CAPÍTULO IV: RESULTADOS
4.1. Variable 1 Procesos de gestión
4.1.9. Gestión de vinculación social estudiantes
Scandal overview
Aryantigate refers to an alleged affair between Abdurrahman Wahid and a married woman, named Aryanti, between 1995 and 1997. Information on the alleged affair emerged during the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) Annual Session, 7-18 August 2000. At that time Aryanti and her ex-husband Yannur, visited several
221 Whereas Republika published 63 cover page articles on the Bulog Yanatera scandal in the period
from the scandal’s disclosure to the day following the issuance of the First Memorandum (2 February 2001), Kompas and Media Indonesia only printed 47 and 50 respectively on the issue.
legislators and ministers with a dossier entitled ‘Testimony about the behaviour of KH Abdurrahman Wahid’222 and a photo depicting Aryanti sitting on Wahid’s
lap.223 Soon the photo circulated among DPR and MPR members, and became
known to the media.
While the media waited for each other to publish on this case, rumours of the affair continued to spread. When NU executives learned about the affair and that Panji Masyarakat was planning to publish the photograph in its forthcoming edition (Gatra, 28 August 2000) they issued a circular telling their followers not to be provoked by this. The circular was distributed to all NU branches in East Java and also to the media which were expected to disseminate its content. The government- owned Antara news agency and the NU-owned newspaper Duta Masyarakat
immediately published the information in an attempt to avoid unrest among NU members (Detikcom, 8 September 2000a; Gatra, 28 August 2000; The Jakarta Post, 30 August 2000).
The news item reported by Antara on 23 August 2000 under the headline ‘Gus Dur was rumoured to be photographed with a woman who is not a close relative’,224 prompted no immediate media interest among major newspapers and
222 ‘Kesaksian tentang Perilaku KH Abdurrahman Wahid’.
223 Among them were MPR speaker Amien Rais (PAN), DPR-speaker Akbar Tanjung (Golkar),
Ginandjar Kartasasmita (Golkar), Soetipto (PDI-P), Sukron Makmun (PKB), and Hamzah Haz (PPP). At that time some former ministers and MPR member received a dossier containing a written confession by Aryanti that she had sexual intercourse with Wahid and that he had reneged on his promise to marry her, as well as a photograph showing Abdurrahman Wahid with Aryanti on his lap. The dossier was distributed by Aryanti’s ex-husband Yannur who, with Aryanti’s consent, made the affair public.
was only picked up by some online media.225 The scandal only broke when the news
weekly magazine Gatra made it the cover story of its 28 August 2000 edition. Soon afterwards the story hit the headlines of numerous print and electronic media.
According to Eriyanto (2002: 203) there were two different views that developed around the Aryanti case. Some construed it as pointing out the depravity of the Wahid government: a government that is not only incompetent in running the economy and the political system, but was also suffering from moral decay. Others claimed that Wahid’s political opponents were resorting to a personal problem (masalah pribadi) regarding Aryanti to unseat Wahid after some other scandals failed to achieve this. However, some established media like Tempo, Media Indonesia
and Kompas did not report the issue at all.226 This raises the question why certain
news organizations stressed or downplayed the alleged affair.
Besides the limited media interest in the issue, legislators did not call for a probe into the affair since they regarded the alleged affair as a personal matter which happened before Wahid became president and thus had no bearing on his duties as president and Head of State. Several usually outspoken legislators and critics of Wahid, also did not use the alleged affair to attack the president (The
225 Those are Detik.com, 25 August 2000; Berpolitik.com, 25 August 2000; and Panji.co.id, 26 August
2000 (Hartoyo, 2 April 2001).
226 August Parengkuan, former deputy chief editor of Kompas, and current communication director of
the Kompas-Gramedia group explained that it was Kompas editorial policy not to publish any news on the affair since the issue was very personal, concerning someone’s privacy and was not current (Hartoyo, 2 April 2001). Media Indonesia did not cover the story but mentioned it twice in the context of listing the problems and controversies surrounding Wahid (9 September 2000; 24 September 2000). Reportedly, Surya Paloh had already – before Gatra and Panji Masyarakat reported on the alleged affair – warned Media Indonesia’s editorial office not to publish on it since he didn’t want Media Indonesia to publish controversial news. For Imam Anshori Saleh, executive editor of Media Indonesia, the news did not concern the public interest but was a private matter between Wahid and Aryanti, happened a long time ago, and appeared to be revived suspiciously for a political motive (Hartoyo, 2 April 2001).
Jakarta Post, 7 September 2000; Detikworld, 29 August 2000). NU and PKB officials as well as Wahid’s supporters described reports of the alleged affair as slanderous accusations fabricated by certain groups, namely people from the New Order regime, to topple the president (The Jakarta Post, 3 September 2000a; Antara, 30 August 2000; The Jakarta Post, 29 August 2000b). Wahid himself, as well as the public (Reuters, 5 October 2000), widely ignored the allegations of an affair (The Jakarta Post, 30 August, 2000). His only comment was “For something like that, why bother? Who on earth is that woman?” 227 (Adil, 31 August 2000).
Thus the supply of news beyond the scandal’s initial disclosure was limited. Such news reports as did appear were mostly sourced from an investigation launched by the police regarding libel against the president that focused on Aryanti and the two magazines, Gatra and Panji Masyarakat, that had initially reported the alleged affair.228 Discussion in the media generally focused on journalistic ethics and
on the motives of those publications which covered the scandal enthusiastically.229
Furthermore, the circumstances and the timing of Aryantigate’s disclosure had an impact upon some media organisations’ decision as to whether to report the news or not. Considering that the relationship between Wahid and Aryanti purportedly occurred in 1995, Aryanti’s confession at the time of 2000 MPR Annual Session, in the midst of the tense political rivalry, raised suspicions that there was a
227 ‘Gitu aja kok diurusin. Siapa sih wanita itu?’.
228 It should be noted the police acted on its own initiative in undertaking an investigation. A police
investigation of parties spreading slander against President Wahid was supported by the PKB but not by the president himself who insisted that he would ignore rumours about his personal life and allow people to make their own judgment.
229 See, for example, Qodari 2001; Eriyanto 2002; The Jakarta Post, 31 August 2000; Antara, 30 August
2000; The Jakarta Post, 29 August 2000b; The Jakarta Post, 30 August 2000; The Jakarta Post, 3 September 2000b; The Jakarta Post, 2 September 2000.
political motive behind the scandal’s disclosure. Further decisive factors were whether the story was true or not (i.e. determining Yannur’s and Aryanti’s credibility as well as the photo’s authenticity), ethical considerations (whether it’s a personal or public matter), and what would be the consequences for a media organization publishing an alleged affair of the president (i.e. physical violence as in the Banser attack on the Jawa Pos or libel charges). After all, Aryanti’s allegations involved the president and even though press freedom was guaranteed through the 1999 Press Law, defamation of the president remained a criminal offence. Under articles 134, 136, and 137 of the Criminal Code anyone who “disseminates, demonstrates openly or puts up a writing or portrait containing an insult against the president or vice president" could be imprisoned for up to six years (Human Rights Watch 2003).230
The following paragraphs offer an indication of the actual motives that prompted the weeklies Gatra, Panj Masyarakat, and Forum Keadilan to make the alleged affair a cover story, and Tempo to ignore it.231 This is done by first, focusing
on how the scandal was covered, if at all, and second by explaining why it was covered in a particular way or, in the case of Tempo, why it was not published.
Gatra (28 August 20000), Panji Masyarakat (6 September 2000), and Forum Keadialan (10 September 2000) gave the story the same priority by featuring it on the front cover illustrated by a close up of Aryanti. However, there were differences in the way in which each magazine presented the information (for example, through the choice of photograph of Aryanti it displayed on its cover and the main cover
230 These articles, also known as the ‘lèse majesté’ articles, were annulled in 2006 (SEAPA 2006). 231 See Appendix D for a listing of all the articles analysed.
line), in the amount of space, the number of articles devoted to the scandal, and the selection of sources. 232
Since the Aryantigate scandal also developed into a controversy among journalists, the editors of the four magazines mentioned above shared their opinions and arguments pertaining to coverage of the issue publicly. This, as well as a particular media’s ownership, provides evidence to account for dissimilar interests and positions among news organizations. Gatra is owned by Suharto crony Bob Hasan who had been put under house arrest by the attorney general just a few days before Gatra broke Aryantigate. By virtue of its ownership Panji Masjarakat is close to Wahid’s opponents poros tengah and Golkar. Forum Keadilan is a law and justice magazine considered to be close to former President Habibie and Golkar. Tempo was not affiliated with any political group. However, Presidential Protocol bureau chief Wahyu Muryadi was former managing editor of Tempo. The following paragraphs discuss and explain the positions of the four magazines.
3.2.1 Gatra
Gatra’s (28 August 20000) main cover headline ‘Uproar about an intimate photo of Gus Dur and Aryanti’233 is impartial and value-free. Basically, it only announces the
existence of such a photo. Gatra’s report filled six pages and consisted of three articles. Gatra’s main report’s title ‘A tune of conspiracy behind Aryanti’s
232
See Appendix E for a photo of the cover pages.
whistleblowing‘234, was selected carefully. It is written in a very polite style that does
not contain accusatory terms, like ‘affair’ or ‘infidelity’. According to Qodari (2001: 90-1) this article implies the affair should be ignored, by delegitimizing Aryanti’s position. This is done in two ways: First, by printing the comments of sources that questioned or rejected the photo’s authenticity. Second, by writing about some theories and evidence about the possibility of a conspiracy to topple Wahid during the Annual MPR session. For example, that Aryanti was said to have received some Rp 100 million from an unidentified party for exposing her alleged close relationship with Wahid. Yet in another article ‘Honour a confession’235Gatra gives a
strong impression that the affair between Wahid and Aryanti was true and not a product of imagination. This is done through an interview with Aryanti and an investigation and cross check of the people and locations she mentioned (Qodari 2001: 90-1, 96). In so doing Gatra covered both sides. However, there is a third article that consists of an interview with a member of NU’s executive board. The interviewee does not believe the affair occurred and is of the opinion that conspiracy to topple Wahid lies behind the revelations of an affair (Gatra, 28 August 2000). This interview clearly supports Wahid. Another study, conducted by the Media Watch Society,236 assesses Gatra as tending to take the side of President
Wahid by publishing more interviews and comments from NU figures. Overall, the headlines and reports in Gatra gave the impression that the whole issue was merely
234 ‘Nada Konspirasi di Balik Nyanyian Aryanti’. 235 ‘Honor sebuah pengakuan’.
236 a non-governmental organization whose members consist of lecturers and students from the
a political stunt and that Aryanti was said to have been paid compensation for disclosing the scandal (The Jakarta Post, 10 October 2000).
Explaining Gatra’s coverage
Gatra was established in 1994 by some Tempo staff after Tempo had been banned. However, Gatra’s credibility suffered because it was owned by Suharto crony Bob Hasan, a wealthy businessman who was appointed Minister of Trade and Industry by Suharto in 1998. With numerous corruption allegations surrounding him, Bob Hasan had been put under house arrest by the attorney general just a few days before Gatra broke Aryantigate (Forum Keadilan, 10 September 2000). This raised suspicions that Gatra broke the affair as a kind of counter attack in response to the attorney general’s ruling to put its owner Bob Hasan under house arrest. However,
Gatra’s chief editor Widi Yarmanto denied that the publication of the news about the Aryanti affair had anything to do with investigations into allegation of corruption against Bob Hasan, explaining that Hasan never interfered in the magazine’s editorial policy (Detikcom, 8 September 2000b).
Kingsbury (2005: 128) noted that although Gatra “was formerly owned by Suharto crony Bob Hasan, [it] was funded in the post-Suharto period by Jusuf Feisal, who was deputy chair of Abdurrahman Wahid’s PKB.” This might explain why, even though Gatra was the first print media to make a cover story out of the alleged affair and thus contributed to disseminating the scandal, the magazine did not target the president like, for example, Panji Masyarakat, did (Detikcom, 8 September 2000b).
Gatra’s decision to make a cover story out of the issue was preceded by a lively discussion among editors. Ultimately, Gatra justified its decision by arguing that although the alleged affair was a private matter and happened a long time ago, the public had nevertheless the right to know since it concerned the moral character of a public official who serves as a role model. However, in order to avoid the impression that Gatra was reporting the news to attack Wahid, whether as an individual or in his capacity as president (Hartoyo, 2 April 2001), and of being utilized by warring political groups (Detikcom, 8 September 2000b), Gatra’s chief editor Widi Yarmanto decided that prior to the publication the following considerations had to be met. First, both sides needed to be covered; second, in order to make the story timely or newsworthy the right news peg should be awaited (Hartoyo, 2 April 2001). This explains why– even though it had already collected comprehensive material as well as interviewed Yannur and Aryanti twice by 17 August 2000 – Gatra postponed the publication for another week while awaiting confirmation from the palace and the right news peg. Eventually, it was Antara’s
report on the circular that ultimately triggered Gatra’s publication of its material on the alleged affair as cover story (Hartoyo, 2 April 2001; Detikcom, 8 September 2000b). This, as well as mentioning in its report that Panji Masyarakat had initially planned to publish on the affair and to even print the photo of Wahid and Aryanti in its previous issue, gave the story more credibility and allowed Gatra (28 August 2000) to protect itself by indicating that if Gatra had not broken the scandal, Panji Masyarakat would have.
Gatra profited from publishing on Aryantigate first. To meet the heavy market demand, Gatra reprinted its edition with the Wahid-Aryanti cover story
(Quodari 2001: 89). This explains the two different publication dates (28 August and 2 September 2000) of Gatra’s edition on the alleged affair. Gatra’s circulation soared from about 50,000 to 65,000 copies. Furthermore, this Gatra edition was sold for Rp 15,000, rather than the original price of Rp 8,800 (Hartoyo, 2 April 2001). Gatra was able to make such profit because it was the first print media to run this affair as its cover story.
While Wahid supporters described Gatra’s report as character assassination some media figures praised its journalistic quality. For example, praise came from Andreas Harsono (1 June 2001), and Antara news agency general manager M. Sobary who commented: "This time the Gatra report is very honorable, very ethical. You must read the report in that context, not in another sense” (The Jakarta Post, 30 August 2000).
3.2.2 Panji Masyarakat
Panji Masyarakat’s (6 September 2000) main cover line, ‘Aryanti Boru Sitepu: Gus Dur lied to me’237, was provocative and clearly sympathizes with Aryanti. Panji Masyarakat covered the story with six articles over 12 pages. Panji Masyarakat’s main report, ‘From an intimate photo to political gossip’238, stretched over four pages. It
follows a five page interview with Aryanti under the headline ‘Gus Dur said, later we will repent’239 and a separate interview with Aryanti’s ex-husband Yannur titled
237 ‘Aryanti Boru Sitepu: Gus Dur bohongi saya’. 238 ‘Dari Foto Imtim ke Gosip Politik’.
‘He said he is already married’240. Panji Masyarakat also interviewed Wahid’s
younger brother, Salahuddin Wahid, and provided an international comparison with a story on sexual affairs of several other heads of state. However, Panji’s report tended to show partiality towards Aryanti, by giving more space to sources that support her version of the story (Quodari 2001: 91) and only building on Aryanti's confession (The Jakarta Post, 10 October 2000). For example, the magazine consulted a multi-media specialist who confirmed the photo’s authenticity, and it printed Aryanti’s denial of having received money for her confession. Furthermore, Eriyanto (2002) found that Panji Masyarakat framed the scandal as a moral issue by focusing on Wahid’s morality at the personal level and in terms of his position as president. Aryanti is viewed as the victim of Wahid’s broken promise and as the victim of intimidatory terror by Wahid supporters after the case’s disclosure. Consequently, the report stresses that there was no political motive on Aryanti’s behalf. Instead, Aryanti’s decision to publicly reveal details of the scandal involving someone as important as the president was not because she wanted to be famous or to make money, but was based on noble motivations.
Explaining Panji Masyarakat coverage
After Gatra, Panji Masyarakat was the second magazine to publish on the affair. Panji Masyarakat started as an Islamic magazine in 1959, but following a change of ownership in 1997, became a general news magazine.241Panji Masyarakat was one of
240 ‘Dia bilang sudah nikah’.
241Panji Masyarakat was founded by Muslim scholar and former chairman of the Indonesian Ulema’s
Council (MUI) Abdul Malik Karim Amrullah (Hamka). It first appeared in 1959 and remained under the Hamka’s family control until it stopped publication in March 1996. Following a one year hiatus, the
the most anti-Wahid magazines (Coppel, 12 November 2000) and had been particularly negative towards the president during 2000 (Asmarani, 12 November 2000). Panji Masyarakat’s ownership was close to Wahid’s political opponents: poros tengah and Golkar (Hartoyo, 2 April 2001). More specifically, Panji Masyarakat was associated with the Islamic political alliance of poros tengah, being co-owned by Golkar executive member Fahmi Idris and PAN legislator Fuad Bawazier who happened to have been a Minister of Finance under President Suharto. He was also mentioned as one of the most important civilian donors financing Laskar Jihad,242
one of the major Islamic militia groups responsible for the escalation of the