Up until the Tunisian article, I was not really serious in writing for newspapers. I was busy with my works and couldn't concentrate on writing. Then, I had a probably the most idiotic idea ever thought: I decided that I needed to "fix" my CV by publishing as many articles as possible in newspapers.
I sent two different articles to the Jakarta Post and the Jakarta Globe. I was planning to send articles on Indonesian domestic politics to the Post while sending articles on foreign affairs and economy to the Globe. The Jakarta Post received this article and a few days later, the Jakarta Globe received another article titled "Southeast Asia's Sometimes Association." I believed I sent the Post this article on Monday and sent the Globe the article on Wednesday.
I consider both articles as equally good. I never send anything I consider sub-standard or horrid because I figure that it will backfire and hurt my reputation anyhow. In case that an article got rejected, even though I might disagree with the reason (most likely due to the time delay in publication, making the issue moot, which the Jakarta Post is quite notorious for doing so), I threw it to the recycle bin and delete it forever. I lost so many ideas this way, but I have to do that to keep my writings fresh.
Anyway, both articles were published without a hitch.
A week later, I sent two pieces again to the Jakarta Post and the Jakarta Globe. This time, the Jakarta Post received what I considered as one of the best articles I've ever written, which was an argument in support for an overhaul of Indonesian electorate system. I sent the draft beforehand to my dear former advisor, Bill Liddle, who loved the piece. The Jakarta Globe received a decent article titled "Feeding the Indonesian Private Sector."
The Jakarta Globe immediately published the piece. The Post, however, as some of you may suspect, sent me this:
Thank you very much for your worthy contribution. However we decided that we would no longer publish articles from writers who also contribute to The Jakarta Globe. Thank you for your understanding.
Kind regards,
Dwi Atmanta
Well, I tried to send them some emails, asking them to clarify this policy, since that was the first time I've ever heard that, and without avail. They never replied nor sent any acknowledgements. I did know that there were some writers who got blacklisted for what editors would call as "article shopping," meaning sending an article to several newspapers at once. That was the first time I've heard that you could be banned for sending different articles to different newspapers.
Since then, I've heard from many writers about this policy, that they could only "go back" to the Jakarta Post after they agreed to never ever write for the Jakarta Globe.
Yet in retrospect, I didn't regret it. I think sending that piece to the Jakarta Globe was probably the best action I had done because since then I've had a really great relationship with the Jakarta Globe and Mr. Ben Otto, its editor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dipo Alam’s quixotic adventure is a bad war
Yohanes Sulaiman, Jakarta | Thu, 03/03/2011 11:30 AM
In the United States there’s something called “Greener’s Law”, which tells us to “never pick a fight with a man who buys his ink by the barrel.” Dipo Alam broke this law and found himself, to his dismay, in a fine mess.
Fighting against Media Indonesia and TVOne is vastly different to fighting against Yogyakarta Sultan Sri Hamengkubuwono X over the latter’s remarks that Indonesia might experience a Tunisian- or Egyptian-style revolution — or against the religious leaders who previously declared that the government had lied to the people.
In both Hamengkubuwono’s and religious leaders’ cases, Dipo was challenging their interpretations of current events in the national media, which is his right as a government official and as a citizen protected by the Constitution.
Dipo picked a wholly different fight in his squabble with Media Indonesia and TVOne. Had he only complained about a lack of balance and left the threat of a boycott out of his rants, he might have actually gained followers. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is still very popular and people are aware that many newspapers in Indonesia are sensational, lacking in balance and often treat the President unfairly.
In calling for a boycott of Media Indonesia, Metro TV and TVOne, however, the debate shifted. If Dipo was simply a regular citizen, his call for boycott would have been fine, because he was expressing his rights as a citizen. The government might or might not agree with his call. One thing is clear: As a regular citizen, Dipo would not be able to influence the process.
In this case, because of Dipo’s role as a high-ranking government official, he supposedly has the power to impose a boycott. His actions might become political and be considered censorship to maximize his political gains. At the same time his actions might be considered as an attempt to blackmail the media and thus, constitute an abuse of power.
Moreover, journalists from rival companies will not simply sit aside and laud the coming boycott of their powerful competitors. Instead, they see this as a creeping threat to the freedom of press. If today Dipo is able to shut off both outlets, what will prevent him from going after other, much weaker and less powerful newspapers?
What will prevent Dipo, flush from his victories, from boycotting The Jakarta Post, The Jakarta Globe, Kompas, Suara Pembaruan, Sinar Harapan, Rakyat Merdeka, Jawa Pos, Viva News, detik.com, and various other outlets which might manage, either intentionally or unintentionally, to rouse the presidential ire?
For Dipo, the issue is a perceived lack of fairness and balance in media coverage of the President.
For the press, however, it is a fight for survival. It is a fight to establish that people may criticize the media and demand retractions as long as it doesn’t interfere with the cherished freedom of the press.
Not surprisingly, Dipo found himself isolated in this debate. In addition, fighting the media in a democracy, especially on a matter as grave as the freedom of press, is stupid. Like it or not, the press can set the agenda, frame an issue, and make sure that the public understands the debate simply by focusing on this issue like a laser beam and repeating the process over and over again.
Dipo, however, has to rely on the media that he bashed and threatened to get his message across to the public. It is simply a bad war to wage. Most of the experienced ministers in the Cabinet understand this, and thus they prefer to stay away from the conflict.
The only person that actually can fight the media is the President. Yudhoyono commands the bully pulpit, a position from which he can set the agenda. Still, when the debate is framed this way, even Yudhoyono might receive a lot of flak.
The call for a boycott, especially from a high government official, is not wise. Rather than helping Yudhoyono set the record clear what Dipo did was to create distractions for President’s agenda.
Worse, by the end of the day, the buck stops on Yudhoyono’s desk, and he will be blamed for sending or at least allowing Dipo to engage in this quixotic crusade. He will be accused of attempting to rollback the freedom of press in Indonesia, and the entire affair will end up hurting his reputation.
At the same time, the media that Dipo blamed became martyrs and gained a larger audience through this confrontation. This is truly a war that Dipo would have been better off avoiding.
-------
asmartrock | Tue, 08/03/2011 - 14:03pm
This is from the guy who said that it's not the people's money. It's the government's. Taxes are the people’s money, the national treasury is the people’s money, the money that public officials use is the people’s money.
Regardless of the media's political bias, he, as the representative mouthpiece of the President, should take caution before unilaterally implementing a policy that only he apparently knows. It isn't quixotic. It's idiotic. If he insists on acting as such, then, by all means, he should fairly be treated as one.
No comments:
Post a Comment