Commentary: The ‘free’ press as an asset and liability to democracy

Democracy thrives on a free press. Without the liberal extension of free speech, the functions of checks-and-balances, public scrutiny and dissenting voice would be lonely accents in a tyranny of the majority.

The Indonesian media is arguably one of the most vibrant in the world. While journalism standards vary from one outlet to another, journalists and established media outlets who survived the restrictions of the Soeharto era have inherited the activism of their pre- and post-independence spirit that characterized the press in the early years of the republic.

From a climate of self-censorship and the subtle art of reading-between-lines, the Indonesian media has emerged to become a thoroughly critical, amusing and entertaining facet of democratic life.

But as Indonesia moves from its transition era into democratic consolidation, the evolution of ownership and rise of political conglomerates may potentially see the media turn from an asset to a liability for the world’s third-largest democracy.

Since Indonesia’s 2004 general and first-ever direct presidential election, the strategic nature of the media became doubly pronounced. Economic conglomerations began recognizing the tactical value of owning media beyond the simple value of advertising and circulation profits.

In fact, in many cases the bottom line became insignificant compared to the public outreach that could be gained by being a player in this strategic industry. Once unfamiliar names in the press industry, such as Chairul Tanjung, Erick Thohir, Eddy Kusnadi Sariaatmadja, Hary Tanoesoedibjo and James Riady, suddenly established themselves as media barons.

These “new” media tycoons have realized that it must also canvass all platforms available — print, broadcast and digital — to be effective.

The evolution here merely replicates the media monopolies commonly seen in various market economies.

Australia is one example where media empires — the Murdoch, Fairfax and Packer groups — have dominated the country’s print and electronic outlets in the past century.

The US media landscape is no less burdened by such conglomeration. A history of mergers and acquisitions has concentrated control in six major companies: General Electric (NBC, MSNBC), Walt Disney Company (ABC Television Network, ESPN and more than 200 radio stations), News Corp. (Fox network, Wall Street Journal, the New York Post), Time Warner (CNN, America Online, magazines including Time, Fortune and People), Viacom (MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1), CBS (CBS Television Network and book publisher Simon & Schuster).

Lullabied by the endless stream of entertainment, what Indonesians read, hear and watch is similarly
being determined by a roster of media conglomerates.

Despite the expansion of these business groups into the media, the most prestigious — and arguably profitable — media groups still arguably belong to two senior press figures, one reigning in west of Indonesia, the other in the east.

Jakob Oetama’s Kompas Gramedia group boasts more than 72 publications (including significant shares in The Jakarta Post) and a dozen radio stations. Its online wing has emerged as one of the most popular in this country and it has recently also returned into television broadcasting with a new TV station.

Meanwhile, Dahlan Iskan and its Jawa Pos Group has established a network of more than 140 local publications and 19 local television stations.

The nexus of politics, business and the media is apparent in the way it has been able to circumvent national laws aimed at limiting such monopoly of information.

One example of this has been how the requirement forbidding private stations to broadcast “nationally” and instead referring to a network system with locally based affiliates has been suspended for nearly a decade.

Another example was the rather feeble response by Communication and Information Technology Minister Tifatul Sembiring during the recent acquisition of Indosiar by Sariaatmadja’s Elang Mahkota Teknologi Group, which many saw as a direct violation of the 2002 Law on Broadcasting’s principle of diversity of ownership.

More investment in the media is on the horizon, yet few new players are expected.

Slowly, the smaller independent media companies still in existence will be gobbled up.

The lasting irony of Indonesia’s democracy will be that while small independent political parties can pop-up in the electoral landscape every five years, the smaller independent press will be dying as the opinion-setters and information are “amalgamated” in giant corporations.