Armando Siahaan – Under normal circumstances, the media serves as an institution that covers political stories. In Indonesia, where abnormal is the new normal, a number of media giants may soon turn their outlets into actual political vehicles.
Just look at the current constellation of media owners and their political affiliations, or how certain politicians are encroaching on the media.
Golkar Party chairman Aburizal Bakrie is the de facto owner of Viva Group, an umbrella organization that includes antv, tvOne news channel and Vivanews, an online news portal.
Surya Paloh, the big boss of the new National Democratic Party, owns Media Indonesia daily newspaper and Metro TV.
And most recently, Hary Tanoesoedibjo, the king of the MNC media dynasty, officially joined Paloh in catapulting the nascent NasDems into prominence for the 2014 elections.
That's a potential politicization of RCTI, MNC TV, Global TV, Seputar Indonesia daily newspaper and Trijaya radio.
More than half of the country's 10 major TV stations, the so-called terrestrial networks, are owned by big guns of different political parties.
Meanwhile, the chairman of the National Mandate Party (PAN) Hatta Rajasa has also made his media presence apparent, as he has been placing subtle advertorials disguised as real articles using himself as the sole source, on the homepage of the country's top online news portal, Detik.com.
It certainly makes me wonder whether Hatta's access to Detik.com suggests that the silver-haired politician has the backing of Chairul Tandjung, the Para Group boss who recently acquired the portal. That group also owns Trans TV.
From a political perspective, the marriage of media and politics makes sense. Controlling the media means owning a colossal instrument that can shape public opinion in a party's favor.
Think politics and media, think ads. When a company sells a product, they need to introduce it to the public through advertising, which is distributed via the media. Indonesians love Indomie because every single day they see the instant noodle's ads on television, in the newspaper and online.
The same goes for politics. A political party's goal is to "sell" their brand so the public will consume it and then take it to the ballot box on election day.
The media gives the affiliated politicians wide reach and constant exposure. From a political perspective, owning media is a prudent move. But this is not the case when things are seen from the media's perspective.
"The Elements of Journalism," a book that is considered a Bible of the discipline, says that "journalism's first loyalty is to citizens" and that "journalists must maintain an independence from those they cover."
But when the media is influenced, if not owned, by certain politicians, then the institution's credibility is pretty much destroyed, along with the public's right to unbiased information.
When politically affiliated media owners win an election, for example, their media's editorial policy will be inclined to praise the government, regardless of performance. If they lose, they will be disproportionately critical, even if the government is doing a good job.
Once the public becomes aware that the media is no longer serving its interests, then there will be a massive erosion of trust in the media as an institution.
There needs to be a collective agreement among the country's stakeholders to check this worrying trend. If corporations are going to mobilize the media to back personal political agendas, at least they should rebrand their networks and newspapers with the name of a political party.