What the presidential debate says about the current state of journalism

The lack of credibility in today's Indonesian journalists is evident in the KPU's unwillingness to select one to moderate the debates, writes M. Taufiqurrahman

The Jakarta Post
Thursday, June 25, 2009

By M. Taufiqurrahman

Other than the general impression that it was a meaningless exercise in vacuity and verbosity, what stood out from the first presidential debate on June 18 was that journalists failed to do what they're traditionally infamous for -- asking questions.

The sad fact is that General Elections Commission (KPU) has apparently decided that no journalist is capable of moderating the debate -- a position for which the only necessary skill is the ability to ask questions -- and instead it hired a member of the academy to play the role.

This was in stark contrast to, and marked a decline from, the 2004 presidential debates, which were moderated by then TV journalist Ira Koesno.

In its attempt to lend a semblance of credibility, or perhaps solemnity, to the debate, election administrators hoped the authority of the scientific community would rub off on the event: the result was mixed at best.

This spurning of journalists should be cause for concern, as it says a great deal about the state and quality of journalism in the country. We, journalists, are considered incompetent of even delivering carefully prepared questions on stage.

If journalists are deemed not qualified to ask questions, do they have what it takes to be members of the chattering classes who run the business of punditry?

In a more mature democracy, the role of questioning presidential candidates has traditionally belonged to journalists, especially those in the broadcast industry, the platform on which televised presidential debates were first staged in the early 1960s.

In the United States, tune in to any Sunday morning talk show and you can see that the presence of academics is the exception rather than a rule.

For better or for worse, it is journalists alone who discuss the issues in their effort to help shape the public opinion.

When Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) anchor Jim Lehrer took to the podium to moderate the first debate between Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and Republican candidate John McCain last year he was resuming a role he had played eleven times before.

The fact that a veteran television anchorman was given an important role in a rite of passage of the American democratic process indicated not only that the political establishment took journalists seriously but also that journalists take their jobs seriously.

The ample number of awards handed to journalists on an annual basis is enticement enough for them to stay in their jobs and strive for excellence; there is the Pulitzer Prize, the Peabody Awards and countless other tokens of appreciation on offer.

Here, the television industry has been in short supply of recognizable faces audiences can associate with any semblance of consistent, quality reporting.

The revolving-door cast of evening newscasters just read from a teleprompter. When put on the spot they are only capable of muttering trite sound bites, self-righteous tripe or non-sequitur nonsense. Small wonder the elections commission had no interest in hiring one to moderate the debate.

But perhaps the absence of journalists in the presidential debate has something to do with the fact that independence and objectivity are the last things the broadcasting industry will fight for.

Television stations are owned either by politicians or politically connected businesspeople who all have their own allegiances.

In some cases, the newsroom has become the battleground for political forces, which muscle their way onto the airwaves. Some reports alleged that members of the various presidential campaign teams have attempted to influence the editorial policy of broadcasters by ensuring friendly journalists are in charge of the newsroom and that those who fight for independent journalism are cast aside.

For some, journalism is a way station on the path to landing plum political positions. There's nothing wrong in aspiring to a political office.

The American Broadcasting Company's (ABC) George Stephanopolous worked for the Clinton campaign back in the early 1990s and some of regional reporters from Chicago have become members of the Obama administration, but at the least they switched positions transparently, without putting the credibility of their news organization at risk.

So what about print journalism? Is our name big enough to stand as a representative of the industry; are we the ones who can stand behind the podium prodding presidential candidates into talking specifics?

Apparently not; most of the celebrated names in print journalism are holdovers from the past, people who built their reputation during a more hostile environment.

The biggest irony is that the dawning of press freedom has not spawned a new breed of journalist with the credentials and credibility necessary to take a central role even in a part of the democratic process as superficial as moderating a carefully staged presidential debate.

Date Posted: 6/25/2009