Economic and Political Factors That Influenced Indonesian Pressin the Era of New Order Regime

REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHICAL EDUCATION

ISSN: 2146-0353 ● © RIGEO ● 11(3), SUMMER, 2021 www.rigeo.org Research Article Economic and Political Factors That Influenced Indonesian Pressin the Era of New Order Regime

Budi Santoso1 Aceng Abdullah2 Communication Science Faculty, Padjadjaran Communication Science Faculty, Padjadjaran University, Indonesia University, Indonesia Dian Wardiana Sjuchro3 Eni Maryani4 Communication Science Faculty, Padjadjaran Communication Science Faculty, Padjadjaran University, Indonesia University, Indonesia

1Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract This article aims to provide a critical analysis of the economic and political dimensions of the Indonesian press during the New Order era. It is generally known that the press system implemented by the New Order regime was a free and responsible Pancasila-leaning press. The press is free to report events that occur but must comply with regulations and procedures determined by the government. In practice, the press during the New Order era was not free to carry out its journalistic roles and functions, especially to report the realities related to government policies. This research shows that the political economy dimensions of the Indonesian press during the New Order era were interrelated. As a company, the press had to get economic income in order to keep it published, on the other hand, the press was very dependent on the repressive political system implemented by the New Order so that it could not freely criticize the policies adopted by the government.

Keywords Press, Economic and Political Interests, New Order

To cite this article: Santoso B, Abdullah A, Sjuchro D, W, and Maryani E. (2021). Economic and Political Factors That Influenced Indonesian Pressin the Era of New Order Regime. Review of International Geographical Education (RIGEO), 11(3), 1227-1236. Doi: 10.48047/rigeo.11.3.113 Submitted: 10-01-2021 ● Revised: 01-02-2021 ● Accepted: 21-03-2021 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(3), SUMMER, 2021

Introduction

In Indonesian Press Law Number 40/1999, it is clearly stated that the press is not only a social institution that carries out journalistic functions but also as an economic institution. This means that the press is part of the economic system which in many ways is closely related to the political system. When departing from a critical paradigm, the press is positioned as an instrument or means of control for the dominant elite or the ruler to hegemony and control public spaces subtly through the domination of news and other forms of content. If so, then the political economy position of the press institution can be studied using critical political economy theory. Press essentially function as a medium for community communication, as a bridge connecting all groups or social powers. It actually provides information that should be designed and aimed at discovering the truth of facts and events. But philosophically, the main purpose of the press is to support, criticize and advance government policy. As a communication medium, press does not only present information in the form of news, but also provides public spaces where ideas and interests meet. So it can be said that press stands on two interests, namely the interests of the government (rulers) and the public interest. In order to see the political economy interests of Indonesian press during the New Order era, it is appropriate to mention what factors have influenced the role and function of the press in general.Martini (2014) suggests three main factors that can influence the role of the press, namely, (1) The political system and government. It is clearly knows that the press (in all forms) that operates in a liberal democratic country has a greater opportunity to criticize government policies. They have the political courage to disclose government actions because they receive open support from the public. The Watergate case in America in the early 70'sshows this. On the other hand, the press in authoritarian countries, such as in Indonesia during the New Order era, will receive strong warnings and even revoke its licenses. The case of Tempo magazine’s revocation of issuance permits after reporting the case of ex Germany warship in 1994 showed it. (2) The commitment of the parties involved. This commitment is not only a commitment from the members of the press but also a commitment from the authorities (government). If the commitment made by each party is positive, then the press will develop well. Conversely, if the commitment is not well developed, in the sense that each party thinks of its own interests, then the press will only be an institution with a small, meaningless role. (3) The investor's vision. The owner's vision is an important factor in determining the direction rather than the role and function of the press. Press company owners who tend to only care about economic interests rather than will also tend to limit coverage that has the potential to hinder gaining profits. Conversely, if the vision of the owners of capital is to educate the public to be aware of their rights and obligations, then the press company will be more critical of government policies or other issues related to the public interest. The Indonesian press after the New Order initially experienced great joy. This is understandable as a sense of wild joy that arises due to the limited space for so long, especially in relation to government policies. The restraint caused by the hegemony of the authorities wrapped in the legitimacy of licensing in the form of a Press Issuance Business Permit (SIUPP) is an indisputable reality. The SIUPP is a powerful weapon for the government to measure the obedience of the press to the government, including revoking the press business license if it intersects with the interests of the authorities. At that time, the press actually enjoyed a honeymoon at the beginning of the New Order government which needed support from various existing social forces. The New Order tried to build partnerships with these social forces based on the principle of mutual understanding. But in reality, the press must submit to the powers that apply authoritarianism. No less than 18 media have experienced the bitterness of being bulldozed, including Tempo, Sinar Harapan, and Harian Abadi (Ishak, 2014). During the reformation era, the press was very much felt. changes are not only at the level of structure, namely the establishment of a press business, but also in various types and forms of media, content and style of news, and methods of obtaining information.

Literature Review

Critical political economy theory is based on the thoughts of Marxists who value the mass media as a hegemonic tool and the legitimacy of the ruler in maintaining the dominant ideology over other social forces (Ibrahim & Akhmad, 2014). The public is unconsciously or slightly aware, carried away and agrees with the dominant discourse constructed by the media. McQuail (2010) defines

1228 Santoso B, Abdullah A, Sjuchro D, W, and Maryani E. (2021). Economic and Political Factors That …

it as "a social criticism approach that focuses on the relationship between the economic structure and the dynamics of the media industry as well as the ideological content of the media". Political economy theory places a priority in understanding how economic power becomes the basis for political and ideological power (Ibrahim & Akhmad, 2014). McQuail then more broadly mapped the relevance of this critical political economy theory with several aspects, based on the research results of several media scientists such as (Holtz-Bacha & Norris, 2000; McChesney, 2000; McQuail and Siune (1998); Moran et al.,1990; Murdock & Golding, 1990; Suarez & Sussman, 1997; Van Cuilenburg & McQuail, 2003; Wasko, 2004). First, the growth of media concentration in the world with the concentration of ownership of the few and the merging of the hardware and software industries. Second, there is economic and information growth globally, due to the wider convergence between telecommunications and broadcasting. Third, there is a decline in the public sector of mass media and telecommunications control to the public directly (especially in Western Europe), in the form of deregulation, privatization, and liberalization. And fourth, there is information inequality in terms of the use of sophisticated communication facilities and the quality of their use. From this, it can be seen that the media are running on the logic of ownership and financial strength as the main foundations that support the media industry. If McQuail defines political economy broadly, Vincent Mosco in the first page of the second edition of The Political Economy of Communication, published in 2009, tends to narrow it down. He stated that in a specific sense political economy is the study of the social relations, particularly the power relations, that mutually constitute the production, distribution, and consumption of resources, including communication resources. This definition, continued Mosco, has practical values because it is related to how a communication business (media) operates. The main idea of the above limitation is that there are aspects of power relations behind the activities of production, distribution and consumption of communication resources. Mosco then sharpens the definition by stating that the core idea of political economy is control and survival in life. Control refers specifically to how a society organizes itself, manages its affairs and adapts, or fails to adapt, to the inevitable changes that all societies face. Survival means how people produce what they need to reproduce themselves and to keep their society going. According to this interpretation, control is a political process because it shapes the relationships within a community, and survival is mainly economic because it involves the process of production and reproduction. In Mosco's logic, control is a political process because it shapes the relationships that occur in a society, because policies and regulations are the result of a political process. Meanwhile, survival inevitably involves a process of production and reproduction. The aspects of production that humans act on are aimed at reproducing themselves so that society remains and life continues. Here, the press or media agency functions to keep the social cycle running smoothly by disseminating information and forming opinions. In practice, the implementation of this function adapts to the existing political system. Related to that, Mosco explained that the political economy theory of the communication/media industry can be traced through three aspects: commodification, spatialization and structuration. Commodification is the process of transforming things valued for their use into marketable products that are valued for what they can bring in exchange (Mosco, 2009). Meanwhile, he defines spatialization as “the process by which mass media and communication technologies overcome the constrains of geographical space. And structuring is interpreted as "the process of creating social relations, mainly those organized around social classes, gender, and race". According to him, how then the media take a position in the arena of the struggle of interests and ideology in the ownership and power system. This is related to the problems of social, economic, and power structure relations that take place in the production and distribution of media language. The issue of the media's economic and political interests, continued Mosco, can be seen from three aspects of commodification, spatialization and structuring. Commodification is related to how "abstract" media products, namely information and entertainment, can be used as marketable commodities. Spatialization is related to the media's ability to get around the limitations of space and time when presenting messages to audiences. This circumvention can then be realized through network expansion and media platforms. Meanwhile, structurization, which Mosco took from the ideas of (Giddens, 1979), highlighted the problem of the relation of ideas between social agents, social processes, and social practices in social structures. These relations then create a series of social relations and power processes organized among class, gender, race, social movements that are connected to each other. In fact, the simple logic behind these three aspects is how then the media, especially in the liberal economic system, place economic interests above others, including the public interest. 1229 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(3), SUMMER, 2021

It does not matter whether the message conveyed is useful or not as long as it is considered pleasing to the audience and inviting advertisers. The audience is reduced only to the target of marketing advertising products as well as potential buyers. Meanwhile, media workers, including journalists, are only measured in terms of technical abilities, not creativity and conceptuality, because the role is dominated by managers (Halim, 2013). This economic logic puts mass media products, such as news, as merchandise / commodities that are freely traded like consumer goods. Mosco's view implies the presence of an internal organization of individuals or group members in the process of control (supervision). If this is related to the previous definition, then the power holder (in power relations) is a social organization. This is in line with Fairclough (1992) thought which is re-explained by Eriyanto. (2012) that institutional analysis in the sociocultural practice of critical discourse talks about the economic and political behavior of media or press institutions that affect the production of texts, especially those that are related to their journalistic functions. The institutional factor of the media economy, Eriyanto continued, broadly consists of three elements, namely advertisers, audiences, and competition between media. Researchers attempt to relate this to the opinion of Murdock and Golding that advertisers, audiences and competition between media principally rely on the market context (Halim, 2013). The market itself contains three important concepts, namely economic determination, ownership and control, and the consequences of production. In short, the compromise made by the media to the market through cultural products is a manifestation of its obedience to the owners of capital and political power, to further hegemony society. Each medium has its own target audience segment, and this usually affects what kind of advertisements they can fit. Competition between media on the other hand is also an important factor in discourse construction, especially when it involves a combination of economic and ideological interests. Meanwhile, political organizations / institutions (state, political organizations, elites and extra-state socio-political forces) occupy positions as political institutions. The analytic explanation for this political factor is mostly described in the subsection of social analysis. To be sure, these two factors to some extent influence newsroom policy. In connection with this research, political economy analysis of press institutions in Indonesiais very important to do. As an economic entity, it is impossible for the press to operate on separate tracks with political and economic policies / regulations. Besides that, global aspects as written in the paragraph above are universal realities that occur in the media industry.

Method

The writing of this article is based on a critical paradigm using a qualitative approach. Meanwhile, the method applied is a case study. Creswell, Lazuardi, and Qudsy (2015) states that a case study is an exploration of a bound system or a case / various cases which from time to time through in- depth data collection and involves various rich sources of information in a context. The context of the case in this article is the social and historical setting experienced by the Indonesian press during the New Order era. The question that this article will answer is how the economic and political factors influenced the Indonesian press during the New Order era.

Result and Discussion

Economic Dimension

Stoddart (2007) writes that social forces work through the world of culture in which the media, as a manifestation of capital, have a significant role. As an economic institution, the mediadepend on three sources, namely content, audiences and capital. The logic is simple, the better the content made, the more audience readers or viewers. A large audience will attract advertisers. The parameters of “good content” here are of course subjective in nature, given the very diverse identities and social experiences of consumers, and of course from the ideological side of the text maker. Advertisers are one element that can influence newsroom policy. As Rivers, Peterson, and Jensen (2015) ensure that the work environment and media products are principally shaped by the market (market forces), one of which is manifested in advertising formats. Advertising is a real economic transaction between media and business institutions. However, this influence is difficult to measure with certainty. What is clear, mass media and advertising are involved in a reciprocal logic of mutual benefit which involves the circulation of a lot of money.

1230 Santoso B, Abdullah A, Sjuchro D, W, and Maryani E. (2021). Economic and Political Factors That …

In some cases, continued Rivers et al, sometimes media companies, marketing departments or advertising units have poor communication with the news department. This usually involves the issue of not reporting certain cases that befell big advertisers in the media. Even Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, as cited by Ibrahim and Akhmad (2014), include advertising as the main source of income for media companies as a filter to understand how media propaganda works. Based on the results of the Nielsen Consumer & Media View survey in 2017, media advertising spending in Indonesia recorded a fantastic amount, which is around 145 trillion rupiah. This amount increased by 8% compared to the previous year due to the increase in advertising rates (gross rate). Of this figure, 80% or approximately 116 trillion spread to various national and local television stations. National print media advertising revenue is in the range of IDR 21.8 trillion (see www.nielsen.com/id/en/press-room). Although in a span of six years (2011-2017) advertising spending has decreased by around 11%, this number is still very large. Nielsen analyst notes that although the portion of advertising spending for print media (newspapers, tabloids, magazines) has decreased throughout 2017, the trend for advertising in print media, especially newspapers, is relatively stable. Products that rely on consumer trust (trust) such as insurance and banking tend to advertise in newspapers because these media platforms are considered to provide reliable information and news. The amount of advertising spending shows the significance of the economic relations between media institutions / investors, news sources / agents, advertisers, and media consumers that take place in the vortex of market journalism where market and non-market interests meet (Baker & Faulkner, 2004). Market interests are synonymous with capital and profit, while non-markets rely on social, political and cultural interests. In this regard, Idi Subandi Ibrahim emphasized that the logic of commercialism has become the way of managing the press in their journalistic activities. According to him, "the press is directed to be a money-printing machine, an advertisement supplier, and chasing ratings. With such a cultural logic, it is clear that it is difficult to place public interests above or equal to the interests of capital and power ” (Halim, 2013). Media firms do not want to risk losing big advertisers as their main source of cash by publishing stories that touch or relate to their interests. This condition weakens the critical character of the media as a guard dog that should guard the public interest over the domination of the state or the elite. This means that the media has behaved like the regime itself, so that Carpini and Williams call it a media regime, that is, when the function of the media as a socio-cultural institution is mixed with economic-political interests which weakens state power before the owners of capital and at the same time removes public control. For example, regulations concerning diversification of ownership and network broadcasts stipulated in Broadcasting Law No. 32/2003 have not been fully complied with by private broadcasting institutions. In fact, the swift lobbying of media investors' interests has made the process of revising the regulation very slow. If this economic relation is dissected from a critical perspective, then advertising is a real form of cultural commercialization and commodification. Use value is transformed into exchange value. In broadcast media, simplification of the complexity of reality is common. A cup of coffee can be a panacea to make your partner more intimate and caring. Or, children's school performance will increase if treated with a device that is able to strengthen their eye ciliary muscles. Print media advertisements are, of course, not as expressive and dense as television commercials. However, what is at the heart of the problem is not the type or type of media, but the economic transaction process inherent in non-economic transactions. The terminology of the media regime is used as an indicator of certain conditions where the power of the media depends on the state and the public, as well as communication technology (Syahputra, 2013). The state acts as a regulator which formulates ownership policies, administrative arrangements, and carries out supervision. Meanwhile, the public as consumers have their own interests. The media regime is the same as an authoritarian regime because it ignores the public interest through the use of the public interest as an economic commodity and the political interests of media owners (Syahputra, 2013). So that the idealism of media workers can be pawned. The oligarchic practice of the media regime endangers the democratization process and is prone to being misused for the political-economic interests of the media elite. The results of research on the Sidoarjo Mud disaster, for example, show that the mass media which has little connection with the company reported about the incident, and that too by using a euphemistic language style. In a different case, the framing war between two national private televisions during the 2014 presidential election shows that the media is inseparable from the interests of political pragmatism and conflicts of interest. 1231 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(3), SUMMER, 2021 Alongside this, modern technological advances that allow multi-media platforms to integrate into a single format which is often called new media, are due to the gluing of different languages and codes. Newspapers that are printed by pressing machines do experience a decline in circulation, but the fact is that these printed editions still exist in the form of e-papers, the digital versions that are exactly the same as the printed editions. News portals not only provide written news but also short videos. Interactions with users are opened through comments, with less strict moderation. Behind all of that, the ones most likely to control and operate this multi media platform are media companies with large capital. The Jawa Pos Group, for example, the holding, which is owned by former PLN president director Dahlan Iskan, oversees more than one hundred regional daily newspapers and several local televisions spread across various provinces. Apart from Jawa Pos, there are also the Kompas Gramedia group, MNC Group, Tempo Inti Media, MRA Media Group, Berita Satu Media Holding, Femina Group, Media Group, CPP Radionet, and Mahaka Media Group and TransCorp (Syahputra, 2013). Each group manages more than one media platform unit. Apart from the above groups, there are also magazines, newspapers and radio owned by small companies or individuals as well as public organizations with limited (local) production and distribution. This shows that mass media with wide-scale production and consumption practices are only controlled by corporations owned by a handful of individuals (oligarchs). Noam Chomsky in "What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream" states that the mainstream press is controlled by large corporations that are very profitable. In his assessment, the media is a commercial organization that maximizes its profits. Mastery over the modalities of the media platform can further increase the chances of making a profit. Unfortunately, this effort to obtain maximum profit intervenes and undermines the practice of pure journalism which should prioritize honesty-objectivity. In this regard, McChesney (2000) concludes that the mainstream press fails to carry out important journalistic obligations, such as the role of guard dog against power, separating truth from lies and presenting different views based on empirical information in (Ibrahim & Akhmad, 2014). The widespread privatization of ownership in the media industry, according to Bergѐs Saura in his article Economic, Political and Communicative power in the neoliberal societies (Saura, 2010), is the expansion of the ideology of capitalism. In turn, this condition reinforces the argument that the media is positioned as an economic and business entity that is likely to conflict or even go against the public interest, such as the right to information and expression. The logic of looking for maximum profit has the potential to make the media tend to marginalize its obligation to build public awareness and criticism. To achieve this, the media then maintain two substantive interests, namely economic and ideological interests. Economic interests are intended to reap maximum profits, while ideological interests are intended to conform to the structure of power / regime. The connection with these two things makes the mass media inferior and at the same time makes itself compromise with the economic, political and social interests of elite groups that dominate the public and even the state, by sacrificing the principles and noble values of journalism through the selection of coverage topics, framing of issues, filtering. information and hold the debate within acceptable limits Herman and Chomsky (2010) in (Ibrahim & Akhmad, 2014). This oligarchic concentration of mass media ownership is actually a transfer of control of the traffic of information distribution that was previously in the hands of the New Order regime to the clutches of capital owners. The deregulation currently being enjoyed by the media industry is essentially the effect of moving from state regulation to market regulation. Where state intervention on the market mechanism is much reduced because it is more determined by an invisible hand in the form of demand-supply rules, the logic of capital rotation, and the maximization of production and consumption (Hidayat, 2000). On the one hand, consumers "benefit" from the variety of information products offered by the media. The media will strive to meet consumer satisfaction in order to survive and get more profit from advertising revenue. So what happens is that the independence of the press / media in the duties of journalism remains biased, especially in relation to what the media should strive for through the practice of professional journalism. If previously media owners and elites became subordinate, subject to the shadows of the authorities, now they are superior, while media workers (read: journalists and editors) who are "marginalized" become inferior. Worse, media workers are then held hostage by the pragmatic interests of the media elites, especially when these elites are involved in practical politics. This is in line with some of the main propositions of critical political economy theory raised by Dennis McQuail that the media structure always leads to monopoly, including the growing

1232 Santoso B, Abdullah A, Sjuchro D, W, and Maryani E. (2021). Economic and Political Factors That …

global integration of media ownership. The logical consequence is that the opposition and alternative voices are marginalized in the constellation of the mainstream media. These exilic voices can still be echoed through online news portal safe pages even though they are still being crushed by the online media belonging to the mogul media with the accumulation of capital circulation. When the media is part of a big industry, the structure of the economy is crucial. Media is managed based on economic parameters, where the reference is to achieve a special position in rating and share programs, the accumulation of circulation and consumers / customers through production efficiency and effectiveness. Currently, what is visible is market pressure and advertiser pressure, including capital accumulation which systematically affects the quality of Indonesian press freedom. Finally, media consumers include media workers or journalists who have idealism, marginalized parties who are the most disadvantaged by market regulations that give birth to market-driven journalism, especially for those who do not have the social capital to become a critical audience. The marginalized became a commodity; social forces that have the potential to become stumbling blocks to business are ignored.

The Political Dimension

Daniel Dhakidae's research in 1991 on the political economy of the media industry in Indonesia during the Old Order and New Order revealed how then the structure (state power) influenced press freedom Ishak (2014) in (Hidayat, 2000). According to Daniel, when the power structure strengthens, press freedom weakens. If the power structure is weakened, press freedom will be strengthened. But at present, contrary to Daniel's research results, the state and the press appear to be equally strong. In order to survive in the political and communication system developed by the New Order, media owners and leaders had to show total submission. The domination of government power is so strong and it has made the press do nothing. This imbalance of relation, practically makes press control function very weak. Satrio Arismunandar, a former D&R journalist, noted that during the Soeharto era, the media operated in a circle of dominant ideological structures where press freedom was interpreted according to the interests and desires of the authorities. As a result, the Indonesian press developed a euphemistic reporting style, instead of straightforward language, in telling reality (Hidayat, 2000). The ideal function of the press as a watch dog and guardian of the truth, through the presentation of a variety of different views, became dull, especially when it came to the realities of the development policies of the New Order. Hidayat grounded the economic-political power relations that existed between the New Order and the Indonesian press as follows. First, along with the growing Indonesian economy, the New Order encouraged the commercialization of the press. To keep pace with the economic progress at that time, the press had to be managed in a professional and market-oriented manner. This is basically a political policy (Hidayat, 2000). Even so, government control from an economic aspect, such as the appointment of Bob Hasan's Aspex Papers as the sole supplier of newsprint, has made the press industry not independent. Second, press liberalization is implemented through the granting of licenses to owners of capital who are close to the authorities. But this liberalization, according to Hidayat, is not natural with political barriers to entry. This means that only those who are close to or who are part of power can get this opportunity. Third, licensing foreign advertising companies in the 1970s and the open sky policy which allowed the operation of foreign television (at that time via satellite dish), were efforts to internationalize the media industry. The New Order press lived in a climate where there was a reciprocal relationship between the New Order version of capitalism and the authoritarian political structures created and maintained by Soeharto. This is a contradiction. On the one hand, the economic system is driven through the wheels of capital which leads to economic liberalization. On the other hand, the government is in control through regulation and deregulation to intervene in the market. However, even though Suharto was very dominant, economic-political decision making was not solely based on the motivations and interests of Suharto and his cronies, due to structural conditions that limited this (Hidayat, 2000). The New Order intervention in press freedom was represented through the SIUPP mechanism. Unfortunately, at the same time, cronies and families are given the privilege to enter this business. This pattern of relations is none other than the result of, according to Jackson, the New Order's bureaucratic politiy model of government, in which community participation was not continuously involved but through traditional top-down policy channels and patron-client relationships (Hidayat, 2000). Then what about the current conditions, where the media have 1233 © RIGEO ● Review of International Geographical Education 11(3), SUMMER, 2021 been much bolder in reporting and criticizing the government? What actually happened was a shift in domination from what was previously carried out by the rulers and / or their cronies, to the owners of capital (capitalists) and the media elite. In the past, the media were forced to become the propagandist instrument of the regime. Today, the media moguls "propagate themselves" themselves. Noam Chomsky, in Necessary Illusions, states that based on the economic, political and media systems, there are three models of media organization, namely the corporate oligarchy model, state-control and democratic communication policy (Ibrahim & Akhmad, 2014). In Chomsky's view, the corporate oligarchy model, social control in the form of labor or community is almost non-existent, so democratic participation can be said to be non-existent. Meanwhile, in the state- control model, democratic participation depends on the prevailing political system. In a totalitarian country, for example, the space for the media will be limited, social criticism and therefore democratic participation will not exist. The media are merely the political tools of the dominant elite and guardians of state ideology. Meanwhile, the third model, where the media provides space for democratic participation, has never been practiced anywhere. The ease of establishing a press company after the New Order was indeed a sign of a major change from democratic pragmatism, including the democratization of media content. The abundance of new media expands public access to information. But at the same time it is also inconvenient for the media that previously existed. National newspapers must now also compete with regional newspapers that thrive like mushrooms in the rainy season. Despite the fact that many local newspapers then went out of business due to a lack of capital and poor management. Political transitions and reforms make the dynamics of the mass media in Indonesia anomalous because the model of power relations in press practice is no longer centered on the regime. Creating euphoria that ultimately injures the goals of the press. Relying on the opinion of (Mosco, 2009) that the mass media anomaly is the result of the end of coercive and repressive controls previously exercised by the state. History records that in the New Order era, the media did not have the opportunity to develop cultural values based on the shared values of press freedom. This is because the New Order through its hegemonic apparatus, namely PWI and the Press Council, creates and sanctifies development journalism or Pancasila journalism. In contrast to the principles of journalism, Pancasila will lead to scrutiny. Of the anomalous situation, the most beneficial is of course holding the principles of capitalism. Conglomeration in the form of a media cartel is unavoidable. Finally, the media are co-opted by pragmatic political economy interests and neglect to carry out their social functions. So instead of being watchdogs, the media are showing their political and ideological alliances openly. It can be seen from the map that mass media ownership in Indonesia is only a handful of people. The Kompas Gramedia group, for example, is a large company with a network of press companies throughout Indonesia, with television and radio networks, as well as magazines.

Conclusion

Press institutions are actually faced with two interesting interests, namely economy and idealism. Economic interests place it as a profit-oriented business entity. As an important note in the development of mass distribution of information is that the mass media is no longer a single player because, as Lase and Rio (2014) say, media has transformed into a regime, triggered by the situation of the social system and political transition in Indonesia. which led to policy changes, as well as the impetus for a very rapid technological revolution. The media must rely on a strong economic-political base, and therefore automatically cannot survive with idealism to promote the public interest. When viewed from the assumption that the media is a balancing institution among social forces that exist in a society, then any Indonesian mass media has a great opportunity to maintain its existence. It is here that the press is faced with pragmatic options supported by its ability to multiply and disseminate information widely, quickly, and the availability of opportunities to "engineer awareness". The post-New Order political reform was considered a turning point and the main foundation in ensuring citizens' rights to media based on democratic principles that prioritize the public interest. The amendments to the 1945 Constitution and the Human Rights Law 39/1999 guarantee citizens' rights to information and media. When the SIUPP was abolished, many investors entered the media business, both print and electronic. The media business is capital intensive. It costs a fortune to build a media company and capital reserves to survive a certain period of time. On the other hand, the need for large capital is not an obstacle for capital owners as long as the

1234 Santoso B, Abdullah A, Sjuchro D, W, and Maryani E. (2021). Economic and Political Factors That …

profit and loss ratio is well mapped. As a result, the conglomeration of media control is increasingly massive and integrated. In addition, the ability of the mass media to provide information to the public is a very tempting thing, especially for those with certain political agendas. The mass media can spread their cultural ideas, visions and political ideologies to a wide audience in a short time. This condition then failed to be anticipated by the Reform Order government so that the tendency to monopolize the media business created its own problems.The dominance of political messages is no longer with the government but private media affiliated with or in line with the political vision and mission and ideology of the authorities. Meanwhile, capital is dominant, so information / news tends to be adjusted to the interests of the market and the authorities, not the interests of the public. This is what Hamad (2004) states that the media will positively construct political power if they have the same ideological and political background as the ideology and political vision of the media. Political transitions and reforms make the dynamics of the mass media in Indonesia anomalous because the model of power relations in press practice is no longer centered on the regime. Creating euphoria that ultimately injures the goals of the press. Relying on the opinion of (Mosco (2009)) that the mass media anomaly is the result of the end of coercive and repressive controls previously exercised by the state. History records that in the New Order era, the media did not have the opportunity to develop cultural values based on the shared values of press freedom. This is because the New Order, through its hegemonic apparatus, created and sanctified development journalism or Pancasila journalism, a free and responsible press. Interpreting Pancasila journalism in its own version may lead to scrutiny. Thus, in the era of New Order regime, of the anomalous situation, the most beneficial was of course holding the principles of capitalism. Conglomeration in the form of a media cartel was unavoidable. Finally, the media were co-opted by pragmatic political economy interests and neglect to carry out their social functions. So instead of being watchdogs, the press/media were showing their political and ideological alliances openly. It could be seen from the map that mass media ownership in Indonesia was only a handful of people.

References

Baker, W. E., & Faulkner, R. R. (2004). Social networks and loss of capital. Social Networks, 26(2), 91- 111. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.01.004 Creswell, J. W., Lazuardi, A. L., & Qudsy, S. Z. (2015). Qualitative research & research design: choosing between five approaches / John W. Creswell; transliteration, Ahmad Lintang Blue; editor, Saifuddin Zuhri Qudsy: Yogyakarta : Student Library. Eriyanto. (2012). Discourse Analysis : An Introduction to Media Text Analysis. Yogyakarta: LKIS. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change: Polity. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis (Vol. 241): Univ of California Press. Halim, S. (2013). Post-commodification of Media: Analysis of Television Media with Critical Theory and Cultural Studies. Yogyakarta: Jalasutra. Hamad, I. (2004). Construction of Political Realities in Mass Media: A Critical Discourse Analysis Study on Political News: Jakarta: Granit. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (2010). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media: Random House. Hidayat, D. N. (2000). The press in the "May Revolution": the collapse of a hegemony.: Main Library Gramedia. Holtz-Bacha, C., & Norris, P. (2000). " To Entertain, Inform and Educate": Still the Role of Public Television in the 1990s? : Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Ibrahim, I. S., & Akhmad, B. A. (2014). Communication and Commodification: Assessing Media and Culture in the Dynamics of Globalization. Jakarta: YaysanPustakaObor Indonesia. Ishak, S. (2014). Jurnalisme Modern: Elex Media Komputindo. Lase, F. J., & Rio, A. O. (2014). Economy and Diversification of Mass Media. Journal of Interaction, 3(1), 9. doi: 10.14710/interaksi.3.1.15-23 Martini, R. (2014). ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE PRESS BEFORE AND AFTER POLITICAL REFORM IN INDONESIA. JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE, 13(2), 9. doi: 10.14710/jis.13.2.2014.1-9

McChesney, R. W. (2000). The political economy of communication and the future of the field. Media, Culture & Society, 22(1), 109-116. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F016344300022001006 McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail's mass communication theory: Sage publications. McQuail, D., & Siune, K. (1998). Media policy (H. Tumbler Ed.). Moran, P., Gaffney, P., Melody, J., Condon, M., & Hayden, M. (1990). System availability monitoring. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 39(4), 480-485. doi: 10.1109/24.58725 Mosco, V. (2009). The political economy of communication: A living tradition Power, Media, Culture (pp. 35-57): Palgrave Macmillan, London. Murdock, G., & Golding, P. (1990). Capitalism, Communications and Class Relations, w: J. Curran red. Mass Communication and Society. Rivers, W. L., Peterson, T., & Jensen, J. W. (2015). Mass media and modern society (Third edition ed.). Jakarta: Prenadamedia Group. Saura, L. B. (2010). Economic, Political and Communicative power in the neoliberal societies. Latin Magazine of Social Communication(65), 244 – 254. doi: 10.4185/RLCS-65-2010-897 Stoddart, M. C. (2007). Ideology, hegemony, discourse: A critical review of theories of knowledge and power. Social Thought & Research, 28, 35. Suarez, J., & Sussman, O. (1997). Endogenous cycles in a Stiglitz–Weiss economy. journal of economic theory, 76(1), 47-71. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.1997.2297 Syahputra, I. (2013). Media Regime: Struggle for Democracy, Journalism, and Infotainment in the Television Industry, (First ed.). Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Uta. Van Cuilenburg, J., & McQuail, D. (2003). Media policy paradigm shifts: Towards a new communications policy paradigm. European journal of communication, 18(2), 181-207. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0267323103018002002 Wasko, J. (2004). The political economy of communications. The SAGE handbook of media studies, 309-330.

1236