The
Role of Oppositional Media
Amid
Corrupt Cartel Politics
Salvatore Simarmata, A SOCIOLOGY TEACHER
AT CITRA KASIH SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL, JAKARTA
Sumber :
JAKARTA POST, 16 Februari 2012
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called on
the press to maintain fair and balanced coverage, so that the press can
contribute positively to the country and the development of society (The
Jakarta Post, Feb. 10, 2012), at the Press Day Commemoration ceremony in Jambi.
Furthermore, he emphasized that the press should act as part of the solution to
social tension and conflict in society (Kompas, Feb. 10, 2012).
It might be the case that the media contribute much more to the development of this country than political parties, the House of Representatives and other institutions. The press has proven to be the most trusted institution in the country compared to formal political institutions like the House and the National Police.
The most serious problem facing the press today is therefore very much related to its structural dimension, not necessarily with the day to day practices in the long run.
Although the general election is still two years away, the threat of controlling public opinion through media monopoly is annoyingly looming high, as media ownership grows solidly concentrating on a few super-elite individuals. Almost all mainstream media outlets are owned by politically affiliated elites, as reported by this paper (the Post, Dec. 11, 2011).
So, how should the media preserve its role if democracy is to prevail in this country?
The media holds the responsibility to perform a duty as political watchdog over the ruling elites. However, people want to solve problems in the context of democracy, especially on the issue of electoral democracy, the media must be included in the equation. The same rule applies in our democracy.
In regards to that, Norris (2003), a professor at Harvard University, asserted that there are three main political functions of the media in democracy, namely as civic forum, watchdog and participation-motivating agent.
As civic forum, the media should provide space for public deliberation over even some contentious issues implicating state officials, public servants or ordinary individuals. By bringing and discussing the issues publicly, a more needed solution is highly likely to be arrived at.
The media also acts as a vigilant watchdog over ruling elites to bark when misuse of power is smelled. In this respect, the media should independently criticize corrupt officials either at the local or national level of bureaucracy. Then, society is made aware of the elites’ abuse of power as a reference for their political choice.
Third, the media is politically destined to act as motivators to encourage people through their coverage to get involved in political activities, especially in exercising their rights through the general election. Civic participation is the real blood of democracy.
Unfortunately, these three functions are only partially practiced despite the vast array of media outlets we have since the reformation era. As of today, only a few national major media outlets take their democratic functions seriously.
As media ownership shifts massively to political party-related elites, the decreasing trend of media criticism over power is highly likely to occur. The propensity of the media to avoid scrutinizing the three branches of the state due to conflict of interests will have far-reaching repercussions especially on our commitment to the fight against corruption.
So, this trend of the media ownership will severely threaten our democracy for three reasons: First and foremost, corrupt elites will very much enjoy the deserted public issues without any check from the media. As a result, corruption reaches its severe damaging stage in this country.
For one reason, this concern is not caused by the over self-interest coverage of the media on the benefits of the owners. But it is mainly because the media turn a blind eye to the wrong-doings of government officials. Needless to say, the media have no interest in politics anymore. Media have turned into merely money-generating machines.
The next reason relates to the cartel type of politics we see today. Cartel politics as indicated in the coalition government prevents parties from competing. The expected conflicting argument over public issues in the parliament is buried in the mutual interest of the coalition.
As cartel politics push political parties to collaborate for their mutual gain, instead of competing, media discourse will mirror this safe zone in terms of coverage tone.
The last reason is the political parallelism of the media. The threat of media commoditization, where media are treated mainly as means of capital accumulation as warned by Mosco (1996), perfectly overlaps with the political parallelism today that could pervasively cripple logical deliberation on public issues in the public sphere.
Political parallelism happens when media are mainly controlled by party-affiliated individuals. Consequently, political parallelism would cause discourse similarity between what are considered party’s interests as media’s interests, and force those to be the public’s interests.
The very sad reality we face today is that government officials are so corrupt, and we need public watchdogs, the media, to monitor their conducts and make us aware of it. Politically, concerned media could concertedly build our damaged democracy if they took their democratic functions seriously. When society benefits from that hard work, they will trust the media. So, in the end it is for the benefit of the media.
We are in need of oppositional media amid corrupt cartel politics in this country today. It will be very interesting to see how those mainstream media controlled by party elites compete with the citizen journalism flourishing in this country as we wait for the next general election. We’ll see. ●
It might be the case that the media contribute much more to the development of this country than political parties, the House of Representatives and other institutions. The press has proven to be the most trusted institution in the country compared to formal political institutions like the House and the National Police.
The most serious problem facing the press today is therefore very much related to its structural dimension, not necessarily with the day to day practices in the long run.
Although the general election is still two years away, the threat of controlling public opinion through media monopoly is annoyingly looming high, as media ownership grows solidly concentrating on a few super-elite individuals. Almost all mainstream media outlets are owned by politically affiliated elites, as reported by this paper (the Post, Dec. 11, 2011).
So, how should the media preserve its role if democracy is to prevail in this country?
The media holds the responsibility to perform a duty as political watchdog over the ruling elites. However, people want to solve problems in the context of democracy, especially on the issue of electoral democracy, the media must be included in the equation. The same rule applies in our democracy.
In regards to that, Norris (2003), a professor at Harvard University, asserted that there are three main political functions of the media in democracy, namely as civic forum, watchdog and participation-motivating agent.
As civic forum, the media should provide space for public deliberation over even some contentious issues implicating state officials, public servants or ordinary individuals. By bringing and discussing the issues publicly, a more needed solution is highly likely to be arrived at.
The media also acts as a vigilant watchdog over ruling elites to bark when misuse of power is smelled. In this respect, the media should independently criticize corrupt officials either at the local or national level of bureaucracy. Then, society is made aware of the elites’ abuse of power as a reference for their political choice.
Third, the media is politically destined to act as motivators to encourage people through their coverage to get involved in political activities, especially in exercising their rights through the general election. Civic participation is the real blood of democracy.
Unfortunately, these three functions are only partially practiced despite the vast array of media outlets we have since the reformation era. As of today, only a few national major media outlets take their democratic functions seriously.
As media ownership shifts massively to political party-related elites, the decreasing trend of media criticism over power is highly likely to occur. The propensity of the media to avoid scrutinizing the three branches of the state due to conflict of interests will have far-reaching repercussions especially on our commitment to the fight against corruption.
So, this trend of the media ownership will severely threaten our democracy for three reasons: First and foremost, corrupt elites will very much enjoy the deserted public issues without any check from the media. As a result, corruption reaches its severe damaging stage in this country.
For one reason, this concern is not caused by the over self-interest coverage of the media on the benefits of the owners. But it is mainly because the media turn a blind eye to the wrong-doings of government officials. Needless to say, the media have no interest in politics anymore. Media have turned into merely money-generating machines.
The next reason relates to the cartel type of politics we see today. Cartel politics as indicated in the coalition government prevents parties from competing. The expected conflicting argument over public issues in the parliament is buried in the mutual interest of the coalition.
As cartel politics push political parties to collaborate for their mutual gain, instead of competing, media discourse will mirror this safe zone in terms of coverage tone.
The last reason is the political parallelism of the media. The threat of media commoditization, where media are treated mainly as means of capital accumulation as warned by Mosco (1996), perfectly overlaps with the political parallelism today that could pervasively cripple logical deliberation on public issues in the public sphere.
Political parallelism happens when media are mainly controlled by party-affiliated individuals. Consequently, political parallelism would cause discourse similarity between what are considered party’s interests as media’s interests, and force those to be the public’s interests.
The very sad reality we face today is that government officials are so corrupt, and we need public watchdogs, the media, to monitor their conducts and make us aware of it. Politically, concerned media could concertedly build our damaged democracy if they took their democratic functions seriously. When society benefits from that hard work, they will trust the media. So, in the end it is for the benefit of the media.
We are in need of oppositional media amid corrupt cartel politics in this country today. It will be very interesting to see how those mainstream media controlled by party elites compete with the citizen journalism flourishing in this country as we wait for the next general election. We’ll see. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar