Download - Indonesian Broadcasting Policy
Indonesian Broadcasting Policy:
Achieving Educated and Civilized Society for Social Welfare
Fitaha Aini
ABSTRACT
The disputable regulations that govern the broadcasting industry are not more than business entities and parties’ political tools. The Indonesian broadcasting system in the post-Reformation era demonstrates the freedom of media through the existences of Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) as an independent agency. Nevertheless, achieving an ideal democratic broadcasting system for social welfare has not been straightforward. It should ensure the diversity of content, diversity of ownership and diversity of voices. In the Indonesian context, establishing those diversities have become increasingly important, considering geographical and sociological conditions of Indonesian society. Moreover, the power of the liberal-capitalist approach that is eminent in the context of media freedom is unsuitable if it were to be totally implemented in Indonesia. It was proven that diversification of ownership which led to diversified content did not guarantee a more knowledgeable society. Referring to the data that show the domination of music and entertainment in private radios had resulted in diminishing of other programs that have enormous potential to form an educated and civilized society.
Keywords: broadcasting policy, politic, welfare, educated society
The spirit of democratized broadcasting that is stated in the Indonesian Broadcasting
Act No.32 (2002) is relatively pleasing. Nevertheless, there is still some sign of weaknesses
which hinder this democratized broadcasting could not be properly implemented. Indonesia
has an independent agency, Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) that manage national
broadcasting issues. However, its central authority is only limited to monitoring broadcasted
content. Broadcasting administration and licensing are still under government’s scope
(Ministry of Communication and Informatics). The duality of this regulatory control is
clearly not serving democratic broadcasting any favor. Although licensing depends on KPI’s
recommendation, however, in practice, that is not the case. Various violations have occurred
which resulted in ownership of television stations being narrowed by only a handful of
people. Buying and selling share occurs due to weak regulators.
On the other hand, development of communications technology has increased
remarkably. Meanwhile, there are so many issues that have not been able to be answered by
the Broadcasting Act No. 32 of 2002. Digitalization of broadcasting has not been adequately
addressed by the broadcasting law which resulted in confusions during the implementation
phase. Therefore, the amendment of broadcasting law remains an urgent agenda with the
spirit of democracy rests on broadcasting as already laid its foundations in the Broadcasting
Act No. 32 2002.
In any country that embraces democracy, regulating of broadcast media are
distinguished with print media. There are three basic arguments why broadcasters should be
strictly regulated. First, broadcasters use the public domain. Therefore, it should be strictly
regulated, and credentials should be used as much as possible for the prosperity and welfare
of the people. Secondly, radio frequencies of which they use to broadcast are public space.
Demand for frequency channels is significantly larger than that available frequencies. Despite
the advanced technology capable of making more utilized frequency broadcast channels, but
they remain limited.
Thirdly, it is pervasive. Programs aired by electronic media can access private spaces,
expanded and spread rapidly to other spaces uninvited. Besides the three main reasons above,
a democratic broadcasting system should ensure the diversity of content, diversity of
ownership and diversity of voices. In the Indonesian context, ensuring that diversity has
become increasingly important, considering geographical and sociological conditions of
Indonesian society.
In terms of diversity of content, in 2012, government radio programs were dominated
by music by 37.14% and news by 34.29%. While private radio stations have also featured,
programs include 73.3% of music and 10:23% of the news. Government featured a balanced
range of entertainment and news programs, whereas, in the private radio, music was featured
extensively.
Figure 1 Chart of Government Radio Programs
(Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012)
Figure 2 Chart of Private Radio Programs
(Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012)
These charts indicate that private radios are more as entertainers than informers. This
phenomenon illustrates that media freedom is only enjoyed by groups who have economic
and political power. Cherian George (2013) conclude a study that is capable of breaking
down the power of the liberal-capitalist thinking which is celebrated in the context of media
freedom. It was proven that the diversification of ownership which led to diversified content
did not guarantee a more knowledgeable society. Referring to the above data that show the
domination of music and entertainment in private radio had resulted in the shifting of other
programs that have enormous potential to form an educated and civilized society.
Figure 3 Chart of Government’s Television Programs
(Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012)
On the other hand, in 2012, government television had 80% of news and information
programs that become the flagship of public television programs and 20% of religious
programs. Meanwhile, private television news seeded the news program by 51.43% and the
film or soap by 20%.
Figure 4 Chart of Private’s Television Program
(Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012)
Broadcasted programs such as soap operas and football matches are the programs that
are likely to get high ratings. Meanwhile, talk show only got low rating. A high rating can
make programs receive an abundant offer of advertisements, which consequently will benefit
media financially from these advertisements. This is contrary to the process of educating the
audience. A media practitioner, Budi, said:
"TV is still a reference point for the community. TV programs such as football matches, F1, and soap operas always get high ratings. These programs can easy achieve rating of 20-25 from Nelson and are assured to get at least 15 of rating. Rating is an advertisement. Advertising is money. It is very contradictory to the process of educating the public. Talk shows, just obtain a rating of 7. This program is a positive form of journalism. "(Workshop, December 2, 2013)
In addition, there is lack of availability of regulatory instruments that can address
future challenges. The uncertainty in the industry of broadcasting caused a decline in the
quality of the broadcast. Various broadcast programs on air are not based on the eligible
criteria of a broadcast. Broadcasting activities are geared to attract advertising and determine
the feasibility of the programs through market tastes and rating. The rise of mystical shows,
pornography, infotainment and reality show is one of the dominant impact of market
considerations in determining the broadcast material.
The dilemmatic problem of broadcasting, especially television, is competing in
reaching the audience through ratings and shares. If the rating and share as a reference in the
preparation of the agenda, it will be more of television text that feature a low taste with full of
entertainment elements. Even news programs that should promote the ideals aspects, positive
values and norms are focusing on rating and share by modifying news content in order to
entertain further and reach an audience as much as possible.
The owner of media can determine which political side should be praised or hated by
editor indirectly. In reality, the presented media content has been constructed in such a way
by the policy owner. When the media has changed their function to be partisan media to their
owners, the media will boost the popularity of their owner in terms of political activities. For
instance some cases that happened in legislative elections and president election in Indonesia
in 2014.
The table below shows the diversity of media ownership in Indonesia. In the context
of broadcasting company, private broadcasters, both radio and television were held by
institutions that are legal entities PT (Private Limited) were 99.45% for private radio and
97.5% for private television. However, the dynamics of media ownership issues arise when
the dominance of the interests of media owners who always put the interests of shareholders
and owners rather than the public interest.
Table 1 Percentage Broadcasting Company by Legal Entity / Company / Licensing
(Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2012)
Category Legal/Company/Licensing TotalPT
(Private Limited)
Cooperation Individual Public
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)Government Radio - - - 100,00 100,00
Private Radio 99,45 - 0,55 - 100,00
Government Television - - - 100,00 100,00
Government Radio 97,50 2,50 - - 100,00
Thus, the democratization of broadcasting are not properly implemented because
there are many violations of a campaign by the owners of broadcast media. In public
discussion about ‘Democratization Broadcasting and the election in 2014’ in Bali, TEMPO
journalist, said that broadcast media in Indonesia is strongly influenced by business and
political interests of their owners whereas it affects on public perspective. So that the
broadcast media owners have shrouded in its campaign strategy, as an example of media
owners use it through ad campaigns holiday greetings, etc., although in this statement there is
no delivery of the vision and mission as well as the vote number. This violation not only
through advertising alone, but also the abuse of broadcast media through the campaign in the
news.
After 2014 elections, KPI evaluated to all broadcasters, both private and public
regarding the principle of independence. Because it is a benchmark that political education
for the public and the media goes well. According to Deputy Chairman of the KPI, safety or
firewall that separates the newsroom with the business, as well as related interest, must be
maintained despite the broadcasters owned by political party leaders. The diagram below
shows a comparison of radio programs broadcast by government and private radio.
Gramsci (1971) has detailed this process as preserving the cultural and ideological
'hegemony' of elite groups in society, which in turn will ensure the stability of the capitalist
system and impede socio economic change. As such, mass media can be perceived as tools
used by the upper classes and by extension the state, to forge social consent over polarizing
issues by actively intervening in public space and shaping public opinion. Social perceptions
are then 'steered' appropriately and a particular social consciousness is formed through
exaggerated journalistic accounts (i.e., facial expressions, body dramatic music and a highly
emotive rhetorical language), supposedly venting the already present - but actually just then
created - public demand requiring those in power to 'do something about this' (McRobbie &
Thornton 1995). If government legislative action follows such strategies, then the public's
'rational, well-founded fears or outrage' can be alleviated. The media can promote images of
strong government and leadership which acted decisively, enhancing the political system's
ability to presumably maintain a free and democratic society. In the same time, it creates
civilized society in the present and future. Thus, media legitimize their own truth
representations as indisputable reality, affirming the power of constructed discourse
conferring 'ideological legitimation' and imposing 'discipline' to applied policies (Bourdieu
1991; Foucault et al. 1991; Foucault 1980).
Furthermore, Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas) in collaboration
with Ministry of Communication and Informatics should lead the road map of the media
development in Indonesia, so there is room to hoodwink the media by loading or broadcast
advertisements with messages of national character. Ermiel said:
"The road map of media development in Indonesia, no one preaches control resulting in an influential authority. Now people are looking for information in Google. Bappenas should be a ‘lead shepherd’. The media especially television, are actually cheating. It would be great if media industry can provide 5% of public frequency to broadcast an announcements or advertisements about national character. Space for media empowerment, by loading or broadcasting advertisements with messages of the national character. "(Workshop, December 2, 2013)
Indonesian society is a pluralistic society and therefore broadcasting media must
reflect the plurality above. This condition is only possible if the broadcasting system is
properly decentralized. Broadcasters can engage in a national broadcast, but must be
networked with limited ownership and broadcast range. In some countries, the ownership and
broadcast coverage area are limited so that, diversity of ownership and content can be
controlled. In United States, a person or a legal entity can own as much as possible as long as
the broadcaster range does not exceed 39% of the nation's TV homes or TV's household.
While in Australia, limiting the range based on the population that is covered by the
broadcasting organizations, i.e., a maximum of 75%.
Indonesia does have different characteristics from those two countries. However,
Indonesia should be able to learn from these countries, especially in terms of ownership and
restrictions on media coverage. This is because, based on empirical studies on the practice of
broadcasting in Indonesia, broadcasters tend to be centralized which could be a serious threat
to democracy. On the other hand, the democratization of broadcasting must also maintain a
balance between private broadcasters, public broadcasters, and community broadcasters.
Currently, private broadcasters are much more dominant than their public and community
counterparts. Public broadcasters do not get adequate support from the state so that they have
shown the weak transformation from government agencies into the public broadcaster. In
fact, in a democratic state, the existences of public broadcasters are important because it can
balance the private broadcasters that are profit-oriented. Meanwhile, community agencies for
broadcasting statute enacted in a state marginal. The licensing process is imposed equally as
of private broadcasters.
Finally, the enforcement of spirit of democracy in broadcasting will be determined by,
in addition to legislation, by regulators. It is important to underline that the failure of
broadcasting law in ensuring a more democratic broadcasting is due to the absence of
progressive regulatory agencies. For that reason, there should be an independent regulatory
agency and the progressive democratization of broadcasting can be secured and maintained.
KPI, in this case, should be given that role. The government may still be involved in
regulation, but merely to grant or revoke a license to use a radio frequency wave spectrum
based on the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
From the above descriptions, a number of recommend actions are presented in this
academic paper. Based on this assessment, the priority legislation should include the
following:
1. Legislation should be drafted based on the spirit of democracy that ensure diversity of
ownership, diversity of content, and a diversity of voices. This stage must be imposed
by law.
2. Diversity is only possible, especially in the context of Indonesia, if the broadcasting
system developed is decentralized and networked. Therefore, there are three issues
that must be done and translated into legislation, namely
(a) ownership restrictions and coverage range of private broadcasters;
(b) strict rules where if private broadcasters are to broadcast nationally, they should be
networked;
(c) for democracy, center of network should not be only stationed in Jakarta but can
spread throughout Indonesia.
3. Regulators must be independent. Therefore, position, role, and functions of KPIs that
have been mandated by the Broadcasting Act No. 32 in 2002 as the regulator should
be strengthened. In this case, the KPI should be the only single regulator of
broadcasting in Indonesia. KPI should be allowed to issue regulations to implement
broadcasting in Indonesia in consolidation with other three pillars.
4. The government is still involved in regulating, but limited to permit/revoke the use of
radio frequency spectrum.
5. Strengthening of the public broadcaster and the community as a counterweight to
private broadcasters. To that end, the law has to explicitly grant allocation of
broadcasting frequencies for both types of these media. Especially for public service
broadcasters, in case, can be a merger between RRI and TVRI as public broadcasters
to better serve the entire public in Indonesia.
Radio Republik Indonesia (RRI) station should be built at the borders because there is
a competition of radio frequency between Indonesia-Malaysia radios. Stephen from
(RRI) says:
"RRI do not have a radio station at the borders. This radio station was built in what it is in the border area. What is happening today is a competition to raise the frequency in Indonesia-Malaysia border. "(Focus Group Discussion, July 17, 2013)The revitalization of a public company should be conducted immediately by
Indonesia’s government, due to the current public broadcasting is under quality so
that Indonesia does not have the best mark in the public broadcaster as other
countries. Yanuar, the media expert, said:
"We do not have best mark because we do not have enough quality of public broadcasters. Consequently, public broadcasters revitalization agenda becomes necessary. "(Interview, December 4, 2013)
6. In addition, the development of digital technology is inevitable, and apparently will
provide a challenge for broadcasting in Indonesia. Therefore, it is necessary to study
further and conduct mapping of digital-related issues in Indonesia, to be then used in
refining the legislation for the broadcaster. In this case, digitization should remain in
favor of the public interest and to prevent the concentration of broadcast ownership.
Therefore, these developments could not have been accomplished without the
influence of mainstream mass media. The media have long been embedded in society's fabric,
and social reality is experienced through the cultural dynamics of language, communication
and imagery (Gamson et al., 1992). Social meanings are inextricably interconnected with
representation and thus 'accounts of reality' are already representations of meaning
construction processes, which people activate in order to form perceptions of what the 'real
issues' are (McRobbie & Thornton, 1995).
In dealing with this problem, media industry should develop a concept, namely the
Indonesian Communications And Media Authority (ICMA) which contain consolidation of
four main pillars, namely the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI), the Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology, Institute of Science & Knowledge Indonesia
(LIPI), and religious & culture organizations. The four pillars have the power of a balanced
and cohesive strength. Their power will give colors to the landscape for the broadcast media
industry in Indonesia. The ICMA is tasked with ensuring media and communications works
for all Indonesians. It does this through various legislation, regulations, standards and codes
of practice. The ICMA is a 'converged' regulator, created to oversee the convergence of the
four 'worlds' of telecommunications, broadcasting, radio communications and the internet.
Figure 5 Diagram of ICMA Role in Indonesia
Nothing to be changed for the duties and authority of KPI in the concept of this
strategy, which to impose policy, overseeing content or broadcast content, and enforce
penalties for noncompliance. Similarly, the government (Communications), which has the
duty and authority only in charge of the administrative and licensing arrangements, as well as
the, utilize of public frequency. Then, coupled with the LIPI research that serves as the
implementing science and technology research covering inbox (media, communications, and
information technology) and outbox (all disciplines related to broadcast media). These studies
must be carried out sincerely for the sake of mapping digitization issues in Indonesia and
media policy in favor of the public.
Greta Nielsen (2010) argues that Indonesia appears to be suffering from stagnation in
this regard as the government is dissatisfied with the quality or applicability of research and
policy making. Petrarca Karetji (2010) says that this country does not lack in knowledge
sector institutions and structures. The deficit lies in effective collaboration between
stakeholders, a problem stemming from Indonesia’s decades of authoritarian government
when the state did not help develop a policy and funding framework to support high-quality
social science research. Oey-Gardiner and Sejahtera (2012) suggests that the government …
takes the driver’s seat and allocates significant resources to develop and allow a knowledge
sector to become a major source for social and economic improvements in society.’
Lastly, religious and culture in charge of overseeing this case and instilling moral
values, religious, cultural and national commitment. Indonesian Broadcasting has three
articles that underscore the protection of the values and local culture. Under this system,
broadcast companies are required to broadcast the local content of at least 10 percent of all
the broadcast duration per day. With the rules of the existence of local content is expected to
provide not only the local growth of the broadcasting industry, but also the conservation of
culture and local wisdom. In the end, the broadcast media in Indonesia could act as a conflict
suppressor, media that foster the spirit of patriotism and the emphasis on unity and cohesion.
Therefore, the four pillars must make efforts that can restore the broadcast media
industry in Indonesia. The actions are undertaken by the four pillars, among others:
1. Revitalization of Public Broadcasting Institution (LPP).
The effort, process, or means to revive and reactivate LPP, namely TVRI (television) and
RRI (Radio). In this regard, Indonesia can follow the efforts of countries in Scandinavian
Nations in creating LPP that educate and empower the public.
2. Defragmentize Private Broadcasting Institution (LPS).
Defragmentation is a process to re-arrange the broadcast range of the share ownership and
irregular private companies. The defragmentation process applies to all private broadcast
media companies both television and radio so as to minimize the occurrence of
conglomeration and concentration of media ownership.
3. Optimization and facilitation of Community Broadcasting Institution (LPK)
An effort to maximize the role and functions of LPK and provide facilities to support the
activities of broadcasting. By implementing these actions, the government can listen to the
needs of local communities, creating justice in the dissemination of information from the
government for all the people of Indonesia. Case studies in India show that the internet
facility provided by the Indian government to broadcasters in particular community radio can
strengthen public access to information.
4. Research about media supporting the advancement of science and technology in the
broadcasting industry.
The development of digital technology is clearly a challenge for broadcasting in Indonesia.
The existence of research conducted specifically to examine media, information, and
communication (inbox) and other multidisciplinary research related to broadcast media
(outbox) is expected to respond to these challenges. Thus, these actions will be giving
Indonesia the broadcast media landscape become free and air, synergy, innovative and
civilized
By conducting this strategy, the broadcast media industry overview will become The
Role Model or Best Practice in the broadcast media industry. This concept is said to be
suitable because it contains freedom that is up-to-date without abandoning the values of
religion, culture and national spirit. Overall, Indonesia requires an (endogenous) big push to
strengthen and institutionalize the use of research and data analysis for the design and
implementation of public policies. This condition will be a crucial factor in determining the
success of the welfare policies that the government is currently planning.
Reference
Bourdieu (1991) Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
Central Bureau of Statistics (2012) Statistic of Communication and Information Technology
Companies [Statistik Perusahaan Komunikasi dan Teknologi Informasi]. Jakarta,
Indonesia, Badan Pusat Statistik
Cherian George (2013) The Unknowing Of Public Knowledge. [online]. Available from:
http://mediaasia.info/ [Accessed 14th November 2014]
Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977, Ed.
C. Gordon. New York: Pantheon, 90.
Foucault M, Burchell G, Gordon C And Miller P, (Eds.) (1991) The Foucault effect: Studies
in governmentality. University of Chicago Press.
Gamson W A, Croteau D, Hoynes W And Sasson T, (1992) Media images and the social
construction of reality. Annual review of sociology, Vol. 18, Issue 1, p. 373-393.
[doi://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.002105]
Gramsci A (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci: Ed. and Transl.
by Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. G. Nowell-Smith, & Q. Hoare (eds.).
International Publishers.
Karetji, Petrarca (2010) Overview of The Indonesian Knowledge Sector Milestone 8. Final
Report, AusAID, Canberra: AusAID
Mayling Oey-Gardiner (2012) In Search of an Identity for the DRN. Final Report, AusAID,
Canberra: AusAID
Mcrobbie A and Thorton S L, (1995) Rethinking 'moral panic' for multi-mediated social
worlds. British Journal of Sociology, p.559-574. [doi://dx.doi.org/10.2307/591571]
Nielsen, Greta (2010) Comparative Experiences of Middle-Income Countries - as part of
diagnostics for the initiative Revitalising Indonesia's Knowledge Sector for
Development Policy. Diagnostics, Canberra: AusAID
___________________________________________________________________
Author Biography
Fitaha Aini (born 1985) is a communication lecturer in Indonesia. She has published book
and journals in the field of communication and media. In 2013, she published her first book
about Kebebasan Akhbar Malaysia-Indonesia. She completed her study in Science University
of Malaysia (Persuasive Communication) in 2008 and University of Malaya (Media Studies)
in 2011. Her previous research was an evaluation of communication programs (2009-2014)
and formulation of communication policy (2015-2019) in Indonesia under the Ministry of
National Development Planning.