The questions are:
- The organizational structure of IEIC. Whether it would be an autonomous project or it would be a project under Bodhicitta.
- The funding source. It is solely from Bodhicitta or multi-sources.
- The economic backup for its workers. Could IEIC provide material support and salary for its reporters and other workers?
- The safety issue of reporters. While it could be very dangerous processing any investigative reports, facing the threat from both government and corporations, what is IEIC's protection plan for reporters?
- The credibility of IEIC reporters. Should TEIA or Bodhicitta release legal documents to IEIC? IEIC's legal status. The questions of the effectiveness of IEIC's reporting ID.
- How IEIC ensures the truth of its information when media agency itself “copy and cut” resources on the internet without reality-checking process.
- The Freedom of Information in Indonesia. The difficulties for reporters to investigate environmental issues, especially getting useful data from government and corporation.
- The fundamental political stand of IEIC.
IEIC are mainly related to two organizations: TEIA and Bodhicitta Mandala. According the TEIA's website (and I translate), TEIA“ aims to cooperate with local citizen organizations to establish an environmental information surveillance system. IEIC would emphasizes its localization, the role as info platform and news service, in order to find a locally practicable mechanism. The operating rights is given back when IEIC is full-blown.” As a correspondent of TEIA, my mission here is to establish connection with environmental NGOs, of which TEIA has a list to send enquiry letter. I am here to recruit IEIC volunteers also.
So obvious that IEIC is not going to be workable without any understanding about Indonesia media's development history, news-production process and local alternative media situation. Aren't this those who is already taking part in the preparing of IEIC facing right now? How an environmental news is produced and then transmitted to the screen of reader's computer? The more we, who are not familiar with Indonesia media context but calling for a “local info-center,” know about this, the more we are going to have our first “possibly right” step.
It still takes me more time to understand this. Nonetheless, as palpable as these problems are, they certainly call me for my reflection upon Taiwanese (alternative) media, and its news-production process.
As a reporter for an alternative media for one and a half year, the clarification of the meaning of media-activist, independent media, and all forms of social-movement-related media always comes into my mind, or occurs as a debate among coworkers and friends. How did I get my news resource? Taking a report concerning local farmers and fishmen against government's levying land for a technology area project for example, a reporter with a press pass is endorsed the rights to go into and audit the environmental impact assessment committee (though according to Freedom of Information Act every citizen has the right to do this), but still many times an alternative media reporter is hindered by police outside EPA building( for their low media literacy they doubt my reporter ID is counterfeit.) Also, the reporter's interviewing right is given by the Constitution, the above is fought by a group of environmental reporters and NGOs during 2007 and 2008. Still, when it comes to committees have a meeting for conclusion, the reporter is not allowed to get inside.
Often with the assistance from activists being there since first time fieldwork,a chance of interviewing a local farmer involved in the levying is no problem. I write a person's story in a struggle. For instance, how a 70-year-old farmer's concern when his or her land is going to be taken over? How they lead a sustainable life here all their live? Often the story is with collected information exposed at what I thought are some appropriate spots.
I really call this an environmental news, uh? It is like that everything is delivered in front of my desk and within a day a 4000-word story pops out. Then I think of the story of SAM, a Burma VJ(video journalist), when he describes in an Skype interview how risky the process is from taking video on streets to smuggling footage through Thai/Burma border. Real military threats they have to endure. And how about going into a rainforest? Spying the logging? Communicating with local villagers? photocopying dirty secret of big corporation? How IEIC, if we are seriously enough to produce valuable rainforest news to our readers, reach these news source? How IEIC is going to support and protect our reporters? What is the situation a reporter would face when he or she is involved into investigating an environmental issues?
This problem is related to verification. Before our reporting crew emerges, our content are mainly depend upon other media agency. At the same time it is a feeling of distrust to media that fills the meeting last time. It is said that often a local reporter, with comparably low salary, “cuts and copys” info on the internet. This also related to disappointment about NGOs in Indonesia, when many of them received huge funding from Europe especially German but actually achieve little and are “incorporated into bigger capitalist mechanism,” when many of NGOs leaders become politicians and entrepreneurs. The real local voices are hidden. This distrust still needs more time and interviewing local activists to clarify the historical backgrounds of Indonesia local NGOs. To what extend alternative media can cooperate with NGOs? Which are the reliable NGOs and which is not?
Financial structure. We also talks about the difference in terms of how funding can support a project. This reminds of how HK's donation to Green Peace can also feed GP, China. International NGOs in Taiwan? Donation to seemly activist groups instead of charity foundation or any religious groups? TEIA always has problems with the donating sources. It is not a secret they undertake governmental projects. Coolloud, the medium for Taiwanese social movement, often faces cutting-short in terms of its finance. Some alternative media apply for governmental subsidy, or under the umbrella of the academic. For more than ten years Pots struggles to survive via selling ads and feeds on school budge, which becomes less and less every year. The rule for editor room is reporters has the right to write whatever she or he wants even if it pissed ad customers. Nevertheless, I have to admit the visible and invisible pressure and restriction simply exists; when you understand how this media is worried about its financial resources, a reporter simply would not reject any proposal from ad department. I am also politely reminded that if “I continue to write social movement issues, it is difficult to sell ads.” But it is like when we think of funding, it simply seems much difficult to do it in this way. multi donating sources is, in short, not reliable. How is the possibility here? I would very much like to know.
For many questions I would like to listen to your opinions, because this seems the very basic process before IEIC has its first step: realizing and understanding the situation. How many alternative media here in Sumetera Ultra? Do we have any chance to make connection with them? What are voices and ideas always forgotten in environmental news in the past...etc. I would leave these questions to you, my friends, and humbly invite you to shoot everything you want, including under what circumstances IEIC is possible?
Sincerely.
Willy Chen. May 4th,2010.
0 意見:
張貼留言