Ismira Lutfia – The marriage of two celebrities, the pregnancy of an unmarried actress and the divorce of two musicians over an alleged affair – should reporting these items be considered journalism and the people who report them journalists?
No, according to House of Representatives Commission I, which oversees communications and information, the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) and the Press Council.
In a joint meeting on Wednesday, they agreed to begin categorizing racy gossip shows – known as infotainment shows – as "non-factual" programs.
Non-factual shows, as established by the KPI, do not follow religious norms, ethical or moral values, social values and the journalistic code of ethics. Therefore, they can't be considered journalism, according to the KPI.
The categorization, which includes dramas, reality shows and game shows, also allows the KPI to censor these programs.
"Under KPI's broadcasting code of conduct and programming standards, non-factual programs are subject to censorship by the Film Censorship Body (LSF)," KPI member Ezky Suyanto said.
"However, we will still have to talk with the LSF about the proper censorship technicalities for infotainment shows."
The Indonesian Television Journalists Association (IJTI) welcomed the decision and said there was a need to deal with shows whose content was of no use to the public, "especially programs which many believe to be journalistic products," IJTI chairman Imam Wahyudi told the Jakarta Globe.
Imam said if these shows wanted to be considered as factual programs or journalism, they must bear in mind that the information they present must be of public service, for example, how to curb pandemic diseases.
But Ilham Bintang, from the Indonesian Journalists Association (PWI), which recognizes infotainment workers as journalists and counts them among its members, stood his organization's ground, saying that infotainment is journalism and citing the 1999 Press Law as his main reference.
"They are journalists as long as they adhere to the code of ethics and the prevailing laws," said Ilham, who is the owner of the "Cek & Ricek" infotainment show and tabloid.
While acknowledging that there were a number of infotainment shows that failed to comply with the code of ethics and the law, he said House Commission I could not simply decide with the KPI and Press Council that infotainment was non-factual, because "as the people's representatives, they have to bring their decision to a plenary meeting."
He dismissed the commission's decision as "illegitimate."
Ilham said he saw the decision as just "feedback," and said that the PWI would support its members, especially those working in the field of infotainment media.
"We will announce their names and endorse them [as journalists] to television stations so that they know we can provide them with a professional guarantee from PWI," Ilham said.
Media analyst Veven Wardhana described the decision to classify infotainment shows as non-factual as "quite odd." He said that the celebrities and the information surrounding their lives presented in the programs were factual.
She added that the new label did nothing to address the real debate over these gossip shows – whether they air too much of celebrities' dirty laundry.
Nahdlatul Ulama, the country's largest Muslim organization, in 2006 issued a fatwa declaring infotainment haram, or forbidden under Islam, and the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI) has also criticized the shows.
Complaints about infotainment shows being useless or harmful, as well as calls to put an end to the shows, are regular entries to the complaints corner on the KPI's Web site.
Imam said that regardless of whether infotainment shows were classified as journalism or non-factual, the programs still had to follow the prevailing rules and norms.
"If they want to be considered a product of journalism, they have to follow the journalistic code of ethics and journalism standards during the process of gathering and presenting information," Imam said.
"But now that they fall under the non-factual category they are not obliged to adhere to the journalistic code of ethics, but they are bound to adhere to other standards, for example the standards ruled by the censorship body," he said.
"They need to shape up no matter what category they are in otherwise they will still be considered as troublesome programs," he added.