Media and the vulnerable in Indonesia: Accounts from the margins Report Series Engaging Media, Empowering Society: Assessing Media Policy and Governance in Indonesia through the Lens of Citizens’ Rights Oleh A joint research project of Yanuar Nugroho Leonardus K. Nugraha Shita Laksmi Mirta Amalia Dinita Andriani Putri Supported by Dwitri Amalia Media and the vulnerable in Indonesia: Accounts from the margins. Published in Indonesia in 2013 by Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance Jl. Siaga Raya (Siaga Baru), Komp BAPPENAS No 43. Pejaten Barat, Pasar Minggu , Jakarta Selatan 12130 Indonesia. www.cipg.or.id Cover designed by FOSTROM (www.fostrom.com); all rights reserved. Except where otherwise noted, content on this report is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License Some rights reserved. How to cite this report: (Nugroho, et al., 2012) - Nugroho, Y., Nugraha, LK., Laksmi, S., Amalia, M., Putri, DA., Amalia, D., 2012. Media and the vulnerable in Indonesia: Accounts from the margins. Report Series. Engaging Media, Empowering Society: Assessing media policy and governance in Indonesia through the lens of citizens’ rights. Research collaboration of Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance and HIVOS Regional Office Southeast Asia, funded by Ford Foundation. Jakarta: CIPG and HIVOS. Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance i Media and the vulnerable in Indonesia: Accounts from the margins Acknowledgements The research was funded by the Ford Foundation Indonesia Office and undertaken by the Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance (CIPG), Jakarta and HIVOS Regional Office Southeast Asia Principal Investigator : Dr. Yanuar Nugroho, University of Manchester Co-investigator (CIPG), Coordinator : Mirta Amalia Co-investigator (HIVOS) : Shita Laksmi Researchers (CIPG) : Leonardus Kristianto Nugraha Dinita Andriani Putri Dwitri Amalia Academic Advisors : Dr. B. Herry-Priyono, STF Driyarkara, Jakarta Throughout the research, the team received huge support and assistance from numerous Indonesian civil society contacts and partners, and individuals who participated in our study through the survey, interviews, focus group discussions and workshops. We particularly owe thanks and gratitude to Firdaus Mubarik, Perkumpulan 6211, Karlina Supelli, Sri Agustine, Ardhanary Institute, Kristien Yuliarti (Misionaris Awam Vincentian), Sapto Nugroho (Talenta), Ipung Purwanti, all participants of the CREAME (Critical Research Methodology) training, and the intern at CIPG: Anindyah K. Putri, who has been a big help during the research. Kathryn Morrison proofread and edited this report. Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance iii Media and the vulnerable in Indonesia: Accounts from the margins Executive Summary The purpose of this research is to map the implication of the political economy dynamics of the media on citizens’ right to media from the perspective of citizens, in particular those who are vulnerable and weak(ened). By providing four case studies from vulnerable groups, we aim to map the bigger picture on citizens’ right to media. In order to support a more democratic society, we believe that what is needed today is the protection of citizens who have a limited area of freedom in media, such values which are declared in ‘Article 19’ of the UDHR1. Since the 1998 Reform, the Indonesian media business has grown rapidly and fifteen years later, media oligopoly has occurred as an inevitable consequence of the capital interest that drives the development of media industry in the country. Since the media policymaking processes are in favour of the media businesses, rather than the public interest –and that the implementation of existing media policies is not lawfully enforced— the interest of citizens who already owned a limited area of freedom in media is reduced to its minimal level. The ‘marriage’ of the current media oligopoly and the poor implementation of policies has endangered citizens’ rights to information since the citizens have been left in the confinement of consumers’ seats, merely enjoying what is available in the media channel with nearly no chance to engage and have active discourses. The severity of the condition has hampered the dream of a ‘public sphere’ that supports public engagement in the context of democracy. Our research finds that while the notion of equal access to telecommunication infrastructure has not been met yet, the access to conventional media –printed media and television in particular– is still an issue for citizens in the least developed and border areas. In terms of the vulnerable and minorities, the effect of having limited access to media (both conventional and the Internet) has been multiplied by the poor quality of representation. In this case, mainstream media tend to use single communication rather than an interactive one that allows the citizens to co-create content and to actively engage in discourse. While the government seems to fail in guaranteeing the protection, enforcement, fulfillment and advancement of human rights – as stated in the UU No. 39/1999 – the media are then expected to provide the means to defend the rights of the minorities. Despite stories on how the media are rigorously making such attempts, the general portrayal of minorities and the vulnerable seems to tell the opposite story. In this regard, the poor access to the media has potentially bound the minorities and the weak(ened) in their attempts to strive for their rights: in exercising the freedom of religion, in terms of employment, in gaining education, in receiving proper treatment in health and public service, amongst others. One of our findings indicates the way media portrayed the violent case against Ahmadiyya: instead of constructing a healthy public discourse on Ahmadiyya’s protection, it actually increased the severity of the labelling of the community as a ‘deviant’ one. While the persecution is blatant and should be easy to tackle in terms of law, the Ahmadiyya communities suffer from the poor understanding in the wider society due to the ‘deviant’ labelling amplified by the media. The impacts are fatal. The Ahmadiyya communities are struggling hard to exercise their basic rights in various sectors. In fact, today we 1 The Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Centre for Innovation Policy and Governance v Media and the vulnerable in Indonesia: Accounts from the margins can still find the Ahmadis being prosecuted as criminals instead of being treated as victims of violent conduct. While Ahmadiyya suffers from such labelling, the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBTs) are suffering from controversial stereotyping – especially concerning moral and religious beliefs. Such reproduction of unfavourable images hurts the dignity of LGBT and puts them at risk of insults and defamatory views in the wider society. While there are various factors at play– for example the perception that the LGBT seem afraid to ‘come out’ and the discriminatory regulations such sharia perdas– the vicious circles are continued due to the reluctance of media to give an opportunity for LGBT people to represent themselves properly in the media. The situation has a serious impact on how they exercise their civil, political and social rights. Similarly, the ‘diffable’ (those with ‘different abilities’) often suffer not only from unfair treatment in the media, but also more importantly from poor representation and understanding in the wider society. While the access to media becomes the very topic of diffability – due to their weaknesses, the diffable do not have many options to access various media since each type of diffability needs a specific tool to engage with such media. Media meanwhile continues to cover diffability issues only in the medical sense. Such an approach creates a dichotomy regarding what is considered ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’. In some cases, such distinction creates discriminatory conduct towards the diffables. Indonesian women and children are still being discriminated against on day-to-day basis in many sectors such as education, employment and healthcare. To address this problem, the media are expected to take a more active role in the construction of public discourse on women and children in Indonesia. However, with some parts of media system biased towards a particular interest, the plea is seemingly left unanswered. Instead of speaking up for this group, the media tend to exploit women and children for business purposes by using them merely as commodities to attract common interest and women and children suffer from unhealthy representation in the media, thus marginalising them in terms of their access to media. In terms of the poor media content, the implication for the vulnerable and weak(ened) communities/ groups is huge, since such stereotyping and misleading representation has raised concerns over the idea of citizenship itself. Such representations – which imply ‘uniqueness’ for being different – endangers the exercise of the rights of these groups in daily life, since the majority public tend to see them as ‘abnormal’, ‘ill’, ‘sinful’, or even ‘deviant’. This condition mournfully jeopardises the possibility of ‘shared life’. The promise of a civilised society in which rights are guarded by state – and where each individual is treated