Kingsbury Damien (1997) Culture And Politics: Issues In Australian Journalism On Indonesia, 1975-93 Australia-Asia Papers No. 80. Centre for the Study of Australia Asia Relations.Griffith University, Brisbane, Qld. September. ISBN 0 86857 782 O
Review Essay by Martin Hirst
Culture and Politics is a timely reminder of the delicate nature of the Australian news media\u27s relationship with the Indonesian regime and that so-called  cultural sensitivities\u27 are really no more than political expediency (inter alia p.149). Indonesian journalists, as well as those visiting from Australia, are subject to harsh criticism when it suits the Jakarta government. Even worse, local journalists are banned, or have their publications closed down, if they transgress the tough written and unwritten rules of behaviour. As Kingsbury notes, for their sins (real and imagined) several Australian journalists have been expelled from Indonesia over the past 15 years. We\u27re also reminded that in 1975 six Australian reporters were murdered by Indonesian soldiers when they tried to cover the invasion of East Timor

Hirst, M.

English

Research Online

Asia Pacific Media Educator Issue 4 Article 18 1-1998 Book review: Culture And Politics: Issues In Australian Journalism On Indonesia, 1975-1993 M. Hirst University of Western Sydney Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/apme Recommended Citation Hirst, M., Book review: Culture And Politics: Issues In Australian Journalism On Indonesia, 1975-1993, Asia Pacific Media Educator, 4, 1998, 146-150. Available at:https://ro.uow.edu.au/apme/vol1/iss4/18 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: research-pubs@uow.edu.au BOO1\ RI: l JEH S146KINGSBUR~ Damien (1997)Culture And Politics: Issues In AustralianJournalism On Indonesia, 1975(93Australia-Asia Papers No. 80. Centre for the Study ofAustralia Asia Relations.Griffith University, Brisbane, Qld.September. ISBN 0 86857 782 O. pp.161 + xiiReview Essay by MARTIN HIRSTUniversity of Western Sydney - NepeanCulture and Politics is a timely reminder of the delicate natureof the Australian news media's relationship with theIndonesian regime and that so-called "cultural sensitivities' arereally no more than political expediency (inter alia p.149).Indonesian journalists, as well as those visiting from Australia,are subject to harsh criticism when it suits the Jakarta government.Even worse, local journalists are banned, or have their publicationsclosed down, if they transgress the tough written and unwrittenrules of behaviour. As Kingsbury notes, for their sins (real andimagined) several Australian journalists have been expelled fromIndonesia over the past 15 years. We're also reminded that in 1975six Australian reporters were murdered by Indonesian soldierswhen they tried to cover the invasion of East Timor.It's a pity that this study ends in 1993 at a time, Kingsburysuggests, when the Jakarta regime was beginning to soften its lineon the Australian media and when Australian journalists began to"self-censor' their reporting (p. 88). It's a pity because in the firstfew months of 1998 the Australian media has covered Indonesiawidely as the process of political and economic II meltdown" inthe archipelago intensifies.Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, has visitedJakarta to assure the Indonesian leadership of Australia'scontinuing support for the "New Order' and for reform of theeconomy. Through February and March 1998Downer also visitedWashington in a successful attempt to persuade the InternationalMonetary Fund (lMF) to back Soeharto and ease its hard lineagainst the President's family (Woodford 1998: 1, 11). On 7 April1998, Prime Minister Howard announced an immediate grant ofA$461 million ($US300m) to help Jakarta maintain economicstability (McDonald 1998: 8). The same day the Sydney MorningHerald reported that "hard-liners" in the Soeharto governmentwere considering a "shoot on sight" policy against demonstratorsAsial'acific Mediaiiducatot; Issue No.4, Jan-Julie ]998and looters (jenkins 1998:1)Following Soeharto's March 1998 re-election for anotherseven year term and the appointment of the controversialtechnology minister Habibie as his heir-apparent, (now President)deteriorating economic conditions have led to food and "raceriots"; activists have emerged onto Indonesian campuses and themilitary police are just as quickly making them disappear again.Indonesia's geographic proximity to Australia and the magnitudeof the crisis make the story an important one and, based onKingsbury's analysis of the period to 1993,this leads me to a seriesof casual observations about the Australian news media coverageof recent events there.Coincidence #1: Almost 12 years to the day (10April 1986)since the publication of the now infamous"Soeharto billions" storythe Sydney Morning Herald is at it again. This time it's not DavidJenkins, but the headline is very similar: "How to make money, andfriends in Jakarta ", and once again the SMH is documenting thevast wealth and influence of the Soeharto family and the"cronies"who've gathered around its power (Wilkinson & Bui 1998:1).Coincidence #2: On 11 April 1998 the SMH covered therelease of a report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs,Defence and Trade that described the federal government's closureof a RadioAustralia transmitting facility near Darwin as "farcical"and "incomprehensible" (Clark 1998:11).Kingsbury's chapter onRA records its importance to Indonesians starved of reliable localinformation and the annoyance Indonesian language broadcastscaused to the Jakarta government. He also notes that a change ofeditorial policy at RA in 1989 has led to a less critical style ofcoverage in the Indonesia service (p. 83).Coincidence #3: In the six months between publication ofCulture and Politics (September 1997)and the writing of this review(April 1998), news from Indonesia has rarely been off the frontpages of Australia's broadsheet newspapers. The facts of the crisisbrewing to Australia's north cannot have escaped even the mostcasual observers of daily journalism. On one day alone in earlyApril the 5MB (6 Apri11998) devoted 60 column-centimetres onthe front page to Indonesian coverage and continued the storyfor another 135column-centimetres inside, plus photographs overa further 60.The front page of the business section also had a story aboutIndonesian banks closing, a story with very little news value toAustralian readers, except perhaps the /I continuity" (p. 62) of theIndonesia story. The next day the coverage was just as extensive.Coincidence? I don't think so. Recent and ongoing social andeconomic problems in Indonesia have led to an increased"frequency" (p. 62) of coverage in the Australian media. Why isAsial'actfic Medialiducator; Issue No.4, Jan-June 1998BOOK Rl:TJEIL'147BOOK RE\1EUS148this story so often on the front page at the moment? I would suggestit's because of a convergence between Indonesian and Australian"national' interests ( more accurately between the political andeconomic elites in both nations). As Kingsbury notes, Australianinvestment in Indonesia has continued its steady growth, despitesometimes poor political relations (p. 31).Certainly a number of Australian business figures seem tounderstand that Australian and Indonesian national interestsconverge with their own" rights" to make money out of deals donewith members, and close supporters, of Soeharto's family. AsAustralian advertising entrepreneur Michael Nettlefold told theSydney Morning Herald on 6 April 1998: "[He] believes that theSoeharto children get an unfair press [in Australia] and insists thereare cultural differences between Australia and Indonesia thatexplain why the children have the access [to business deals] thatthey do." (Wilkinson & Bui 1998: 8).It is this alleged clash of journalistic cultures that Kingsburydocuments and explains in Culture and Politics. But he also argues,and I agree, that the cultural sensitivity of the Jakarta elite is nomore than convenience, masking an authoritarian political culture( inter alia, p. vii). Kingsbury'S argument centres on the essentialcultural and political differences between Indonesian andAustralian journalism. In the Indonesian context journalism isexpected to playa"developmental" role, supporting the officialPancasila ideology of the nation-state. In Australia the media isostensibly"free" as its cultural and civic values are derived fromthe politics of liberal democracy and the traditions of theEnlightenment (Hartley 1996).However, as Kingsbury notes, since 1993 Australianjournalists have themselves engaged in" self-censorship" in orderto secure a more permanent presence in Jakarta and lessen the riskof upsetting the Indonesian leadership with critical or embarrassingcoverage. My criticism is that this is really only a surface view.The unquestioned assumptions of liberal democracy, in particularthe sanctity of /I market forces", work to mask the actual"developmental" nature of Australian journalism. The ideologicalfactor common to both Indonesian and Australian journalism issupport for the 1/ national interest" .This /I market forces" ideology is clearly expressed inKingsbury's work, but so is the contradiction into which it finallyforces his arguments. In relation to the media and journalism themyth goes as follows -- the working through of market forces(supply and demand) ensures that the media produces what theaudience wants, that is the content of newspapers and bulletinsconforms to what the readerI listenerI viewer expects and wantsfrom a news service.AsiaPacljic MediaEducator, Issue No.4, Jail-Julie 1998In Kingsbury's monograph these ideas are articulated inchapter seven, "Media, Messages andPotoer'", where he writes: "[Themedia] must continue to correspond with audience requirementsand expectations. (They are also influenced by the audiences' pre-existing normative values and those which continue to be informedby non(news media sources of information". (p. 67).However, I would argue that the culture of journalism (inboth Australia and Indonesia) and the news values associated withit are determined by the relations of journalistic production, ratherthan by If giving the audience what it wants". The limited framingof the news around a set of core ideological values (what DanielHallin calls the" sphere of consensus" (Hallin 1994) is very muchin place before news gets to the audience. Kingsbury appears toimplicitly acknowledge this (at least in relation to the electronicmedia) when he writes that television, "further reconstructs in theminds of the audience conceptions of what constitutes theinteresting, the relevant and the important" (p. 73).But in my view the same arguments can be made about theprint media too. The selection, treatment and placement of storiesare all done before the paper or magazine hits the newsagents.The only"choice" open to readers is to read or ignore the articlespresented; one cannot replace a page with other stories to"customise" a newspaper any more than one can"deselect" itemsfrom a radio or television bulletin. It is also the reason why theIndonesian elite can ignore what's in the Australian tabloids. Paperslike the Daily Telegraph in Sydney are pitched at a working classaudience and contain little analysis of the situation in Indonesia,but the broadsheet press speaks to the influential in Australia (those who might pressure the Australian government and businesselites) and are therefore of more interest in Jakarta.After exhaustive research of media coverage in the period1975to 1993,Kingsbury concludes that ifAustralian policy towardsJakarta continues to be one of "appeasement", it will indicate thatas a nation we have abandoned a universalist approach to humanrights in favour of "differing sets of values for Indonesian andAustralian citizens [which] necessarily proceed from a relativistapproach to cultural understanding" (p. 149). He rightly notesthat ipressure remains for Australia and its news media tosignificantly alter their reporting of Indonesiai to accommodatethe linked demands of "national interest" that operate as stronglyin Canberra as they do in Jakarta.The drastic downsizing of Radio Australia is evidenceenough of the Australian government's willingness to continuethis softly-softly approach to Indonesian"cultural sensibilities".It is indeed a pity if Kingsbury's right that Australian journalistsare going along with this by curbing their own tongues.Aslal'actflc Medialiducatot; Issue No.4, Jan-June 1998BOOK REV/Ens149BOOK RL\ IfH S150It is only by continuing to offer sharp criticism, wherenecessary, of both its own and the Indonesian government thatthe Australian media can play an honest and effective role inhelping Australians"to realistically assess the status of [Australia's]bilateral relationship with Indonesia upon which it so clearlyintends to build its Asian future" (p. 150). This is particularlyimportant in the current political climate since Soehartorelinquished the Presidency to Habibie. •REFERENCES:Clark, P (1998). "Ending of overseas broadcasts slammed'. The SydlleyMoming Herald, 11 April, p. 11.Hartley, J. (1996). Popular Reality: [ournalism, Modernity, Popular Cniture.Arnold: London.Hallin, D. C. (1994). We Keep America on Top of the World: Television,lournalism and the Public Sphere. Routledge: London.Jenkins, D. (1998). "Shoot the looters, says Soeharto's hard man'. The SydneyMorning Herald, 7 April, p. 1.McDonald, H. (1998). "Australia to activate $461m emergency loan'. TheSydney Morning Herald, 7 April, p. 8.Wilkinson, M. & Bui, M. (1998). "How to make friends, and money, inJakarta". The Sydney Momiltg Herald, 6 April, p. 1 & 8.Woodford, J. (1998). "Australia's key role in saving Soeharto'. The SydneyMorning Herald, 11 April, p. 1/ 11.Asial'acific MediaEducator, Issue No.4, Jan-June 1998

Book review: Culture And Politics: Issues In Australian Journalism On Indonesia, 1975-1993

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1240&amp;context=apme

Book review: Culture And Politics: Issues In Australian Journalism On Indonesia, 1975-1993

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Online