W

hat makes a good TV program?  Aside from being entertaining, educational and informative, good programming should show decency with regard to local culture and be respectful of broadcasting ethics.  

In the midst of ongoing criticism toward current television content, the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) issued a controversial decree ruling that TV stations are forbidden to air programs featuring male talent acting out female traits. This statement arose following weeks of diatribe covered by national media on the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issue.

There is no need for me to dwell on the nature of LGBT '€” it is sufficient to say that it is an issue that should be discussed by experts instead of being debated in the public media forum. KPI apparently rushed to its own conclusions without proper discretion, resulting in having contradicted the values it was supposed to uphold and it has upset and marginalized the groups it was supposed to protect.

When the KPI was founded, to serve as a regulatory body, it was designed to ensure the nation was served with decent and responsible television content.  Having learned from mature markets, one of its initial goals was to prevent stigmatization of the disadvantaged or minorities of society as a result of program content.

It was strongly opposed to programs that allowed minorities to become objects of ridicule. KPI was also strict in reminding TV stations of the importance of broadcasting responsible and reliable information.

KPI'€™s appeal to TV stations to curb discriminating slur, groundless accusations and personal insults within content is very much in line with its role as the guardian of content as much as was the strong reprimand it handed out to those TV stations who chose to broadcast unsupported information during the Thamrin terror, and thus created confusion and panic among viewers.

The recent effort to disallow male talents from mimicking female traits, however, demonstrates a major flaw in the KPI'€™s way of thinking.  

It confused the line between the act of a TV host and their individual off-screen state.

The depiction of the character played by Tom Hanks in the movie Forrest Gump illustrated how a simple mind could see the world differently '€” and beautifully '€” compared to how we '€œnormal'€ people see it.  This was how the character'€™s condition was expressed.  

Compare that with Anjasmara'€™s character in the popular soap opera Si Cecep '€” a story about Cecep who is mentally handicapped but has a good heart. Though having a similar message to Forrest Gump, much of the slapstick humor was expressed by focusing on Cecep'€™s physical traits, prompting assumptions to be made regarding the show attitude.  

If we are to protect disadvantaged groups or minorities in society from stigma, ridicule and prejudice, we should ensure that their appearance in TV programs is depicted in a respectable manner '€” not to ban their appearance per se.

People '€” as do TV talent '€” dress as they choose to; while most straight people dress according to gender, some lesbians may dress like men, some gays may dress in a feminine fashion. On TV, dressing and acting outlandishly is oft expected in the business but dressing and overacting in bad taste should be seen as the bad taste of the individual and not as a vindication of the corrupted moral of the community she or he represents.  

Socrates once warned us of the over-reliance on the voice of the majority.  He thus inquired if we were an athlete or sick and needed advice on sports or health; would we seek the consensus of the people or advice from an athletic coach or a doctor?  

In this case, when determining TV material, KPI should fill the role of coach or doctor. Instead it has buckled to the popular whim. The KPI policy stated that it based its decision on decency, but looking back at its original value to protect minorities; rather than protecting members of society '€” in this case LGBT '€” from stigma, the KPI decree condones and enforces stigma.  

The second flaw is that the KPI'€™s recent policy is impossible to defend.  The decree specifically forbids male talent to dress, behave, speak or be addressed in a '€œfemale'€ manner.  Does this mean that a male talent may not use make up (appearing on TV requires the use of make up), carry a purse or speak softly ( speaking softly is seen as a female stereotype)?  

If TV stations abide by this policy, they shouldn'€™t be allowed to air movies such as Mrs. Doubtfire, Big Momma, White Chicks, or even traditional theater such as ludruk (in which all characters '€” whether male or female '€” are played by male actors).  

Aside from the near impossibility of drawing a line between what does and does not constitute a '€œfemale gesture'€, the statement discriminates '€” not only against the LGBT community but the larger female gender. To stipulate specific gender traits, it resembles archaic stereotyping, i.e. women should speak, dress or walk in a certain way.

If KPI were to contribute to the building of Indonesia, towards a modern society based on universal human rights, then it should remind itself of its own original values. KPI need to ensure decent and responsible TV programming and avoid acting impulsively, to the detriment of the values it is supposed to hold dear.

_______________________________________________