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


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


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


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


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.

http://mediaasia.info/

Documents

Indonesian Broadcasting Policy