The boundaries between what is and what is not considered as public interest in many media offices, blurred last week. I mourned for the death of rational journalism and the end of what in my opinion should be media's most sacred treasure, respect for what is right and what is wrong, and an ability to hold themselves from directly interfering the course of events in society.
***
It all start with the sacking of my friend and fellow activist, Bambang Wisudo, from his job as senior journalist at a leading media firm here in Jakarta. The unprecedented sacking prompted a lot of question marks, especially because he is a relentless advocate for workers' rights and currently still hold a position as secretary at his office's press workers union.
According to Indonesian workers' union law that protect the rights of union activists like Wisudo, this sacking is a plain simple violation. Two articles in that law clearly stated that a union activist cannot be sacked because of any activities s/he conducted under the name of demanding union members' rights. So this is an easy case.
But the big question is: how come a prominent media can so lightheartedly violate the law in the most vulgar way and now even thinking to escape from any of its action's consequences?
The top management at Wisudo's office is arranging a high profile attack on his personality, accusing Wisudo of unprofessional conducts during his 15 years working experience in that company. Imagine: 15 years without any wrongdoings and now they hit you back with series of allegations: I mean this is starting to be really dirty. The chief editor worked the phone, talking to almost all editors in leading media in this country, begging them not to make a huge fuss about this case, let things quieting down and ended without any public pressure on him and his management. Its an information black out in its most sophisticated form.
In my humble opinion as an inexperienced journalist working in another media firm, this case certainly has news values and I cannot see any reason why it has to be kept secret and hidden from public eyes.
This case demonstrate the ongoing conflict between union activists and companies' top management who often see union as a pebble in their shoes – party who just try to destabilize their companies and rob them from potential profit. The management cant find a common ground to start negotiation and now abuse their power as management by sacking their enemy's most fierce lieutenant. This case can be an example of how management sees workers union and how they “negotiate” with union. If widely publicize, this case can eventually get the attention it deserved and who knows-- trigger changes in the law to prevent it from happening again in other firms.
But, no, no, no. That is not what happening. Only a handful of media cover the events following Wisudo's sacking, mostly online media and radio. Several TVs did aired a three minutes package but only that –they don't want anything more than that. No live interviews, no talk shows, just a three minute package in a half an hour news bulletin.
In print media, it even worse. The top management including editors shivered at the possibilities of printing this case in their pages. They delay decision or refuse to be held responsible by handing over the bucket to their superiors. It ended up no where near the printed pages.
Many reasons were put forward to cover their cowardice: there is no space, there are many other things happening that has more news values, there was a late advertising so we have to drop the item, and so on and so forth. Whilst the real reason was plain simple: the management has committed the same crime as the management in Wisudo's media --or at least have the intention to act similarly if incidents like Wisudo's happens in their respective firms. Its as simple as that. They don't have the guts to expose other media sloppy mistake because they might trip on the same spot and when that happens, they don't want any coverage too. Its black solidarity and its dirty.
All of this circus and their inexcusable justification serves as a reminder that conventional media --whether its print or not-- have indeed become parts of the conglomerats, the dinosours, the old media. They are controlled by a group of people who have no interest in anything but profit making and other unjustifiable personal interest. Its time to build our own new media, that wholeheartedly serves to the public interest, with no bargain in whatever form. Until that happen, the hope to build a just and rational society triggered by media discourse-- is still far away in the horizon. (*)
Comments