|
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.
Your
comment
Back to
top
|
The Prospect
is published by The Indonesian Institute. Our messages are
study, democracy and unity.
