If there is a positive journalism, there is something negative?

Let’s immediately focus on the question that is the title of the article this time.

If you feel you have an opinion, it’s okay not to continue reading. Maybe it would be more interesting if we just discuss it. Can be via email or we make an agreement Coffee.

But if you still have time to read, alright. Perhaps what I write can be an additional perspective.

Coinciding the day of the National Awakening May 20 yesterday, which became the peak of the #13ersamagnfi birthday series, GNFI held a “rather serious” discussion about the media. The title: Read the direction of positive and constructive journalism.

We discussed exciting with four “top” media leaders. Arif Zulkifli (CEO of Tempo Inti Media as well as a member of the Press Council), Uni Lubis (Editor in Chief of IDN Times who is also the Chairperson of the Indonesian Women’s Journalist Forum), Anthoni Wongsono (Deputy Chairperson of the Indonesian Siber Media Association who is also the Deputy CEO of the CEO of one media Holdings), and Akhmad Munir (Director of LKBN LKBN Religations).

Although this positive journalism is fine at a glance, but I have long felt irregularities.

It’s nothing, if one thing is labeled “positive”, it will definitely need a “negative” version on the other side, right?

Well, is journalism too? Then what is positive and what is negative? Of course the business will not be simple.

“Regarding the definition of positive journalism, it is still very sufficient. To my knowledge, there is a concept of constructive journalism, but I have never found a concept (scientific) about positive journalism,” Uni Lubis made our discussion warmer.

GNFI itself several times used as an example in articles, discussions, and research on positive journalism in Indonesia.

Tirto, for example, once lowered a report entitled “Good News Is Good News: Reading Trends of Positive Journalism”. Some other online media also clearly wrote “positive journalism” as a background of the spirit as well as the mission carried, for example TimesIndonesia and BeritaBaik.

Within a few years of his journey, GNFI is also an attraction for academics to make it a research material.

If you GooglingThere are still a few studies that can still be seen, including: the application of positive journalism in reporting on the media good news from Indonesia, the editorial policy of the news site Good News from Indonesia, the sustainability Good news from Indonesia As an alternative journalism.

It turns out that positive journalism is not only done by alternative media. News of one media holdings even issued a pocket book entitled: Positive journalism, work guidelines for one holdings news journalist.

“This book must be read by every news journalist One, especially those who just joined. In essence, in our opinion positive journalism is a good journalism and comply with ethics and journalistic rules.” explained Anthoni Wongsono.

In the book written: Positive journalism emerged as a reaction to negative journalism, namely journalism that presents news about events and opinions from the negative side. With the belief that ‘Bad news is good news’Adherents of negative journalism sees various problems from the negative side alone and present them negatively. Often, the presentation of news ignoring journalistic rules.

Meanwhile Akhmad Munir stated, positive journalism in response to the emergence of content that led to eg-information that was mostly found on social media.

“This is what we need to fight. The task of the media broadcasts news that has an element of educational, mobilizing, empowering, and inspiring the community,” he continued.

Bad news = Negative journalism?

From a number of references and discussions that mention the term positive journalism, if summarized this term turns out to refer to the two main conditions, namely:

• Where journalism uses a positive point of view in the news
• Media alignments to present good news or I’m well Instead of focusing on bad news or Bad news

So, the positive or negative definition turned out not to the “journalism”, but in its journalistic products, namely “news” which focuses on good news (positive) or bad news (negative).

Subjectively, I became relieved. Because in my opinion, journalism should never be bad.

The intention and activity of journalism or territory are always the same: gather news, find facts, and report events.

To carry out these activities, journalism imposes a series of mechanisms to ensure basic values ​​and quality can be accounted for. This is the point, a matter of responsibility.

Journalistic activities are always responsible. To him is attached to the code of ethics.

Now anyone can produce, edit, while spreading information or content. The internet makes it easier. While the media organization where journalism takes place is always there doorman which makes information must go through a check and re -check process before publication or broadcast.

In other words, journalism will not be careless and always ensure that the information it produces has at least examined.

In 2001 phenomenal books were published among those who study or work in the field of journalism. The title is “Nine Elements of Journalism”, written by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel. For those who have never read, you can glide to a comprehensive review written by Andreas Harsono here.

Let’s mention the first three elements of the book. From there we will feel more strange if there are journalism that is bad or negative.

The first three elements are: 1. The first obligation of journalism is to the truth; 2. Loyalty of journalism is in society; 3. The essence of journalism is the discipline of verification.

This is what every journalist is held to maintain its credibility.

So, from here we can see the essence of journalism is to convey the truth that is verified for the benefit of citizens or the community.

Labeling words positive in journalism because of good news and negative Because the news of bad events, in my opinion can lead to misunderstanding Horrified Delicious.

So even though he did criticism of something, just call the performance of the government, corrupt behavior, crime events, he should not be said to be doing negative journalism activities, let alone intending evil.

Because at that time was carried out with strict journalism standards, the purpose of the report was that the interested parties felt monitored, so that in the end it would work better for the benefit of the community.

“At the beginning of Pandemi Covid 19, the media conducted a lot of critical reporting on the handling of Pandemics by the government. Because of the news, the government worked more extra and better. Now we hear a lot, the handling of pandemics carried out by Indonesia is seen as one of the best in the world,” Arif Zulkifli gave an example.

From here alone we can judge, whatever is reported in journalism, actually the goal is always good (positive).

Ethical issues

But however, the perpetrators of journalism are ordinary people too.

Many journalists have to work under the pressure of the condition of the media organization who are struggling to be able to survive and still exist. This can be a gap for the occurrence of violations of discipline and ethics.

Various “justification”.

One thing that is often a dilemma is the demand for speed versus accuracy. This happens when technology and social media make it easier for anyone to get and disseminate information. So that the media feels not to be left behind either by other media or citizens. The trick, must be aired as soon as possible.

Package with speed, in the scramble era click This is the next demand to get attention. Then this is where unethical ways are done. Most often for example with Click the bait which prioritizes sensation.

So, often verification is something that does not have time or does not want to be done. Information can take here and there, add techniques to make a bombastic title, slip the SEO in it, be a content that is ready to attract the attention of many people.

“Every year the Press Council handles around 700 – 800 complaints related to ethics,” added Arif Zulkifli.

Perhaps if you have to mention the term “negative journalism”, which is like this negative journalism.

But again, not his negative journalism. But rather a violation of journalistic ethics. Deviations from the basic elements of journalism. So that to be easy, labeled it with negative journalism.

It turns out that even though it looks good, making the term positive journalism has a bad consequence, which must be a definition for negative journalism. In fact, journalism has never been made for negative purposes.

Then if in reality there is a negative one in the field How?

Proposal, it’s good we call it not journalism.

Wahyu Aji