TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
COMMENTARY: Stop the drama, give fair trial a chance, please!
Change Size
Drama unfolding: Members of the public and the press crowd a murder case hearing on Sept. 6, in which Jessica Kumala Wongso stands accused of murdering her friend Wayan Mirna Salihin. (JP/Seto Wardhana)
O
nce upon a time, there was a woman who met her girlfriend in a coffee shop. Suddenly, the girlfriend collapsed onto the floor after drinking an iced coffee ordered by the first woman. Seconds later, she was dead.
Then a police investigation ensued. The police found a deadly dose of cyanide in the friend’s body and the woman was named the suspect in the case.
This murder saga is currently running on our local TV stations, turning a courtroom into a play stage.
Spoiler alert: The Murder Case, Live from the Courtroom show is real — the case, the victim, the suspect, the judges and the lawyers. It might have been a new version of a reality show with lower costs, as no expenses are required for cast, location, or script writing.
Aware of this new show model, TV station owners do not seem to want to miss an opportunity. They broadcast the court proceedings for five to six hours a day, taking advantage of the public’s curiosity about the case and at the same time profiting from commercials.
A top executive of one of the TV stations has admitted that the live report has doubled the ratings of their news programs from an average of 7 percent to 15 percent.
The TV channels claim the show is a live news report, but in the end the public not only gets news updates, but also the drama. How could we possibly not? In the trial’s episodes, people see and hear everything: the tears, the confessions and the affairs, as well as opinions from unrelated parties that only add to the drama.
As if the live report is not enough, TV stations have also created discussion panels featuring so-called legal experts to comment and scrutinize the case after each court session.
Despite the clear exploitation of the case, the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) does not seem to mind, saying it has not found any ethical violations committed during the broadcasts.
The commission may have a point, as Indonesia does not regulate news coverage in courtrooms. The absence of such rules may have been the fruit of press freedom that is still being celebrated after more than three decades of oppression under the New Order.
But freedom requires some limitations to ensure a greater benefit.
Despite their press freedom, some countries, including Australia, have enforced limitations on the press during court proceedings to ensure fair trials for defendants. Under the restrictions, journalists are not allowed to publish certain details, including past convictions, over fears that it may form public opinions that may influence judges’ decisions. Defying this regulation, the journalists face fines and imprisonment for contempt of court.
Learning from Australia, the KPI should order TV stations to stop the Murder Case, Live from the Courtroom show because it may put the chance of a fair trial at risk. Non-stop coverage from the courtroom, not to mention airing comments about the court hearings, is prone to create public opinions as well as speculation that may jeopardize court proceedings. Worse, this increases the risk of a trial by the public, as has exactly happened in this murder case.
The Australian example also shows that the KPI’s claim that the show commits no ethical violation is not valid. On the contrary, it violates the right of a defendant to a fair trial. Like it or not, the defendant must be considered innocent unless proven guilty by the court. To uphold a fair trial, the KPI should stop this live court reporting and provide a clear guideline for news coverage in court.
A fair trial in a murder case is imperative because the defendant’s life is at stake. He or she may face the death penalty if proven guilty of premeditated murder.
The public has a justification to demand an end to the courtroom reality show simply because it violates their right to get decent content from TV stations. The 2002 Broadcasting Law states that TV stations are required to provide the public with good content in return for the use of the public domain.
The big question then is what good can come from non-stop six-hour live reporting of a trial of a murder case that allegedly involves a personal grudge? The audience deserves better shows that relate more to the public’s interest.
Broadcasters may defend the show on the grounds that they are airing it for the public good and promoting transparency.
Yet, with the broadcasters running the show with low risk for high gain, we may question their intentions. Are those TV stations really broadcasting Murder Case, Live from the Courtroom for the public’s good? They have admitted that the live broadcast’s ratings have climbed, prompting them to create follow-up shows to generate more profits because in the TV industry the higher the ratings, the more the advertisements. Thus, the public interest claim is questionable because in the end it is all about huge money.
For better or worse, the KPI must stop the phenomenon of non-stop live broadcasts from a courtroom, as well as their complementary shows. Otherwise, it will lead Jessica, Mirna and each of us far away from a fair trial, let alone a happy ending.
