Journalism and political affiliation of the media: Influence of ownership on Indonesian newspapers

Abstract

Using the Model of Hierarchy of Influences on Media Content as its conceptual framework, this study examines the impact of political ownership of newspapers on journalists’ practice of professional values in day-to-day news-reporting activities in Indonesia. Through a survey of newspaper journalists in Jakarta, this study aims to find out whether journalists perceive political ownership as a potential threat to their practice of professional values. The findings show that political ownership of newspapers may not directly affect the practice of professional values but it can affect such a practice indirectly through interventional practices in the newsroom.

Keywords

Journalistic values media ownership news reporting press freedom

Introduction

Mass media are part of our everyday life and incessantly inform, educate and entertain their viewers and readers (Dennis and DeFleur, 2010). Despite their unarguable public role, mass media are often privately owned. As ownership structures cannot be detached from mass media (Ellis, 2014), potential repercussions, such as power abuse by the owners and under-representation of views contradictory to the owners, may happen (Doyle, 2002).

As Shoemaker and Reese (1996) attested in proposing their Model of Hierarchy of Influences on Media Content, media ownership is located at the organisational level and may affect the news-making process. Conflict of interest, routinely structured intervention and self-censorship are a few consequences that media owners might intentionally or unintentionally prompt in the newsroom (Reese, 2011; Stetka, 2012).

Mass media are frequently utilised for political purposes as they are believed to have important influence on politics (Graber and Dunaway, 2015). As previous studies on the influence of media ownership in different parts of the world suggest (Hobbs and McKnight, 2014; Ragnedda, 2014; Wagner and Collins, 2014), political affiliations of media owners do affect the political leaning of the media. Hanretty (2014) and Stetka (2012) observed that owners’ influence played a significant role in deterring editorial independence – a universally accepted professional value in journalism (Deuze, 2011; Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2014).

Past studies about the impact of political affiliation of the media were mainly conducted in the Western context where the influence of political affiliation of the media owners on editorial decisions tends to be subtle and openly challenged by journalists. It is not very clear how political affiliation of the media affects journalism practices in non-Western countries with different political systems and traditions, especially those experiencing major transition from an authoritarian to democratic society.

It is against such a backdrop that this study attempts to examine the relationships between political affiliation of the media and the practice of professional journalism in Indonesia, whose media landscape experienced a major shift from a regime-controlled press to a press relatively free from government intervention after the fall of Suharto in 1998.

Background about the Indonesian press

Indonesia is one of the less studied countries in communication research, even though it has one of the most vibrant media systems in Asia (Hanitzsch and Hidayat, 2012). As the world’s third biggest democracy (Kwok, 2014), Indonesia has a rapidly changing media landscape and is one of three countries in the Southeast Asia rated as ‘partly free’ by Freedom House (2014).

Press freedom in Indonesia only came with the collapse of New Order regime in 1998. Before that, the authoritarian government of Suharto maintained 30 years of full press control, which featured stringent publishing licensing, blacklisting of critical journalists and banning of critical newspapers (Sen and Hill, 2000). The presence of democratic ideology (Sharp, 2013), as well as growing diversification of the media after the downfall of the Suharto regime (Hill, 2008), marked the advent of press freedom. At the same time, corporate control increases alongside a decrease in government control of the press.

The collapse of the New Order resulted in the abolishment of the licensing practice (Sen and Hill, 2000). One year after the Suharto regime fell, the number of newspapers multiplied from approximately 300s to more than 1000 (Hanitzsch and Hidayat, 2012). However, the press liberalisation did not automatically grant full freedom to journalists because the control previously exerted by the government could be shifted to media owners.

The concentration of media ownership is becoming more salient (Piliang, 2002; Sen and Hill, 2000). Twelve large media groups control five of the six largest newspapers, the four biggest online news portals, a large number of major radio networks, all of the 10 national commercial television networks and a significant portion of major local television stations (Lim, 2011).

Indonesia’s general election in 2014 was one of the peak moments of the battle between the political affiliation of the media and independent journalism. Leaked internal memo mobilising employees for a massive political rally, circulated e-mail allegedly sent by the owner protesting a news story about his political rival and dismissal of a TV producer because of her criticism concerning excessive coverage of owner’s newly established political party were only a few examples (Dhyatmika, 2014).

While presidential candidate endorsement is a common practice in the United States, political partisanship in Indonesian newspapers is rather surreptitious albeit highly perceptible. Majority of the Indonesian newspapers never openly state their political stance, yet most readers understand where they stand. Only the leading English-language newspaper The Jakarta Post for the first time in its history endorsed a presidential candidate (‘Editorial: Endorsing Jokowi’, 2014), although the owners were not documented as having political affiliation.

Since the control previously held by the authoritarian government had shifted to the media owners, the presence of politicians, political sympathisers and public office holders as media owners raises questions about the influences they might exert inside and subsequently outside the newsroom. As an understudied subject with intriguing historical background, an examination of the impact of political media ownership will not only shed light on the Indonesian media scene but also contribute to our knowledge about the intrinsic relationship between journalism and politics.

Literature review and hypotheses

Although it is highly debatable if journalism is a profession (Schudson and Anderson, 2009), the duty to provide objective news coverage is irrefutable since maintaining objectivity is the only way to stay relevant in the information marketplace (McNair, 2005). Objectivity may not be achievable when journalists have to simultaneously cope with commercial and political pressures as a consequence of corporate ownership (Conboy, 2013). It is suggested that professionalisation of journalists might help to protect them against these pressures (Hallin, 1996).

The notion of professionalism in journalism practices can be observed at different levels of influence with different focuses. At the individual level, professionalism can be viewed as upholding the ideal values of journalists; while at the media routine level, professionalism is related to journalists’ everyday practices and capacity of meeting the deadlines and completing the tasks (Reese, 2011). At the organisational level, it is argued that professionalism is often negotiated with the organisation’s interests (Reese, 2011).

The discussion of the professionalisation of journalist tends to focus on five ideal-typical values that constitute professionalism in journalism: (1) public service, (2) objectivity, (3) autonomy, (4) immediacy and (5) ethics (Deuze, 2011). Although these values are not exclusively attributed to journalism as a profession (Deuze, 2011), a comparative study of journalism culture in 18 countries (Hanitzsch et al., 2011) reveals that ‘detachment, non-involvement, providing political information and monitoring the government’ (p. 273) are considered fundamental across the nations. Impartiality in reporting has been one of those universally accepted professional values and empirically demonstrated in journalism practice around the globe. However, journalism never reached a similar degree of autonomy as other classic professions such as doctors and lawyers (Hallin and Mancini, 2004).

Among professional values, some are more and other less prone to the influence of media owners. For example, public service as a value, which is described as ‘a powerful component of journalism’s ideology’ (Deuze, 2011: 20), is likely to conflict with the interests of media owners. Since public service implies that journalism is to serve public interests (Deuze, 2011), any other vested interests, including owners’, may interfere with the practice of this value. Similarly, truth telling, which was named by Kovach and Rosenstiel (2014) as the main responsibility of journalism, is, indeed, highly susceptible to owners’ intervention when their interests are threatened. Other professional values highly sensitive to influences from media owners include impartiality, objectivity, independence and credibility. On the other hand, professional values related to the technical aspect of news writing and news editing, such as timeliness, accuracy, clarity, and brevity, are less likely to be affected.

Both journalists and media owners can act as gatekeepers in affecting how news is presented as explained by the Model of Hierarchy of Influences on Media Content proposed by Shoemaker and Reese (1996). The model is structured at five levels of influence that shape media content, namely individual, media routine, organisational, extra media and ideological levels, with each successive level subsuming the previous. Reese (2011) suggested that the model might not provide comprehensive theoretical explanation, but may help in identifying the connection between the practices of professionalism and unveil crucial concepts at each level of influence.

Similar models have been developed by other scholars to describe various influences on the news-making process (Ettema et al., 1987; Preston, 2009; Voakes, 1997; Whitney et al., 2004). The layers in these models range from three to seven. Although there is no consensus on the importance of various layers of influence (Hanitzsch and Mellado, 2011), all the models invariably include the individual and organisational levels.

The existing literature tends to perceive news organisations as having substantial influence on news production (Cook, 1996; Gans, 2003; Weaver and Löffelholz, 2008), but the extent of their impact compared with that of other sources of influence is not clear (Hanitzsch and Mellado, 2011). While the commercial interests of media are likely to exert pressures on journalists, what is of greater concern to impartiality and objectivity in news reporting is the political interest of media owners.

In Italy, the power of political ownership of the media was demonstrated through the ‘Berlusconi’ effect, which refers to media mogul Silvio Berlusconi’s success in exploiting his media network to run for the Prime Minister’s office (Baker, 2007). In studying media ownership in Central and Eastern Europe, Stetka (2012) highlighted exploitation practices by media owners, which often hindered editorial independence. Even when media tycoons did not intend to interfere with the editorial policies, the fact that the media is owned by a powerful figure with business and political interests might deter journalists from critical writing (Stetka, 2012).

The influence of political affiliation of the news media in the newsroom is usually natural and subtle. At media routine level, journalists are usually unable to recognise the influence of political affiliation because it is routinely structured (Reese, 2011). Triangular relationship between sources as the suppliers, media organisations as the producers, and audience as the consumers forms the core of media routine. Perceived news values, fact checking and objectivity, audience appeal and narrative structure, framing, proximity and scope, audience feedback, gatekeepers, organisational values and news sources are some of the possible channels of influence (Shoemaker and Reese, 2014).

Influence at the organisational level is frequently exercised through existing media structures, level of autonomy, explicit policy guidelines (Shoemaker and Reese, 1996, 2014) and self-censorship (Reese, 2011; Relly and Gonzales de Bustamante, 2014). The latter is considered more effective than direct censorship because it is surreptitiously executed and unknown to outsiders (Reese, 2011).

There is abundance of research designed under the framework of hierarchy of influences on media content using both quantitative (e.g. Reed and Hansen, 2013; Zhang and Fleming, 2005) and qualitative (e.g. Relly and Gonzales de Bustamante, 2014) approaches. A study conducted by Lee and Chan (2008) in Hong Kong explicated the relationship between professionalism, political orientation and perceived self-censorship. They posited that journalists’ perceptions of self-censorship are ‘grounded partly in their own personal attitudes, and partly in the distance between their own political attitudes and the editorial stances of the news organisations they work for’ (p. 2).

Observable intervention practices (Dhyatmika, 2014; Ida, 2011; Ningtyas, 2014) in Indonesian news organisations led to the question on how political affiliation of the media may influence the practice of professional values of journalism (Tapsell, 2012a). Although no existing literature has shown a significant relationship between media ownership and perceived autonomy in Indonesia, some evidences on political figures exploiting their media network have been noted (Hanitzsch and Hidayat, 2012). Media ownership bias is noticeable in Indonesian media landscape (Dhyatmika, 2014; Haryanto, 2011), and it is conceivable that political affiliation of the media affects newsroom activities in some ways (Tapsell, 2010, 2012b)

Tapsell (2010) predicted a significant influence of newspaper owners on journalists’ autonomy in Indonesia. Newspaper acquisitions by prominent politicians and businessmen along with the move of media people to politics indicate increasingly stronger tie between media and politics. The acquisition of Surabaya Post by a politician cum businessman Aburizal Bakrie resulted in the decline of journalistic autonomy when covering mudflow disaster caused by one of Bakrie’s companies (Tapsell, 2012b). In a qualitative study, Haryanto (2011) told a similar story about owners’ influence in the newsroom. More recently leaked information on owners’ direct influence in the newsroom (Dhyatmika, 2014) indicated vested interests resulting from owners’ political affiliation. Therefore, we hypothesised,

H1. Political affiliation of the media increases intervention practices in the newsroom.

The professionalisation of journalism implied by the high degree of professional autonomy among journalists in Indonesia (Hanitzsch and Hidayat, 2012) obliges Indonesian journalists to practice universally accepted professional values. However, since media ownership is one of the potential sources of influence in the newsroom (Shoemaker and Reese, 1996), political affiliation of the media has a potential to restrain or deter the practice of professional values of journalism. As proposed by Hanretty (2014) and Stetka (2012), the influence of media owner might hinder editorial independence – a universally accepted professional value in journalism (Deuze, 2011; Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2014). Therefore, we hypothesised,

H2. Political affiliation of the media increases perceived difficulties in practising professional values.

A qualitative study by Tapsell (2012a) suggested that politically affiliated owners prompt the practice of self-censorship and inclination to partiality. Since self-censorship is likely to be the result of possible intervention practices in the newsroom (Reese, 2011; Relly and Gonzales de Bustamante, 2014) and impartiality is one of the universally accepted professional values of journalism (Deuze, 2011), intervention practices are likely to affect journalists’ perceived difficulties in practising professional values. Moreover, interventions with political motivations undermine press freedom (Dhyatmika, 2014) and negatively affect journalistic autonomy and public service orientation – two criteria in judging professionalism in journalism (Hallin and Mancini, 2004). In line with this, the following hypothesis was drawn:

H3. Intervention practices in the newsroom increase perceived difficulties in practising professional values.

The existing literature shows that self-efficacy has a powerful impact in exerting efforts and persistence to overcome potential conflicts (Lunenburg, 2011), including the journalism context. Introduced to reflect people’s beliefs in executing certain tasks to attain their goals (Bandura, 1997), self-efficacy plays a significant role in overcoming potential conflict that may arise in accomplishing professional duties. Consequently, self-efficacy of journalists may boost their confidence in practising professional values and reduce their perception of difficulties in practising professional values in the newsroom. Thus, it was hypothesised,

H4. Journalists’ self-efficacy reduces perceived difficulties in practising professional values.

Based on the above hypotheses, we draw our conceptual model in describing the relationship between political affiliation of the news media and journalists’ perception of the difficulties in practising their professional values as shown in Figure 1. While we assume that political affiliation may directly lead to perceived difficulties in practising professional values, we believe that real intervention practices in the newsroom may serve as a mediating variable, affecting the relationship between political affiliation of the media and the difficulties perceived by journalists in practising professional values.

Figure 1.

Diagram of proposed hypotheses.

Methods

To examine the relationships stated in the hypotheses, this study surveyed journalists of six major newspapers in Jakarta. The selection of the newspapers was based on three criteria: (1) daily publication, (2) nation-wide distribution and (3) circulation of at least 200,000 newspapers. The selection of the newspapers also took into consideration the varying degrees of the political affiliation of their owners. Newspapers of high political affiliation include newspapers fully or partially owned by a political leader, official or a prominent member of a political party. Moderate affiliation is indicated by owners’ partisanship, including those who are overt sympathiser of a particular political party, public office holder or those who openly state their political view in line with a political party. Newspapers with minimum political affiliation are those whose owners or major shareholders have no affiliation with a current political party, a public office or government agencies. Because political affiliation of the media is the focus of this study, personal affiliation of the journalists working for these media was not taken into account in this study – and, thus, was not asked in the survey. One pertinent question asked in the survey is whether journalists considered the political affiliation of the newspaper they are working for before joining it.

After the selection of targeted newspapers, we invited 40 reporters and editors from each newspaper through the editorial secretaries of the six newspapers, who distributed the questionnaires to reporters and editors of various desks and job levels. Most of the respondents completed the hardcopy survey questionnaire, but an online version of the questionnaire was also used by some respondents who did not come to office due to their mobility of work. Data collection took place from 1 October to 30 December 2014. Out of the 240 questionnaires distributed, 225 were completed, reaching a response rate of 87.5 per cent.

In line with the proposed hypotheses, six major variables were measured through the questionnaire in addition to the demographic variables, including the political affiliation of the newspaper, perceived political affiliation of the newspaper, intervention practices, journalists’ belief of professional values, journalists’ perceived difficulties in practising professional values and journalists’ perceived self-efficacy. The questionnaire was written in English, but since the respondents’ first language is Indonesian, it was then translated to Indonesian. To ensure equivalence, translation/back-translation method (Wrench et al., 2013) was employed. The original and the back-translated versions were compared and only minor differences (less than 5%) were found. Adjustments were made to the Indonesian version of the questionnaire to make it more consistent with the English version.

Professional values

The respondents were presented with a list of 10 values related to journalism frequently mentioned in the literature about the professionalisation of journalists (Deuze, 2011; Hallin and Mancini, 2004; Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2014), including public service, impartiality, objectivity, independence, credibility, truth telling, timeliness, accuracy, clarity and brevity. They were first asked to rate the importance of these values to them as journalists and then to indicate how difficult it is to practice these values in their daily work on a 10-point scale. The reliability of these scales is indicated by Cronbach’s alpha of .790 and .968.

Intervention practices in the newsroom

Respondents were asked about the occurrence of intervention practices in the newsroom on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ to ‘always’. The intervention practices includes self-censorship of sensitive stories (Reese, 2011; Relly and Gonzales de Bustamante, 2014), instructions from management on news reporting, instructions from the superiors on news reporting, cancellation of news story by management and following guidelines set by the management (Shoemaker and Reese, 1996, 2014). Cronbach’s alpha for this composite measure is .790.

Perceived self-efficacy

Self-efficacy as perceived by journalists was measured with 11 items adapted from what were used in previous studies (Martin, 2010; Maslach and Jackson, 1986; Schwarzer and Jerusalem, 1995) in line with advices from Bong (2006) and Bandura (2006). These items essentially measured conviction of the respondents to (1) serve a vision and offer positive contribution, (2) execute tasks and (3) manage potential conflicts that may arise. A 10-point scale was used to measure respondents’ agreement or disagreement with these items. The items used to measure self-efficacy have a strong internal consistency as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha of .934.

Findings

Majority of the respondents in this study are male (69.3%), in their late 30s, and has been working as a journalist for about 10 years. They are well educated, with 83.1 per cent of them holding a bachelor’s degree, 14.2 per cent a master’s degree and 2.7 per cent a diploma. Respondents are generally aware of the political affiliation of their newspaper. Most of them (73.8%) could accurately identify the political affiliation of their newspaper, but 20 per cent of them underestimated the political affiliation of their newspaper, and a small minority (6.2%) overestimated the political affiliation of their newspaper. Majority of the respondents agreed (30.7%) or strongly agreed (25.3%) with the statement that they considered media ownership before joining the newspaper they are currently working for. However, those working for newspapers with high or moderate political affiliation mostly chose the ‘neutral’ option (56.4% and 40.8%, respectively). Majority of the respondents agreed (38.2%) or strongly agreed (27.1%) that the ownership of the newspaper they are currently working for does not affect how they perform their journalistic tasks. Interestingly, these figures slightly dropped to 33.3 per cent and 21.8 per cent, respectively, when they were asked whether their newspaper affects how their colleagues work as journalists.

The frequency of news story cancellation due to management intervention is relatively low compared to other intervention practices. More than half of the respondents (52.4%) stated that they had never encountered this practice, while 0.4 per cent chose always, 1.3 per cent frequently, 16.4 per cent sometimes and 29.3 per cent rarely experienced it. Even though cancellation of news stories happens much less frequently than other forms of intervention, it deserves our attention as it is a more serious form of intervention and nearly half of the respondents have experienced it in varying degrees.

Receiving instruction from superiors (M = 2.69, SD = 1.077) is slightly more prevalent than directions from the management (M = 2.52, SD = 1.142). The prevalence of self-censorship is relatively low (M = 2.24, SD = .885), even though a substantial number of respondents (38.2%) reported that they sometimes did it. Majority of the respondents admitted that they always (24%), frequently (20.9%) or sometimes (29.3%) follow clear guidelines set by the management in news reporting.

A series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests show that there is a significant difference among respondents working in newspapers with different political affiliations in rating ownership influences in the newsroom. The main effect of political affiliation of the media is significant in all five practices (p < .001). Table 1 presents the complete results from ANOVA tests.

Table 1.

ANOVA test of the impact of political affiliation of the media on various intervention practices.

Intervention practices	df	F	Significance
I have to cancel a news story because it is too sensitive.	2, 222	21.481	<.001
I receive specific instructions from the board of management on how to report certain stories.	2, 222	20.642	<.001
My superior gives me specific direction on how to report certain stories.	2, 222	9.704	<.001
My news story is cancelled after intervention by the board of management.	2, 222	32.877	<.001
I follow clear guidelines given by the board of management.	2, 222	7.876	<.001

N = 225.

Multiple comparisons in post hoc analyses, however, show that significant differences in terms of ownership influence in the newsroom are only found between those working in media with political affiliation and those working in media without political affiliation. No significant differences were found between those working for media with a moderate degree of political affiliation and those working for media with a high degree of political affiliation. In other words, what matters is the presence or absence of political affiliation rather than the degree of political affiliation.

Before testing the hypotheses, factor analysis using maximum likelihood (ML) method was conducted to analyze the perceived difficulties in practising the 10 professional values. The results show two factors, even though the distinction of these two factors is not perfect. The first factor consists of public service, impartiality, objectivity, independence, credibility and truth telling. These values are more likely to be in conflict with political interventions. The second factor includes timeliness, accuracy, clarity and brevity, which are less likely to be affected by political interventions. Please see Table 2 for details.

Table 2.

Rotated factor matrix for perceived difficulties in practising professional values.

Professional value	Factor 1	Factor 2
Public service	.589	.552
Impartiality	.618	.296
Objectivity	.785	.476
Independence	.767	.395
Credibility	.794	.528
Truth telling	.771	.567
Timeliness	.387	.796
Accuracy	.517	.834
Clarity	.510	.832
Brevity	.457	.785

Note: Factor loadings over .58 appear in bold.

In testing the hypotheses, we chose the first group of professional values that are prone to political influences to measure the overall difficulty in practising professional values. The difficulties perceived by respondents in practising these values were combined to make the composite measure of difficulty in practising professional values, with an alpha score of .946.

The hypotheses were tested using hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Since extraneous variables may confound the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, some variables were controlled for. In the regression analysis, the first block included demographic variables of sex, age and education, while the second block consisted of journalistic training, experience in journalism and job level. The independent variable would always be placed on the third block in the regression analysis. However, since age and experience in journalism are highly correlated, r = .916, and their inclusion would cause co-linearity, age was removed from the first block, leaving only sex and education level in the first block.

In testing the first hypothesis about the relationship between political affiliation of the newspaper and intervention practices in the newsroom, sex and education were entered as the first step, the initial model was statistically significant, F (2, 222) = 3.863, p = .022, but only explained 3.4 per cent of the variance in intervention practices. Journalistic training, experience in journalism and job level were entered in the second step, resulting in a 3 per cent increase in the total variance explained in intervention practices. The model was statistically significant as well, F (5, 219) = 3.000, p = .012, R² = .064. After entering political affiliation of the media as the third step, the total variance explained by the model significantly increased to 21.3 per cent and remained statistically significant with a better p-value, F (6, 218) = 9.849, p < .001. Please see Table 3 for details.

Table 3.

Political affiliation of the media predicting intervention practices.

	R	R ²	R² Change	B	SE	β
Step 1	.183	.034
Sex				−1.569	.565	−.184
Education				.101	.660	.010
Step 2	.253	.064*	.030
Sex				−1.567	.564	−.184**
Education				−.016	.672	−.002
Journalistic training				.900	.458	.129
Experience in journalism				.004	.043	.007
Job level				.471	.285	.122
Step 3	.462	.213***	.149***
Sex				−1.592	.519	−.187**
Education				.015	.617	.002
Journalistic training				.578	.424	.083
Experience in journalism				.044	.040	.074
Job level				−.060	.275	−.016
Political affiliation of the media				2.139	.333	.408***

Statistical significance: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

The same procedure for adding variables in the regression analysis applied to testing the remaining hypotheses. Our second regression analysis to test the relationship between political affiliation and the difficulties in practising professional values as perceived by journalists was not successful. None of the variables entered in the three steps turned out to be significant (see details in Table 4). As a result, we have to reject H2 that political affiliation of the media increases perceived difficulties in practising professional values.

Table 4.

Affiliation of the media predicting difficulties in practising professional values.

	R	R ²	R² Change	B	SE	β
Step 1	.062	.004
Sex				−1.992	2.310	−.058
Education				1.068	2.700	.027
Step 2	.145	.021	.017
Sex				−1.975	2.326	−.057
Education				.795	2.768	.020
Journalistic training				2.646	1.889	.094
Experience in journalism				.064	.177	.027
Job level				1.263	1.175	.081
Step 3	.145	.021	.000
Sex				−1.977	2.331	−.058
Education				.798	2.775	.020
Journalistic training				2.610	1.907	.093
Experience in journalism				.069	.179	.029
Job level				1.205	1.235	.077
Political affiliation of the media				.234	1.496	.011

Statistical significance: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

The third hypothesis that intervention practices in the newsroom increase perceived difficulties in practising professional values is supported. While demographic and journalism background variables do not make much difference on perceived difficulties in practising professional values, journalists who experience more intervention practices in the newsroom tend to perceive more difficulties in practising their professional values. After intervention practices were introduced in the final step, the model became statistically significant, F (6, 218) = 2.238, p = .041, with 5.8 per cent of total variance explained in the difficulty in practising professional values. Please refer to Table 5 for details.

Table 5.

Intervention practices predicting difficulties in practising professional values.

	R	R ²	R² Change	B	SE	β
Step 1	.062	.004
Sex				−1.992	2.310	−.058
Education				1.068	2.700	.027
Step 2	.145	.021	.017
Sex				−1.975	2.326	−.057
Education				.795	2.768	.020
Journalistic training				2.646	1.889	.094
Experience in journalism				.064	.177	.027
Job level				1.263	1.175	.081
Step 3	.241	.058**	.037**
Sex				−.717	2.327	−.021
Education				.808	2.722	.020
Journalistic training				1.923	1.874	.069
Experience in journalism				.061	.174	.026
Job level				.885	1.162	.057
Intervention practices				.802	.274	.199**

Statistical significance: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

The last hypothesis about the relationship between journalists’ self-efficacy and perceived difficulty in practising professional values was also supported. The regression analysis showed that journalists’ self-efficacy was the only variable that turned out to be significant in predicting the degree of perceived difficulty in practising professional values in the newsroom. Journalists who feel greater self-efficacy are less likely to find it difficult to practise professional values in the newsroom. The result of regression analysis is presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Journalists’ self-efficacy predicting difficulties in practising professional values.

	R	R ²	R² Change	B	SE	β
Step 1	.062	.004
Sex				−1.992	2.310	−.058
Education				1.068	2.700	.027
Step 2	.145	.021	.017
Sex				−1.975	2.326	−.057
Education				.795	2.768	.020
Journalistic training				2.646	1.889	.094
Experience in journalism				.064	.177	.027
Job level				1.263	1.175	.081
Step 3	.213	.045	.024*
Sex				−1.560	2.309	−.045
Education				.836	2.740	.021
Journalistic training				2.537	1.871	.091
Experience in journalism				.141	.178	.059
Job level				1.364	1.163	.088
Journalist self-efficacy				−.194	.082	−.160*

Statistical significance: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion and conclusion

Media ownership has always been considered a potential threat to the press in performing its public function. This is particularly the case in Indonesia, where corporate control increased as government control decreased after the collapse of the New Order in 1998. As political news plays an important role in facilitating democracy, the political inclination of media owners naturally becomes a major concern.

Our findings show that political ownership of a newspaper may not directly affect the operations in the newsroom. The varying degrees of political affiliation do not correlate with the degrees of difficulty journalists experience in their day-to-day news production. In other words, newspapers owned by political figures or political party members do not necessarily affect how journalists operate in news production more than those without or with less political affiliation.

Although there is no direct link between the political affiliation of newspapers and the difficulty journalists experience in the news operations, we should not quickly dismiss the influence of political ownership of newspapers for the following reasons. First, political affiliation of newspapers correlates with the intervention practices in the newsroom. Journalists working for newspapers with stronger political ties in the form of ownership are more likely to experience interventions in the newsroom than those working for newspapers with less or no political ties. Those working in a newspaper with higher political affiliation reported higher prevalence of intervention in all five practices measured. Second, such interventions tend to make journalists feel that it is more difficult to practise professional values that are likely to be in conflict with political interference.

Our study lends empirical support to claims made through qualitative studies by other scholars (Hanitzsch and Hidayat, 2012; Tapsell, 2010, 2012a, 2012b) who argued that political affiliation has increased intervention practices in the newsroom. It has also provided evidence for concerns raised by Reese (2011), who argued that professionalism of journalists can be negatively affected by influences in the newsroom, one of which is from media ownership. As shown by our findings, intervention practices in the newsroom do make it difficult for journalists to practise certain professional values.

Compared to the more established democracies, Indonesia is yet to develop a press system that suits its development of a democratic and civic society. The abolishment of the authoritarian rule and its corresponding press control does not automatically make the country a democratic society with institutionalised apparatus. The press, which plays an essential role in building a democratic society, is particularly vulnerable to new controls through commercial means. While commercial interests of media owners may not directly contradict the public utility of the media as channels for information flow and civic debates, political interests of media owners can pose a direct threat to the public utility of the media. This is especially the case when the professionalism of journalists is yet to be fully established.

As our findings show that political ownership may indirectly affect the exercise of professionalism in the newsroom, it is interesting to know how journalists try to avoid or resolve the conflicts between professional values and interventions in the newsroom. Although our study does not allow us to have a full picture of journalists’ involvement in and resolution of such conflicts in the newsroom, our findings may offer some food for thought. First, more than half of our respondents agree (30.3%) or strongly agree (25.3%) that they did consider media ownership before joining the newspaper they are working in. At the same time, those working for newspapers with no or less political affiliation are more likely to consider the issue of ownership before joining a newspaper than those working for newspapers with greater political affiliation. In other words, those who are more sensitive to political interventions in the newsroom are more likely to avoid newspapers with strong political affiliation so as to avoid such conflicts. On the other hand, those who work for newspapers with strong political ties tend to be those who are less concerned about potential conflicts between the political inclination of their newspaper owners and their practice of professional values as journalists.

As our measurement of difficulty of practising professional values in the newsroom is based on journalists’ perception, it should be noted that self-efficacy seems to help journalists to see less difficulty in practising their professional values in the newsroom despite intervention practices. In other words, self-efficacy may help resolve the conflict between interventions and the practice of professional values in the newsroom. Whether this is based on reality or perception only needs more investigation.

As discussed in our literature review, news organisations tend to be seen as having substantial influence on news production (Cook, 1996; Gans, 2003; Weaver and Löffelholz, 2008) and that leads to concerns about the impact of political ownership of the media on news production. The findings of our study, however, did not find a direct relationship between political ownership of the media and the difficulty in practising journalistic values in the newsroom.

Based on our findings, we may conclude that political ownership does not necessarily make it difficult for journalists to practise their professional values, at least not in the current Indonesian context. However, this does not mean that political ownership of the media will have no impact at all on the day-to-day operations in the newsroom. Whether political ownership of news media will adversely affect journalists in practising their professional values depends on whether the owners will interfere in the newsroom operations. The degree of political ownership is related to intervention practices in the newsroom, which, in turn, affects the practice of professional values by journalists. In other words, the influence of political ownership on news production is likely to be indirect rather than direct and more subtle than we often assume.

The findings of this study are significant in two ways. First, they provide empirical support of the concern about the implications of political affiliation on news production and partially reinforce our concern about the implications of media owners’ influences in the newsroom on professional journalism as posited by Reese (2011). By examining the impact of political affiliation of the newspapers, the findings of our study lend empirical support to the proposed impact of media ownership in Indonesia, as articulated in previous qualitative studies (Dhyatmika, 2014; Hanitzsch et al., 2010; Hanitzsch and Hidayat, 2012; Haryanto, 2011; Tapsell, 2010, 2012a, 2012b)

Second, the discovery of the indirect impact of political ownership of news media on the practice of professional values by journalist makes a significant contribution to the existing literature regarding the impact of media ownership on news operations. Even though political affiliation of the media may not directly affect the practice of journalistic values in the newsroom, its indirect impact on the practice of such values should not be underestimated. Through this indirect effect, political affiliation of the media may surreptitiously exercise its influence through day-to-day news operations without making the practitioners fully aware of such influences. This concurs with the notion that journalists are often unaware of the intervention practices as they are ‘routinely’ structured (Reese, 2011: 9).

In the Indonesian context, the results of this study bring forth insights about the thriving democracy. While press freedom is celebrated as an indicator of democratisation, journalists may not enjoy total autonomy in their day-to-day news-reporting activities. Media owners who can easily hire and fire journalists may affect how news is reported. Media conglomeration and cross-ownership exacerbate this as media owners may easily sway the presentation and discussion of public issues in a country old in history but young in democracy.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project is funded by Indonesia Endownment Fund for Education and Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.

Author biography

Mala Ekayanti holds a master’s degree in mass communication from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She is currently a communications professional at a multinational company.

Hao Xiaoming is a Professor at Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interest includes journalism theories, media effect and social impact of new communication technologies.

References

Baker

(2007) Media Concentration and Democracy: Why Ownership Matters. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura

(1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.

Bandura

(2006) Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares

Urdan

(eds) Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc. (IAP), pp. 307–319.

Bong

(2006) Asking the right question: How confident are you that you could successfully perform these tasks? In: Pajares

Urdan

(eds) Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc. (IAP), pp. 287–305.

Conboy

(2013) Journalism Studies: The Basics. London: Routledge.

Cook

(1996) Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dennis

DeFleur

(2010) Understanding Media in the Digital Age – Connections for Communication, Society, and Culture. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Deuze

(2011) What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. In: Berkowitz

(ed.) Cultural Meanings of News: A Text-Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 17–32.

Dhyatmika

(2014) Who owns the news? Nieman Reports 68(4): 14–19.

10.

Doyle

(2002) Media Ownership: The Economics and Politics of Convergence and Concentration in the UK and European Media. London: SAGE.

11.

Editorial: Endorsing Jokowi (2014) The Jakarta Post, 4 July. Available at: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/07/04/editorial-endorsing-jokowi.html

12.

Ellis

(2014) Trust Ownership and the Future of News: Media Moguls and White Knights. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

13.

Ettema

Whitney

Wackman

(1987) Professional mass communicators. In: Berger

Chaffee

(eds) Handbook of Communication Science. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE, pp.747–780.

14.

Freedom House (2014) Freedom of the press 2014 (Report). Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2014#.VREIaDSUfpL

15.

Gans

(2003) Democracy and the News. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16.

Graber

Dunaway

(2015) Mass Media and American Politics, 9th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.

17.

Hallin

(1996) Commercialism and professionalism in the American news media. Mass Media and Society 3: 243–262.

18.

Hallin

Mancini

(2004) Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Hanitzsch

Hidayat

(2012) Journalists in Indonesia. In: Weaver

Willnat

(eds) The Global Journalists in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge, pp. 36–51.

20.

Hanitzsch

Mellado

(2011) What shapes the news around the world? How journalists in eighteen countries perceive influences on their work. The International Journal of Press/Politics 16(3): 404–426.

21.

Hanitzsch

Anikina

Berganza

et al . (2010) Modelling perceived influences on journalism: Evidence from a cross-national survey of journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 87(1): 7–24.

22.

Hanitzsch

Hanusch

Mellado

et al . (2011) Mapping journalism cultures across nations: A comparative study of 18 countries. Journalism Studies 12(3): 273–293.

23.

Hanretty

(2014) Media outlets and their moguls: Why concentrated individual or family ownership is bad for editorial independence. European Journal of Communication 29(3): 335–350.

24.

Haryanto

(2011) Media ownership and its implications for journalists and journalism in Indonesia. In: Sen

Hill

(eds) Politics and the Media in Twenty-First Century Indonesia. London: Routledge, pp. 104–118.

25.

Hill

(2008) Media and politics in regional Indonesia. In: Sen

Lee

(eds) Political Regimes and the Media in Asia. New York: Routledge, pp. 188–207.

26.

Hobbs

McKnight

(2014) ‘Kick this mob out’: The Murdoch media and the Australian Labor Government (2007 to 2013). Global Media Journal: Australian Edition 8(2): 1–13.

27.

Ida

(2011) Reorganisation of media power in post-authoritarian Indonesia: Ownership, power, and influence of local entrepreneurs. In: Sen

Hill

(eds) Politics and the Media in Twenty-First Century Indonesia. London: Routledge, pp. 13–25.

28.

Kovach

Rosenstiel

(2014) The Elements of Journalism: What News People Should Know and the Public Should Expect, revised and updated third edition. New York: Three Rivers Press.

29.

Kwok

(2014) The world’s third biggest democracy is in political limbo. Time.com, 10 July. Available at: http://time.com/2970051/indonesia-election-limbo/

30.

Lee

FLF

Chan

(2008) Professionalism, political orientation and perceived self-censorship: A survey study of Hong Kong journalists. Paper presented to international communication association 2008 annual meeting, Montreal, QC, Canada, 22–26 May.

31.

Lim

(2011) @Crossroads: Democratization and Corporatization of Media in Indonesia (Country Report). Ford Foundation & ASU Participatory Media Lab, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA.

32.

Lunenburg

(2011) Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and performance. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration 14(1): 1–6.

33.

McNair

(2005) What is journalism? In: De Burgh

(ed.) Making Journalists: Diverse Models, Global Issues. London: Routledge, pp. 25–57.

34.

Martin

(2010) Professional efficacy among Arab American journalists. Paper presented to international communication association, Singapore, 22–26 June.

35.

Maslach

Jackson

(1986) MBI: Maslach Burnout Inventory, 2nd edn. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

36.

Ningtyas

(2014) Demi Popularitas Harry Tanoe Sering Tampil di TV. Tempo, 11 February. Available at: http://pemilu.tempo.co/read/news/2014/02/11/270553263/Demi-Popularitas-Harry-Tanoe-Sering-Tampil-di-TV

37.

Piliang

(2002) Television in the pocket of a handful owners: Business links between the Soeharto family, Liem Sioe Liong pulls newcomer. Pantau 4: 12–19.

38.

Preston

(2009) Making the News: Journalism and News Cultures in Europe. London: Routledge.

39.

Ragnedda

(2014) Censorship and media ownership in Italy in the era of Berlusconi. Global Media Journal: Mediterranean Edition 9(1): 13–26.

40.

Reed

Hansen

(2013) Social media’s influence on American sport journalists’ perception of gatekeeping. International Journal of Sport Communication 6(4): 373–383.

41.

Reese

(2011) Understanding the global journalist: A hierarchy-of-influences approach. In: Berkowitz

(ed.) Cultural Meanings of News: A Text-Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 1–15.

42.

Relly

Gonzales de Bustamante

(2014) Silencing Mexico: A study of influences on journalists in the Northern States. The International Journal of Press/Politics 19(1): 108–131.

43.

Schudson

Anderson

(2009) Objectivity, professionalism, and truth seeking in journalism. In: Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 88–101.

44.

Schwarzer

Jerusalem

(1995) Generalized self-efficacy scale. In: Weinman J, Wright S and Johnston M (eds) Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs, vol. 1. Windsor: NFER-NELSON, pp. 35–37.

45.

Sen

Hill

(2000) Media, Culture, and Politics in Indonesia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

46.

Sharp

(2013) Journalism and Conflict in Indonesia: From Reporting Violence to Promoting Peace. New York: Routledge.

47.

Shoemaker

Reese

(1996) Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. New York: Longman Publishers.

48.

Shoemaker

Reese

(2014) Mediating the Message in the 21st Century, 3rd edn. New York: Routledge.

49.

Stetka

(2012) From multinationals to business tycoons: Media ownership and journalistic Autonomy in Central and Eastern Europe. The International Journal of Press/Politics 17(4): 433–456.

50.

Tapsell

(2010) Newspaper ownership and press freedom in Indonesia. Paper presented to the 18th biennial conference of the Asian studies association of Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 5–8 July.

51.

Tapsell

(2012a) Old tricks in a new era: Self-censorship in Indonesian journalism. Asian Studies Review 36: 227–245.

52.

Tapsell

(2012b) Politics and the press in Indonesia. Media Asia 39(2): 109–116.

53.

Voakes

(1997) Social influences on journalists’ decision making in ethical situations. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 12(1): 18–35.

54.

Wagner

Collins

(2014) Does ownership matter? The case of Rupert Murdoch’s purchase of the Wall Street Journal. Journalism Practice 8(6): 758–771.

55.

Weaver

Löffelholz

(2008) Questioning national, cultural and disciplinary boundaries: A call for global journalism research. In: Löffelholz

Weaver

(eds) Global Journalism Research: Theories, Methods, Findings, Future. Maiden, u.a.: Blackwell, pp. 3–12.

56.

Whitney

Sumpter

McQuail

(2004) News media production: Individuals, organizations, and institutions. In: Downing

JDH

McQuail

Schlesinger

et al . (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Media Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 393–410.

57.

Wrench

Thomas-Maddox

Richmond

et al . (2013) Quantitative Research Methods for Communication, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.

58.

Zhang

Fleming

(2005) Examination of characteristics of news media under censorship: A content analysis of selected Chinese newspapers’ SARS coverage. Asian Journal of Communication 15(3): 319–339.