12
Agu
09

Media teror

Sejak terjadi ledakan bom di hotel JW Marriott dan Ritz Carlton Jakarta, 17 Juli 2009, media menjejali kita dengan berbagai berita mengenai teror ini. Hingga akhir pekan 08 Agustus 2009 lalu, beberapa stasiun televisi membombardir kita dengan menyiarkan secara langsung selama hampir 20 jam drama penyergapan safe house mereka yang diduga menjadi penyebar teror di negeri ini.

Melihat hal ini, saya sepakat dan salut akan kecepatan televisi dalam menyajikan informasi. Namun yang menjadi pemikiran saya, apakah hal ini diperlukan? Sebuah langkah strategis yang sedang dilakukan oleh pihak kepolisian, yang seharusnya dirahasiakan demi keberhasilan operasi tersebut, justru dijadikan konsumsi publik dalam bentuk siaran langsung. Apakah benar akan membawa manfaat bagi masyarakat? Atau, jangan-jangan pemberitaan ini hanya sekedar terpicu oleh pemikiran emosional untuk menghadirkan informasi secepat mungkin. Jika demikian, bagaimana dengan akurasi berita yang disajikan? Tidak heran jika KPI dan Polri sampai meminta agar televisi tidak mendramatisir berita yang disajikan.

Banyak hal yang bisa dipetik dari contoh kasus siaran langsung ini untuk kita terapkan di radio, agar jika diperlukan untuk menyiarkan secara langsung sebuah peristiwa besar yang tidak direncanakan sebelumnya, kita bisa menyajikannya dalam kemasan yang lebih tertata dengan isi yang bermanfaat bagi pendengar.

1. Reporter

Begitu mendapatkan informasi, segera lakukan koordinasi dengan reporter yang ada dilapangan. Jelaskan dengan lengkap, apa yang terjadi, dimana lokasinya, apa yang harus ditanyakan dan didapat oleh reporter kita. Jumlah reporter yang diturunkan harus dipertimbangkan dengan radio scene / program’s rundown live report / breaking news yang kita miliki. Jika jarak 1 laporan ke laporan yang lain berdekatan, otomatis kita harus menugaskan lebih banyak reporter. Pertimbangkanlah juga lokasi – lokasi yang perlu diliput serta berapa banyak reporter yang perlu kita tempatkan berdasarkan tingkat kepentingannya.

Jika jumlah reporter kita terbatas, jangan paksakan mereka untuk terlalu sering mengirimkan laporan. Bisa kita perhitungkan waktu yang mereka butuhkan untuk mendapatkan berita di lapangan. Lebih mudah untuk memberikan laporan pandangan mata, karena reporter hanya perlu melihat apa yang terjadi kemudian dilaporkan ke studio. Namun jika kita menuntut reporter untuk mendapatkan sebuah wawancara singkat, perlu diperhitungkan waktu yang diperlukan untuk mendapatkan narasumber yang competent, bisa dan mau diwawancara. Dalam suatu peristiwa genting, akan sulit mendapatkan narasumber yang competent. Bisa saja dipaksakan, namun hasilnya akan apa adanya. Belajar dari live report penyergapan teroris, kita sempat menyaksikan beberapa wawancara dengan tetangga, warga sekitar atau ketua RT yang menurut saya perlu dilakukan briefing lebih lanjut agar siap diwawancara.

Perlu diperhatikan juga daya tahan dan kemampuan berpikir cepat para reporter kita di lapangan. Kita harus mengingat dalam situasi genting mereka dikejar deadline dalam tingkat tekanan yang tinggi. Berilah waktu sejenak untuk mereka agar bisa berpikir jernih dan mengumpulkan data dilapangan. Jika kita tidak memberi waktu kepada reporter di lapangan, mereka akan on air dengan data yang minim dan akhirnya hanya sekedar mengulang-ulang informasi yang sudah disampaikan sebelumnya, sebatas memenuhi tuntutan deadline. Selain itu, jika meliput berjam-jam – bahkan hampir 20 jam dalam liputan penyerbuan sarang teroris – tentunya akan lebih baik jika kita merotasi reporter yang bertugas sehinga ada waktu bagi mereka untuk beristirahat.

2. Penyiar / host di studio

Untuk liputan langsung, sebaiknya hanya menugaskan 1 orang penyiar saja. Hal ini untuk mengurangi pembicaraan yang saling bertabrakan dan saling berebut bicara. Kita sering melihat dua orang penyiar di studio saling bertabrakan saat bicara, memotong informasi yang disampaikan oleh reporter di lapangan hingga berlomba mencecar narasumber dengan berbagai pertanyaan.

Dampingi dan bantulah penyiar dalam memberikan pertanyaan kepada reporter atau narasumber, agar terhindar dari pertanyaan yang mengada – ada atau bahkan menyulitkan reporter dilapangan untuk menjawab. Jangan sampai penyiar terjebak bersikap sebagai seorang penyidik yang sedang melakukan interogasi, atau bahkan menjadi hakim yang memberikan vonis. Hal ini tanpa disadari sering terjadi saat penyiar mencecar narasumber dengan pertanyaan yang memojokkan atau bahkan mengarahkan narasumber dengan pertanyaan-pertanyaan tertentu sehingga didapat jawaban yang sesuai dengan kesimpulan yang dipikirkan oleh si penyiar.

3. Eksekusi berita

Efek samping dari live report penyergapan teroris 08 Agustus 2009 adalah beredarnya berita “Noordin M Top” terbunuh dalam penyergapan di Temanggung. Padahal, dalam jumpa pers 12 Agustus 2009 polisi mengatakan bahwa yang terbunuh adalah Ibrohim. Kenapa hal itu bisa terjadi? Karena MEDIA dalam siaran langsungnya mengatakan demikian. Sesaat setelah Densus 88 melumpuhkan orang yang menjadi target operasi, reporter salah satu televisi mengatakan: “Dapat dipastikan bahwa orang yang di dalam rumah itu adalah Noordin M Top”. Menurutnya informasi ini didapat dari salah satu petugas di lapangan.

Hal ini sangat disayangkan karena reporter berani memastikan sesuatu yang tidak dilihatnya sendiri. Seharusnya, jika tidak menyaksikan sendiri atau belum mendapat keterangan resmi dari yang berwenang, reporter harus menggunakan kata: informasi yang kami terima, issue yang beredar, diduga atau apapun yang menunjukkan belum pastinya sebuah informasi.  Hal lain yang disayangkan, informasi yang belum jelas ini justru diikuti oleh media-media lain. Padahal jika jeli, seharusnya ada media yang bisa melakukan counter terhadap issue / informasi yang beredar tersebut.

Dari peristiwa ini kita bisa belajar, bahwa selain mengumpulkan data, kita juga perlu melakukan VERIFIKASI. Itulah tugas kita sebagai seorang jurnalis, seperti yang ditulis oleh Bill Kovach dalam bukunya Elements of Journalism:

3. Its essence is a discipline of verification

Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information–a transparent approach to evidence–precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment. But the need for professional method is not always fully recognized or refined. While journalism has developed various techniques for determining facts, for instance, it has done less to develop a system for testing the reliability of journalistic interpretation.

Apa yang kita siarkan haruslah fakta yang terjadi dilapangan. Jika faktanya belum ada kepastian dan masih simpang siur, sampaikanlah apa adanya. Janganlah menyimpulkan, membumbui atau bahkan mendramatisir kejadian di lapangan.

4. Data pendukung

Tugas kita di studio adalah melakukan back up dan melengkapi informasi yang didapat oleh reporter yang ada di lapangan. Kita tidak bisa berdiam diri dan hanya menunggu kabar dari lapangan. Dari studio kita bisa menelpon / mendatangkan narasumber, atau mencari sumber informasi lain. Apa yang kita dapat di studio, bisa kita siarkan saat reporter mencari up date berita dilapangan. Dengan demikian kita tidak perlu mengulang-ulang informasi yang itu-itu saja terlalu sering sehingga membuat pendengar bosan. Terus terang, saya secara pribadi merasa bosan saat menonton live report penyergapan teroris karena bunyi rentetan tembakan yang terlalu sering diputar.

Akhir kata, kecepatan penyajian berita akan menjadi sia-sia jika tanpa data yang akurat. Laporkan fakta, bukan persepsi, bukan justifikasi, bukan berita tanpa verifikasi agar radio kita tidak menjadi media teror.

Sebagai pelengkap, saya sertakan ringkasan Principles of Journalism – Bill Kovach. Semoga bermanfaat

Principles of Journalism

In 1997, an organization then administered by PEJ, the Committee of Concerned Journalists, began a national conversation among citizens and news people to identify and clarify the principles that underlie journalism. After four years of research, including 20 public forums around the country, a reading of journalism history, a national survey of journalists, and more, the group released a Statement of Shared Purpose that identified nine principles. These became the basis for The Elements of Journalism, the book by PEJ Director Tom Rosenstiel and CCJ Chairman and PEJ Senior Counselor Bill Kovach. Here are those principles, as outlined in the original Statement of Shared Purpose.

A Statement of Purpose

After extended examination by journalists themselves of the character of journalism at the end of the twentieth century, we offer this common understanding of what defines our work. The central purpose of journalism is to provide citizens with accurate and reliable information they need to function in a free society.

This encompasses myriad roles–helping define community, creating common language and common knowledge, identifying a community’s goals, heros and villains, and pushing people beyond complacency. This purpose also involves other requirements, such as being entertaining, serving as watchdog and offering voice to the voiceless.

Over time journalists have developed nine core principles to meet the task. They comprise what might be described as the theory of journalism:

1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth

Democracy depends on citizens having reliable, accurate facts put in a meaningful context. Journalism does not pursue truth in an absolute or philosophical sense, but it can–and must–pursue it in a practical sense. This “journalistic truth” is a process that begins with the professional discipline of assembling and verifying facts. Then journalists try to convey a fair and reliable account of their meaning, valid for now, subject to further investigation. Journalists should be as transparent as possible about sources and methods so audiences can make their own assessment of the information. Even in a world of expanding voices, accuracy is the foundation upon which everything else is built–context, interpretation, comment, criticism, analysis and debate. The truth, over time, emerges from this forum. As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need–not less–for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying that information and putting it in context.

2. Its first loyalty is to citizens

While news organizations answer to many constituencies, including advertisers and shareholders, the journalists in those organizations must maintain allegiance to citizens and the larger public interest above any other if they are to provide the news without fear or favor. This commitment to citizens first is the basis of a news organization’s credibility, the implied covenant that tells the audience the coverage is not slanted for friends or advertisers. Commitment to citizens also means journalism should present a representative picture of all constituent groups in society. Ignoring certain citizens has the effect of disenfranchising them. The theory underlying the modern news industry has been the belief that credibility builds a broad and loyal audience, and that economic success follows in turn. In that regard, the business people in a news organization also must nurture–not exploit–their allegiance to the audience ahead of other considerations.

3. Its essence is a discipline of verification

Journalists rely on a professional discipline for verifying information. When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias. It called, rather, for a consistent method of testing information–a transparent approach to evidence–precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. The method is objective, not the journalist. Seeking out multiple witnesses, disclosing as much as possible about sources, or asking various sides for comment, all signal such standards. This discipline of verification is what separates journalism from other modes of communication, such as propaganda, fiction or entertainment. But the need for professional method is not always fully recognized or refined. While journalism has developed various techniques for determining facts, for instance, it has done less to develop a system for testing the reliability of journalistic interpretation.

4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover

Independence is an underlying requirement of journalism, a cornerstone of its reliability. Independence of spirit and mind, rather than neutrality, is the principle journalists must keep in focus. While editorialists and commentators are not neutral, the source of their credibility is still their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform–not their devotion to a certain group or outcome. In our independence, however, we must avoid any tendency to stray into arrogance, elitism, isolation or nihilism.

5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power

Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and position most affect citizens. The Founders recognized this to be a rampart against despotism when they ensured an independent press; courts have affirmed it; citizens rely on it. As journalists, we have an obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivolous use or exploiting it for commercial gain.

6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise

The news media are the common carriers of public discussion, and this responsibility forms a basis for our special privileges. This discussion serves society best when it is informed by facts rather than prejudice and supposition. It also should strive to fairly represent the varied viewpoints and interests in society, and to place them in context rather than highlight only the conflicting fringes of debate. Accuracy and truthfulness require that as framers of the public discussion we not neglect the points of common ground where problem solving occurs.

7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant

Journalism is storytelling with a purpose. It should do more than gather an audience or catalogue the important. For its own survival, it must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need. In short, it must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant. The effectiveness of a piece of journalism is measured both by how much a work engages its audience and enlightens it. This means journalists must continually ask what information has most value to citizens and in what form. While journalism should reach beyond such topics as government and public safety, a journalism overwhelmed by trivia and false significance ultimately engenders a trivial society.

8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional

Keeping news in proportion and not leaving important things out are also cornerstones of truthfulness. Journalism is a form of cartography: it creates a map for citizens to navigate society. Inflating events for sensation, neglecting others, stereotyping or being disproportionately negative all make a less reliable map. The map also should include news of all our communities, not just those with attractive demographics. This is best achieved by newsrooms with a diversity of backgrounds and perspectives. The map is only an analogy; proportion and comprehensiveness are subjective, yet their elusiveness does not lessen their significance.

9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience

Every journalist must have a personal sense of ethics and responsibility–a moral compass. Each of us must be willing, if fairness and accuracy require, to voice differences with our colleagues, whether in the newsroom or the executive suite. News organizations do well to nurture this independence by encouraging individuals to speak their minds. This stimulates the intellectual diversity necessary to understand and accurately cover an increasingly diverse society. It is this diversity of minds and voices, not just numbers, that matters.

Iklan

1 Response to “Media teror”


  1. Agustus 13, 2009 pukul 6:15 pm

    halo, saya Agus Suhanto, tulisan yg oke 🙂 … lam kenal yaa


Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s


B r o a d c a s t o l o g y

JANGAN ASAL COPY - PASTE



Berbagai karya di blog, boleh-boleh saja dikutip atau dimanfaatkan untuk berbagai keperluan lainnya. Biasakan untuk meminta ijin kepada pemiliknya, atau paling tidak menyebutkan sumbernya: RadioClinic dot com. Terimakasih.

The copyright of the articles in this blog is owned by Alex Santosa. Permission to republish in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Creative Commons License
Hak cipta blog ini dilindungi oleh Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

B e z o e k e r s


tracker

S t a t

  • 555,546 hits

R a d i o p i n i

A r c h i v e s


%d blogger menyukai ini: