Old Practice in a New Era: Rasa as the Basis of Self ... · Self-Censorship in Kompas Daily...

Old Practice in a New Era: Rasa as the Basis of Self-Censorship in Kompas Daily Newspaper

Wijayanto

Abstract- Rasa as an element of self-censorship has never been adequately discussed within the study of Indonesian media. This paper will show that for Kompas, the biggest national newspaper in Indonesia, rasa – a central element in Javanese value, has been the basis of their self-censorship. Whereas other media use “universal” standard journalism as a basis for news selection

and news production, Kompas elaborates rasa in their day-to-day practice of news making process. While presenting how rasa has been brought into practice within Kompas newsroom in the recent times, this article also argues that this kind of journalism practice can be traced back to the authoritarian period of the New Order regime. This paper argues that even though rasa is a cultural entity, underlying its manifestation into practice is actually picturing the hidden political and economic interest of Kompas journalists as minority group in Indonesia. This study bridges the gap within Indonesian media theories, which separate the political economy factors and the cultural factors as the main forces influencing media operation. Keywords: rasa, self-censorship, the authoritarian regime, democratization process

I. INTRODUCTION

It was Friday night in the Kompas newsroom. Even though the clock on the wall has shown that it was almost midnight, the newsroom was still crowded by journalists, a normal everyday scene. As midnight approaches, the editors got even busier to catch the dead lines. In one corner of the room, something went unusual. Five journalists were rounding a table near the political desk. Two of them were senior editors, while the rest were the young journalist candidates. That was the last day of the candidates training in the political desk and three months evaluation were being carried out. The evaluation is important to determine whether these candidates will be appointed as a permanent employee or not.

In one side of the table was a young girl named Sheryl1. She was a fresh graduate from a prominent university in Indonesia and has been working as a trainee in Kompas since

1

The author changes the names of all informants mentioned in this paper for the research code of ethic’s reasons.

then. Asep, the chief editor of the political desk, criticized her very recent mistake involving two very important news sources. The first news source was a former military general, who was also one of the former Vice Presidents in the Suharto era, Dwi Sucinta. The second one was Hendri Tjandra, a senior political researcher from CSIS, an important think tank organization during Indonesian New Order. Being asked to report a seminar held by “The Movement of Strengthening

Pancasila (GPP)” in which the Vice President was the chair and Hendri Tjandra as the main speaker of the seminar, Sheryl was considered as quoting the words of the news sources incorrectly. Not just because this important news sources were both influential political figure, but also that they have a close relation with the media owner, Jakob’s

Oetama.

The seminar discusses about the idea of returning the old constitution to the ground. It was the 1945 Constitution (henceforth, UUD 1945), which created by Indonesian founding fathers. UUD 1945 proposed that the Indonesian People Assembly (henceforth, MPR) should come back to its function as the highest state institution that represents the people. It means that the power to elect the President and to create the Blue Print of Indonesian development (henceforth, GBHN) must be returned back to MPR. Sheryl, in this case wrote a coverage as expected, entitled: “Perubahan UUD

1945, kembalikan Fungsi MPR dan GBHN” (The amendment of 1945 constitution, Giving back the function of MPR and GBHN), and covered in the 2nd page of the newspaper, dated Thursday, February 20, 2014. The lead of the news was as follows:

“Gerakan Pemantapan Pancasila menganggap perubahan Undang-undang dasar 1945 yang dilakukan pada tahun 2002, yang telah menghilangkan Garis-Garis Besar Haluan Negara dan mengurangi kewenangan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, perlu dikaji kembali.”(The movement of Strengthening

Pancasila argues that the amendment of 1945 constitution conducted in 2002, which has erased

DOI: 10.5176/2335-6618_2.2.41

GSTF Journal on Media & Communications(JMC) Vol.2 No.2, September 2015

©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF

66

Received 5 Jun 2015 Accepted 25 Aug 2015

DOI 10.7603/s40874-014-0019-0

the GBHN and decreased the power of MPR, needs to be reconsidered)

Early morning on 20th February, Hendri Tjandra made a direct complain to the newspaper as he felt that he was cited incorrectly. He agreed with the point about MPR and the restudy of the 2002 amendment, but he argued that the GBHN part was not properly quoted. He did not think that GBHN should be brought back. So, at the same early morning, everyone was looking for Sheryl. Jakob Oetama’s (Kompas’

President Director) secretary called the chief editor asking for her. Asep, the head of political desk, called Sheryl directly. It was a shocking morning for the young trainee, and in that night she was really nervous about the evaluation meeting.

As discussing Sheryl’s work that night, Asep stated that it was no one’s fault. Yet, he suggested that it would be good

to ask for an apology. Asep said,

“This is not your fault. People easily get hurt with us. If

the other newspapers may just slapped you in the face or kicked them with their news, people are fine. But if we’re the one who does it, just tiny little thing, people

will get deeply hurt. In Javanese, we say, “ngono yo ngono ning ojo ngono” (you may behave that way, but

not that kind of way)”

(Author’s field note, 21st February 2014)

Asep continues and this time emphasizing the importance use of “rasa” in conducting reportage in the field

and in doing journalism in general to those young reporters. Our question then, why did Asep asked Sheryl to ask for an apology despite of his believed that it was not the newspaper’s fault. Why then he further explained the

importance of “rasa” in doing journalistic work?

The case of Sheryl is a reflection of how culture matters. While during the Reformation Era, mainstream media theories in Indonesia emphasized the political economy factors as the main forces influencing Indonesian media and undermining cultural factors (Lim, 2011; Steele, 2011; Sudibyo and Patria; 2013; Tapsell, 2012), the above story shows the contrary. It shows how culture still becomes the dominant influence.

Based on my fieldwork between January and October 2014 in Kompas newsroom, I would like to show how rasa has been carried out in day-to-day news making process in Kompas, providing its journalists with a solid basis for their self-censorship. While this does not necessarily fits journalists’ professional standard, this practice pictures the

hidden political and economic interest of the media company. This paper will show how culture and political economy has intertwined with each other in shaping journalistic practice. In addition, I would argue that while the practice of rasa is a kind of defensive shield for Kompas journalists as a minority group, its practice was triggered by the press banning to the

newspaper during the authoritarian era of the New Order regime.

Previous Studies on Indonesian mass media

Journalism studies during the post Suharto era has been dominated by the mainstream literatures emphasizing on political economy approach, which argues that the main factors influencing the news making process are the media owner having political business agenda and market consideration. The work of Sudibyo and Patria (2013), for instance, explains how businessman and the government had worked hand in hand to control Indonesian television for their own political economy interests. This control was performed through revising the Law number 32/2002 on Broadcasting, which initially regulates the diversity of ownership in Indonesia and gives the Indonesia Broadcasting Commission (KPI) authority to regulate Indonesian broadcasting. Through the revision of this Law the authority to control the broadcasting was held back by the government, just like in the authoritarian New Order period and –through symbiosis mutualism between the government and the businessman, the media ownership is– concentrated in the hands of a small number of media owners.

Other studies conducted by Nugroho (2012) and Lim (2011) argue that there is a symbiosis relationship between the state and the media capitalists. Mapping the landscape of media industry, these two studies share a common argument about the increasing concentration of media ownership in Indonesia in the hands of a small number of conglomerates, which was facilitated by the state’s policy. In their studies,

these two scholars argue that market based orientation was considered as the logic guidance behind the media operation. The ratings and readership become the main consideration of the existence of news program albeit not necessarily has any connection with public interest. The result was then misrepresentation of public interest and the manipulation of public awareness through the media content in favor of the politico-business interest.

While the aforementioned articles captured the influence of the political economy interest towards the landscape of Indonesian mass media in the macro level, scholars such as Tapsell (2012) and Haryanto (2011) examined the political economy factors influencing the daily practice of journalistic works in the micro level. Conducting interviews with newspaper journalists of different media and in a different period of time, both scholars come to the same interesting conclusion that the media owners, having political economy interest in their hands, have substantially intervened the newsroom resulting in such climate favorable for self-censorship by the journalists. Researching five newspapers owned by political-business figure (President SBY’s Jurnal

National, Surya Paloh’s Media Indonesia, Bakrie’s Surabaya

Post, Dahlan Iskan’s Jawa Post and Riyadi’s Jakarta Globe),



67

Tapsell identifies the way the control was executed directly from the media owner to the chief editor. The chief editor will then give instruction to the managing editors, which in turn give instruction to the editors whom later deliver the order to the journalists. This model of control has led to the practice of self-censorship. Meanwhile, examining two printing media (Lippo’s magazine and Suara Pembaharuan) and two

televisions, Haryanto found exactly the same conclusion where the media owners whom at the same time also have political business interests influence the practice of self-censorship in favor of the owner’s political business’

interests.

In the research that was carried out during the Reformation era, Steele (2011) investigates the changing ideals and practice in Tempo’s magazine. She argues that there was changing driving forces behind the journalists’

work and the media content. While in the Suharto era, the main influencing factor was state’s censorship by the

authoritarian regimes, in the Reformation era the main factors are political business interest of the media owner driven mainly by the logic of market based orientation. As Steele said, “In some ways, it is easier for journalists to oppose a

dictator than it is to fight the forces of the market.” (Steele, 2011: 99)

Those mainstream theories were actually not stand without challenges. The works of Hanitzcsh (2005; 2006) carried out the opposite argument that the cultural factors play an important role in shaping the journalism practice in Indonesia. His first article entitled ‘Journalist in Indonesia:

Educated but Timid Watchdogs’ was written based on a

survey conducted to 385 journalists in Jakarta (50% of respondents), Jogjakarta (25% of respondents) and North Sumatra (25% of respondents). He argues that the orientation of Indonesian journalists can be described mainly as neutral and objective disseminators of information rather than as a critical watchdog. This includes, ‘‘getting information to the

public neutrally and precisely’’, ‘‘depicting reality as it is’’, ‘‘staying away from stories with unverified content’’ and ‘‘getting information to the public quickly” (p. 498). At this point, Hanitzsch came to a conclusion that the uncritical tone of Indonesian media was influenced by the Javanese culture that strongly influenced by the culture of Jogjakarta, his area of study. He also argues that within this Javanese culture, the root of bribery practice involving envelope due to the value of “sungkan” evolved among the media practitioners and

owners. In his second article, “Mapping Journalism Culture:

a Theoretical Taxonomy and Case Studies from Indonesia”, Hanitzcsh (2006) re-emphasizes his argument He argues that the Java-based media and Javanese journalists tend to be more polite in conveying messages and thus make it as politically uncritical. They tend to disagree with the notion of journalism as a watchdog or adversarial role of journalism. What’s missing from this argument was the explanation of

how culture really shapes the day-to-day journalism and the underlying reason behind the exercise of particular culture.

II. METHOD

This study was based on the ethnographic fieldwork in Kompas newsroom as well as in-depth interviews with the retired journalists of Kompas newspaper. I conducted the fieldwork between January to October 2014 and then followed this up with in-depth interviews with retired Kompas’ journalists and with Jacob Oetama, the President

Director of Kompas and the owner as well as founder of the newspaper. I observed that Jacob Oetama, play a unique role. Even though he is no longer active in the day-to-day news-making process in the newsroom, he still routinely come to the Kompas office and occasionally visited the newsroom.

III. FINDINGS

A. Rasa as a way to settle news complain

How was Sheryl’s case solved? Later on at the same

day, as Jakob Oetama’s request, Sheryl was asked to come to the house of Hendri Tjandra to apologize. She was accompanied by Heru, one of the editors in the political desks. All the way to Hendri’s house, Heru has warmly warned Sheryl to just be quiet and politely listen to whatever Harry would said,“ Don’t argue. Just answer, “Yes.” To Sheryl’s surprise Hendri Tjandra was not angry at all. He was even happy to see them both came and warmly welcome them in his house. Then as the discussion went on, Hendri explained the reason why he made a complaint. He explained that he never agreed with the idea of bringing back GBHN in Indonesian constitution, and he has disseminated that idea in some previous seminars. Sheryl told me, “As ordered, I was

just listening politely to his complain, smiling, and saying yes when necessary.”

In the next day, Friday 21st February 2014, there was smaller news at the same page of the newspaper entitled: “Pembukaan UUD 1945 Memuat Tujuan Negara Indonesia (The Opening of the 1945 Constitution Admitted Indonesian State’s Aim). The article, which was only one paragraph

length, was not adequately clarified the error made in the original article. In relation to GBHN, the second article said that

“…Hendri Tjandra argues that GBHN is no longer relevant with the current situation as a President will only maximally work for ten years…”.

The insufficient clarification was obvious considering the content of the article above compare to the content of the original article:,



68

“People assembly’s has to be functioned as the

highest state’s institution which conducted people’s

mandate and also enacted GBHN as stated in the 1945 constitution before amendment,” (Hendri Tjandra, seminar of Restudying the Amendment if 1945 constitution, Granadi Jakarta, Wednesday, 19th February 2014)

These two messages have a potential to convey different meanings and to confuse the readers since it contradicted with each other. The source of the confusion lies within the inconsistent message showing the same news source speaking about GBHN. The original articlsaid that according to the source, Indonesia should returned to GBHN, while the revised article mentioned the opposite message that according to the source, Indonesia should no longer used GBHN. The supposed to be revised article did not show any notification statement saying that the later article was meant to be a revision (ralat) version from the previous day’s

article. In terms of quantity, the clarification was insufficient as the later article was way shorter that the first one. While the first article was 8 paragraphs and 6 columns in its length, the clarification was only one paragraph and one single column on its length. This imbalance length of coverage may suggest that the later article did not properly clarify the issue and explain the contrast statement given by the sources. However there was no complaint appeared at the next day. Both parties seem happy. Dwi Sucinta, the Chair of GPP, even made a phone call to the newsroom saying his gratitude towards the coverage.

Both Budi Sucinta and Hendri Tjandra were at the first place believed that they were right and Kompas was wrong. In this kind of situation, the Indonesian Press Law as stated in the Regulation of the Press Council (Peraturan Dewan Pers) number 3/2006 regulates that the press has to give the news sources the right to answer (hak jawab) and the right to correct (hak koreksi) sufficiently (secara proposional). The later article published on the 21st February had never clearly mentioned as meant to clarify the previous article. At the same time, the news sources, despite of their complaints did not go further to claim their rights. So, was the news sources actually right? Or was the newspaper actually doing no wrong coverage as the Chief Editor believed? If so, why would they willing to ask for an apology? Here is when the culture came into play.

Both counterparts use the element concept in the Javanese culture called “rasa”. In the context of rasa, the problem about truth was not the main concern. What being highlights by both parties is how to create a mutual understanding and to protect the harmonious relationship by avoiding conflict. This following description about rasa by Suseno explains the situation:

The decisive issue is not the question of truth, but whether this world-view is experienced as “fitting” and

whether it presents itself through a meaningful rasa. (Suseno, 1997, p. 132)

Therefore, in Javanese culture there was a saying: “bener durung mesti pener” which means conveying the truth was not always right if it violates social harmony. In the case above, the conflicting parties were avoiding to sharpening the dispute by not demanding who was the correct one. In this case, rasa was used as a way to settle news complaint.

B. Rasa as a way to decide headline’s title

The use of “rasa” was also carried out as a way to decide

the headline’s title that reflects the character of the

newspaper. This second case will better explain my argument.

Wednesday, 12 March 2014. In Kompas, the weekly meeting was about to start around 10.00 am. In the main meeting room, there were people gathered. Kompas Chief Editor, Arif Subangun began the meeting by discussing the last week incident in which there was complain made on the news coverage about the then Indonesian vice president, Boediono. The article dated 7th March, 2014 entitled: “Nama Boediono Disebut 67 Kali” (Boediono’s Name was

mentioned 67 times.)”

It was coverage of the judicial process of Budi Mulya, a deputy general of Indonesian Bank – the Indonesian central bank, and his relation to the Century Bank scandal, a mega scandal involving corruption that suffered the state of more than 547 million US dollars (7,45 triliyun Rupiah). The article said that during the prosecution, the Judge has mentioned the named of Boediono in his position as the Governor of Indonesian bank at that time as being involved in the making of the bank’s policy to bail out the Century

Bank. The initial policy was actually intended to lend the bank as much as about 49 million dollars only (632 milyar rupiah). However, the implementation had gone way beyond it. This article indicates that there was a possibility that Boediono was involved in the scandal.

At the same day after the article appeared as the headline, the spokesman of the Vice President’s office came to Kompas

to make a direct complaint. According to Asep, the Chief Editor of the political desk who was responsible for the headline, there was a strong indication that the Vice President himself had called the President Director of Kompas, Jakob Oetama, that day.

In the meeting, Arif said:

I said…it was one of the things which has been

criticized from the Vice President’s office. About

Kompas that seems to lose its character… (Arif



69

Subangun in weekly editorial meeting, 12 March 2014)

As a response, Asep, answered:

A staff from the Vice President office complaints about…for example eemmm…the title or 67 has no

meaning. This is journalistic matters…in my view,

even if the Vice President’s name appeared for just

one time, it will appear in other newspapers. I think it’s a huge fact and it has been [mentioned] 67 times.

And this is a big lost for the country…(Asep in weekly editorial meeting, 12 March 2014)

Here, Asep defended his position that in term of journalistic principle there was nothing wrong about the headline title. Interestingly, Asep, the Chief Editor, agreed that there was nothing wrong with the news. The only thing was that the way Kompas delivered the message should be more softened. With a warm smile in his face, he said:

There was nothing wrong with was written in that article. Let’s talked about the way we convey the

message. We were hard in the principle but flexible in our way. So we were not different in term of principle. We should convey the reality. But the way to deliver it has to be more sophisticated… (Arif in weekly editorial meeting, 12 March 2014)

After the meeting, which was only attended by dozens of editors in the newsroom, I raised a question to Ryaas Cahaya, the senior journalists and one of the Vice Chief Editors in the editorial board. I asked whether the title has been correct in his view. His response was that the title was wrong. It was not a typical title of Kompas article, especially for the head line. He said:

From my point of view, it was not Kompas. I mean if we talk about that title. For better or worse, Boediono is the head of the state. We must respect him… This is where culture becomes important. We

need to explain to the young journalists about the character of Kompas. We pinch but it shouldn’t be hurt. (Interview with Ryaas Cahaya in 12 March 2014)

Interestingly, the view of Ryaas was also supported by other senior journalists such as Budi Rahardjo who was then also a Vice Chief Editor of Kompas (Interview in 21 March 2014). Months after the meeting, in one afternoon in October 5, I had a chance to talk to Asep about the incident in March and he replied:

Perhaps it was because the different over rasa. That was why it was different. 67 for the young journalists and for the seniors had different meanings. Perhaps for the senior it was already kicking.

From the illustration above, it became clear that rasa as the element of the Javanese value plays an important role in the making of headline title. It is the use of rasa that makes a certain title has a Kompas character.

IV. DISCUSSION

I will begin the discussion by looking at some theories on media studies that focused on culture, especially those who give attention to the change and continuities of the media operation during the Reformation era and the New Order. The work of Steele (2005) and Romano (2003) are among them.

In her book, “Politics and the Press In Indonesia, Understanding an evolving political culture”, Romano (2003) explains how the everyday practice of Indonesian journalism is influenced by the Indonesian political culture. She shows the pattern of journalistic routines (or what she also calls a journalistic culture/micro culture) that has been shaped by the broader Indonesian political culture characterized mainly by paternalism (macro culture). Romano believes that the root of such journalistic culture is strongly influenced by the Javanese culture, which at the same time also shapes Indonesian political culture. Nevertheless, this study is lack of illustration on what is going in day today practice inside the media. Steele (2005) supported Romano’s argument. In her book entitled: “The

Wars within: The Story of Tempo magazine, Steele examines the history of Tempo magazine as a way to look into the political and cultural history of the New Order. She argues that Tempo could survive for 23 years under the authoritarian regime because it has successfully negotiate the politics, culture, and the autocratic press system forced by Suharto’s

authoritarian regime while also still trying to be independent at the same time. The existence of Tempo, as Steele describes, reflects the upper class society in Indonesia as its main audiences, who diverse in ethnicity, coming from high socio-economy class, and also foreign-born elite. The media workers themselves are consists of Indonesian elites class society and have a close relationship with the state apparatus. Furthermore, the magazine itself enjoy its rich privilege exception due to the limited number of media permitted to be exist in the new order period. This was where the political economy relation between the Tempo magazine and the regimes took place. In terms of political culture, Steele argues that Tempo’s writing was a reflection of Javanese culture that typically adopted by Indonesian urban elites even though they do not always necessary Javanese. They convey the message in a polite manner and criticize the regimes through hidden messages. The perfect combination of Tempo’s politeness in one hand and the regimes need to have a free media as a symbol of democracy formed the reason why Tempo can survive for decades.



70

Early study conducted by Nono Anwar Makarim (1978), a former editor of one of the prominent newspapers during the New Order era, considered as the most successful in picturing the above argument. Looking at the media from the inside perspective, he strongly argues that Indonesian mass media during the New Order were no yet act as the media of the mass but the media of the elites. He also argues that the Javanese culture provides a strong influence towards the media in shaping the interaction between press and the power holder. In this regard, since the newsmen are actually also part of the elites, the interaction between newsmen and power holders has to be seen as the interaction between elites embracing Javanese culture. As Nono said, “It would be a serious mistake to detach pattern of government-press interaction from the prevailing mode of social intercourse among the elite.” (1978: 260)

Our clearly supports Nono’s argument that the

newspaper is actually the media of the elites, in which the elites from the journalistic filed interact with those elites from the political field. Jakob Oetama, Kompas’s President

Director who had been the Chief Editor of Kompas for decades (1965-2010) and has been one of the prominent elites in the media. With the power of his media Jacob also became an influential figure in Indonesian political world. During the field research, I witnesed Indonesian presidential candidates running for 2014 presidential election visiting Jakob Oetama to gain supports. As being told by many Kompas journalists, that was actually nothing new. The same practice had been done by the previous presidential candidates. It has been Kompas tradition to invite Indonesian prominent elites to come to Kompas events, or vice versa. Just like Jakob, all of the elites in Kompas newsroom were actually influential elite figures in Indonesian politics.

However, unlikne Nono, I go further by adding the concept of rasa in our analysis. It was clear that rasa has been carried out in the interaction between Kompas and its elite stakeholders. Dwi Sucinta and Hendri Tjandra are definitely elites in Indonesian politics. While the first name was the former vice President during some part of Indonesia’s

Suharto, the later was the senior researcher of CSIS, the think tank of the New Order. The way the dispute between Jakob in particular, Kompas in general and Hendri Tjandra solved shows a classic pattern of interaction among the Javanese elites. They do not chase the fact of whose side is correct as the most important thing, but rather of how to make the best solution without hurting or embarrassing each other. Kompas was willing to apologize even though they do not think they were wrong. Hendri Tjandra and Dwi Sucinta accepted the one short paragraph of the revised article even though it did not sufficiently clarify the previous mistake of Kompas coverage.

It worked the same in the case of Boediono. The then Indonesian vice president made a direct complain to Jakob

Oetama, which then followed by the warning from the Chief Editor to Asep to not repeat the use of the kind of title that may hurt Boediono’s feeling. Kompas newsroom was willing

to not repeat that type of coverage even though Arif Subangun, the Chief Editor himself, did not think they were wrong in term of journalistic standard. However, Boedino’s

request was instantly accepted in order to avoid hurting his feeling. In that meeting Rikard said:

Pak Jakob never intervene the newsroom…but he [Boedino] is a good man…he [Jakob] indeed felt sad

and said (to me): “Poor Boedino he would be a

corruption suspect”

(Rikard Bagun, in the Kompas editorial meeting, 12 March 2014)

In the Javanese culture, rasa plays a central position (Geertz , 1973; Mulder, 1978; Susesno, 1997). In Indonesian language, rasa has a simple mean: feeling. However, in the Javanse culture the meaning of rasa is way more than simply feelings. In one hand, rasa means feeling in its all dimension, from physical sensations, such as taste, flavor, touch, and self awareness (Suseno, 1978: 126). On the other hand, rasa also means meaning of some certain signs. Geertz (1973) describes:

Rasa has two primary meanings: “feeling” and

“meaning.” As “feeling” it is one of the traditional

Javanese five senses –seeing, hearing, talking, smelling, and feeling, and it includes within itself three aspects of “feeling” that our view of the five

sense separates: taste on the tongue, touch on the body, and emotional “feeling” within the “heart” like

sadness and happiness. The taste of banana is its rasa; a hunch is a rasa; a pain is a rasa, and so is a passion. As “meaning”, rasa is applied to the words in a letter, in a poem, or even in common speech to indicate the between-the-lines type of indirection and allusive suggestion that is so important in Javanese communication and social intercourse… (p.134)

As a central element, rasa forms the basis for living properly in a social life by avoiding conflict, submission in the hierarchical order and maintaining harmony. To this argument, Suseno (1997) explains:

Showing respect for the hierarchical order of society is extremely satisfying to the priyayi (gentry): by this he contributes to the maintenance of a situation where everybody is in his place, therefore, everything is in order and everything moves smoothly along its path and no one need to fear commotions, surprises, and disappointment. The feeling of being bound together in an ordered society gives him an inner feeling of peace, of the absence of conflicting emotions and tensions which fulfill his idea of good life. (p 126)



71

What Suseno describes echoes Ryas Cahaya, Kompas’s editorial board when asked about Boediono: “For

whatever reason, Boediono is the head of the state. We have to show respect to him…” (interview with Tryas Kuncahyono, 12 March 2014)

A. The Political Economy of Rasa

From the above illustration, it is clear that by practicing rasa as one the element in their self-censorship, Kompas’ journalists can rebuild their relationship with the power holder whenever their relation is in danger. Rasa has been inherently internalized by Kompas’s journalists. Thus

they know what kind of information that should not be delivered to public to maintain other’s feelings. According to Noto Nagoro, one of senior journalist in Kompas, every Kompas journalists understand this following principal:

We try our best not to hurt others’ feeling, that’s a

Javanese culture. What’s the advantage of hurting

others, right? I could write whatever I want, but will other people feel fine with that? Would they be angry or not? Would other people feel offended? Do their hearts feel the call? (in-depth interviews, 3 March 2015)

Asep, provides the same explanation:

The culture of Kompas culture is rooted on the values of Kompas founder, Jakob oetama, which is never attack people and make them cry. Don’t make people

who already suffer, suffered even more…different

with other newspaper such as Tempo which always want to attack,, we situate problem comprehensively, in an indirect way, with a refine language…(interview

with Asep, 7 February 2014)

Both interviews above show how rasa has been internalized as the main value among Kompas journalists. In Nagoro’s words, “We try our best not to hurt other’s feeling” In Asep’s words, “ Never attack people and make them cry.

Don’t make people who already suffer, suffered even more..”.

Refining the language as a form of preserving rasa was perceived by ST Subroto, another senior journalists in Kompas as a way to show that Kompas is never “Vulgar in

choosing its topic, words, self-control, and is becoming Javanese” (in-depth interviews, 11th February 2014).

There are at least three reasons behind this practice. First, the political trauma in which the newspaper was banned between 21st January to 5th February,1978, due to its critical coverage during the Suharto era. Before finally allowed to publish again in the 6th February1978, Kompas was required to sign a contract with the regime to never cover this following four things in their news coverage: (1). They will never write about the President family and their wealth;

(2) They will never question the double function of the military (security function and political function); (3) They will never write issues related to ethnicities, religion, intergroup and race issues; and (4) They will never write articles which will trigger social conflict. (Sularto, 2011: 24)

Three days after the reopening of the newspaper, the then Kompas President Director Jakob Oetama was allowed to meet the president in the Press Commemoration. The President said to Jakob in Javanese language: “Ojo meneh-meneh”, which means “Never Again.” (ibid, page 22) This warning, which was said in Javanese instead of Indonesian, gave a meaning that the President was very upset for their coverage. The same warning was repeated by Suharto in another meeting with Jakob in 1980, when Jakob asked the president as to whether they will be allowed to cover the then student protest. The answer was even stronger, “Tak gebuk”.

A Javanese language, which means: I will hit you [hard]! The effect of the message was very shocking as Suharto also followed his words with his body gesture and that his hand was clenching (Sularto, 2011: 22-23).

In the biography of Jakob Oetama, it was mentioned that Kompas has been warned so many times during the New Order by the military elites. Against this political background, in order to survive the New Order, Kompas has to do journalism in such a way that can avoid them to be seen as offending the regime. According to Sindhunata, “For 30

years, we have to live with that values. We were raised and molded in this way” (in-depth interviews Sindhunata , 3 March 2015)

Political trauma in this case has been one of the factors that create the background of Kompas journalism practice. However, one question remain: Why do Kompas still maintain the old practice even though Indonesia has entered a new era of democratization? Here comes the second reason. It was the fact that Kompas journalists were minority group in Indonesia. The founders and the first generation in Kompas were mostly catholic in term of religion and some of them hold Chinese ethnicities. Kompas was formed by the Indonesian Catholic party in 1965, and remains to be seen as a Catholic newspaper. In fact, from the first author observation, he founds out that the elites of the newsroom were mostly Catholic. This is the opposite composition with Indonesian societies which is dominated by Moslem and Javanese. As describes by Noto Nagoro:

Never forget that Kompas is owned by the minority group, right? The bosses are Catholic, right? And most of them were Chinese too in the beginning. This mentality influences our performance. We have to be careful in our every steps (in-depth interviews, 3rd March 2015)

In a country with the story of oppression towards the minority group such as the attack of Ahmadiah in the



72

Reformation era by Islamic group and the attack of Chinese minority in Jakarta during 1998 riots, the fear of Kompas seems reasonable.

The third factor is the economic factor. Implicit in the above statements is that the reason behind the practice of rasa in Kompas is the need to survive the regimes both in the New Order era and the Reformation era. By surviving, Kompas will be able to secure their economic interest. However, in the case of Kompas, this is not just the economic interest of media owner, but also the whole journalists working in it. If, let say, in the New Order Kompas got banned forever, the workers would have lost their job. Or if, in this Reformation era, Kompas was attacked by the Islamic radical group and the newspaper was closed, or the business went bankrupt, the journalists would have also lost their job.

In this context, Kompas needs to be soft to the power holder and maintain a good and close relationship with the regime. By staying close to the power holder, Kompas was hoping to gain a protection from the potential threat of the majority groups in Indonesian. As long as Kompas still exists, the minority groups in it can still make a living in Indonesia. This can be said as the indirect business interest of Kompas. However, Kompas also provides a direct economic interest of the minority, a place where the Indonesian minority groups can make a living. In one interview, retired Kompas journalists, Ludwig Swara said:

“I graduated in the time when it was hard to find a

job. It was 1965, and the old order regime left Indonesia under serious economic crisis. And I am Chinese so I can’t work as civil servant. No chinese

would be appointed as state apparatus. Kompas is the reasonable place to work for me.” (in-depth interview, 24th Deecmber 2014)

V. CONCLUSION AND FURTHER RESEARCH DIRECTION

Asep’s words to Sheryl in that night saying that people

will get easily angry to Kompas were actually a reflection of the long history of this minority group newspaper that managed to survive the regime changes. Kompas’ way in

practicing journalism, which elaborates rasa into its self-censorship, was actually the response to the socio-political constraint that lingered the media. Being minority has haunted them with fear even since it was born. In the New Order era, the fear got worse because of the possibility of banning by the authoritarian political regimes. However, at the same time, by practicing the journalism of rasa Kompas manage to survive and get close to the regime and, to some extent, enjoyed the regime’s indirect protection. The indirect

protection was gone after the fell of the New Order. Therefore, in today’s Reformation era, they keep trying to

build a close relationship with the power holder by maintaining the same approach of news coverage to secure the power holder’s protection in one hand, and not to hurt the

feeling of the majority group in Indonesia, including the radical Moslem on the other hand. By doing so, they hope to be able to survive.

Only if the newspaper managed to survive, they will be able to also fulfill their economic interest. Thus, behind the practice of rasa there is a hidden political economic interest of the minority group. Whereas recent studies on Indonesian media has exclusively emphasized the influence of market and business interests of the media owner, for Kompas their survival as minority is way more important than the market interest. Considering Kompas’s position as a very influential

newspaper for the political elites, further study needs to be taken as to further understand the extent in which Kompas has influenced the political elites in this reformation era? Furthermore, further study is needed to understand whether those Javanese values of Kompas support the democratization process in a positive way or, instead, discourage it.

REFERENCES

[1] Dhakidae, D. (1991). The State, The Rise of Capital and the Fall of Political Journalism. PhD Thesis, Cornell University Research.

[2] Hanitzcsh, T. (2005). Journalist in Indonesia: Educated but Timed Watchdogs.’ Journalism Studies, Volume 6, Number 4, 2005, pp. 493-508.

[3] Hanitzcsh, T. (2006). Mapping Journalism Culture: a Theoretical Taxonomy and Case Studies from Indonesia’, Asian Journal of Communication Vol. 16, No. 2, June 2006, pp. 169-186

[4] Haryanto, I. (2011). ‘Media Ownership and Its Implications for Journalists and Journalism in Indonesia’ in Krishna Sen and David T. Hill (eds), Politics and the Media in Twenty-First Century Indonesia: Decade of Democracy, pp. 104-118. New York: Routledge

[5] Geertz, Clifford (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York : Basic Book.

[6] Hill, D.T. (1994). The Press in New Order Indonesia. Perth: University of Western Australia in Association with Asia Research Institute on Social, Political and Economic Change.

[7] Hill, D.T. (2007). Manouvres in Manado: Media and Politics in Regional Indonesia’ in South East Asia Research 15 (1): 5-28.

[8] Ida, R. (2011). ’Reorganization of Media Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia : Ownership, Power and Influence of Local Entrepreneurs’ in Krishna Sen and David T. Hill (eds), Politics and the Media in Twenty-First Century Indonesia: Decade of Democracy, pp. 13-25. New York: Routledge.

[9] Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? Chicago and London : The University of Chicago Press

[10] Kovach, B. & Rosentiel, T. (2001). The Elements of Journalism : What Journalists Should Know and the Public Should Expect. New York: Crown Publisher.



73

[11] Lim, M. (2011). @Crossroad: Democratization and Corporatization of Media in Indonesia. Partcipatory Media Lab, Arizona State University and Ford Foundation.

[12] Mulder, Niels. (1978). Mysticism and Everyday Life in Contemporary Java: Cultural Persistence and Change. Singapore: Singapore University Press.

[13] Makarim, N.A. (1978). ‘The Indonesian Press : An Editor’s

Perspective’, in Karl D. Jackson and Lucian W. Pye (eds), Political Power and Communications in Indonesia. Berkeley : University of California Press.

[14] Manzella, J.C. (2000). ‘Negotiating the news, Indonesian press culture

and power during the political crises of 1997–8’, Journalism 1(3), December, 305-328 . doi: 10.1177/146488490000100303.

[15] Nugroho, Y., Putri, D., & Laksmi, S. (2012). Memetakan Lansekap Industri Media Kontemporer di Indonesia. Jakarta : Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance (CIPG) and HIVOS.

[16] Romano, A. (2003). Politics and the Press In Indonesia : Understanding an evolving political culture. London: RoutledgeCurzon

[17] Said, T. (1988). Sejarah Pers Nasional dan Pembangunan Pers Pancasila. Jakarta : CV Haji Masagung.

[18] Sen, K., & Hill, D.T. (2000). Media, Culture and Politics in Indonesia. South Melbourne : Oxford University Press

[19] Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. New York : Longman Publisher.

[20] Steele, J. (2005). Wars Within : The Story of Tempo, an Independent Magazine in Soeharto’s Indonesia. Jakarta: Equinox Publishing

[21] Steele, J. (2011). ‘Indonesian Journalism Post-Suharto: Changing Ideals and Professional Practices’ in Krishna Sen and David T. Hill (eds), Politics and the Media in Twenty-First Century Indonesia: Decade of Democracy, pp. 85-103. New York: Routledge

[22] Sudibyo, A., & Patria, N. (2013). The Television Industry in Post Authoritarian Indonesia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, doi.10.1080/00472336.2012.757434.

[23] Suseno, F.M. (1997). Javanese Ethics and World View: The Javanese Idea of Good Life. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.

[24] Sularto. St. (2011).Syukur Tiada Akhir, Jejak Langkah Jakob Oetam.. Jakarta : Penerbit Buku Kompas,

[25] Tapsell, R. (2012). ’Old Tricks in a New Era: Self-Censorship in Indonesian Journalism’, Asian Studies Review, June 2012, Vol. 36, pp. 227–245.

[26] Vitchek, A. (2012). Indonesia : Archipelago of Fear. New York : Palgrave MacMillan

[27] Whitten-Woodring, J. (2009). ‘Watchdog or Lapdog? Media Freedom, Regime Type, and Government Respect for Human Rights’

International Studies Quarterly (2009) 53: 595–625.

AUTHOR’S PROFILE:

Wijayanto is a PhD Candidate at the Institute of Asian Studies, Leiden University, Netherlands. His main interest is on media, political change and anti-corruption movement in Indonesia. He currently holds a position as a lecturer at the Department of Politics, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Diponegoro University, Indonesia. Some of the related courses that he teaches are: Political Communication, Media and Politics, and Media and Social Movement. His research focuses on the changes of political regimes, the role of media and civil society movement.



74

This article is distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution License whichpermits any use, distribution, and reproductionin any medium, provided the original author(s)and the source are credited.

Old Practice in a New Era: Rasa as the Basis of Self ... · Self-Censorship in Kompas Daily...

Documents

Transcript of Old Practice in a New Era: Rasa as the Basis of Self ... · Self-Censorship in Kompas Daily...