The Broadcasting Bill, if passed, could become a new way for controlling the media. Amid mounting pressure on press independence and the fragility of the media business models, the House of Representatives (DPR) seeks to expand regulators' authority over broadcast content to the digital sphere.
Regulatory updates are indeed necessary. However, technological advancement must never serve as a pretext to tighten the state's grip on information.
The DPR has included the revision of Law No. 32/2002 on Broadcasting in the 2026 Priority National Legislation Program. Television and radio stations now share the media landscape with news sites, social media, and streaming services. What needs scrutiny is the direction of the regulations, so that regulatory adjustments do not come at the expense of press freedom.
Several provisions in an earlier draft raised cause for concern. One was a ban on exclusive investigative journalism broadcasts, which was previously included in Article 50B Paragraph 2(c). The Press Council considered the provision threatened press freedom because it could restrict journalistic work that exposes matters of public interest.
Investigative journalism uncovers information that has been deliberately concealed or is difficult for the public to access. Corruption, conflicts of interest, and abuse of authority are often exposed through such work. Restricting it would narrow the role of the press as a watchdog over those in power.
Protection of legal proceedings and the rights of people covered by the media is certainly important. But such interests should not be translated into bans that could halt journalistic work. Ethical violations and disputes over news reporting are already governed by mechanisms under the Press Law. Creating a new channel under the broadcasting regulator could instead risk overlapping authorities.
The next issue is the expansion of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission's (KPI) authority. The House is pushing for digital platforms to be covered by the revised Broadcasting Law. But as the KPI is given greater authority to assess content compliance, the line between oversight and censorship becomes thin.
Censorship does not always take the form of an order to remove a news report. Editors may choose not to publish certain reports, journalists may become less willing to pursue sensitive cases, and media companies may choose the safest path when regulatory risks collide with business interests.
The Press Council and the Business Competition Supervisory Commission noted that about 80 percent of Indonesia's digital advertising spending flows to three global platforms, while more than 50,000 press companies compete for the remaining market. Under such conditions, additional regulatory controls could further constrain editorial space.
Provisions restricting investigative journalism are a serious concern because they could narrow the ability of the press to uncover issues related to the public interest. Expanding the KPI's authority over digital content also requires clear boundaries to ensure that oversight does not shift into assessments of the substance of journalistic work. Likewise, disputes over news coverage, which are already governed by mechanisms under the Press Law, should remain within that framework to prevent overlapping authority with broadcasting regulators.
The measure of broadcasting regulatory reform should not be how broadly the state can monitor media content, but whether the rules can keep pace with technological developments while protecting the public's right to information.
– Read the complete story in Tempo English Magazine
Source: https://en.tempo.co/read/2121081/a-new-path-for-controlling-the-medi