can serve
democracy only when those who manage and run them feel a
passionate responsibility to create it and maintain it. And
that’s exactly we don’t have in our country.
|
