On Scandals, Sensationalism, and the Duty of Fairness

How Public Criticism Can Uphold or Undermine Justice

Since the controversy surrounding the revision of the Pilkada Law, which culminated in demonstrations on August 22, 2024, we have witnessed a glaring overlap between criticism of President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) and attacks on him as an individual. Even today, many social media users refer to him as “Mulyono” when criticizing his policies, a name allegedly given to Jokowi in his early years due to his frequent illness. This narrative initially gained traction on the platform X.

Recently, sharp criticism has also been directed at Jokowi’s children and in-laws: Kaesang Pangarep and Erina Gundono, accused of using a private jet to travel to the United States. Furthermore, Bobby Nasution, Jokowi’s other son-in-law, has been scrutinized for allegedly using a private jet as well.

Public criticism through social media—whatever the motives—can be seen as a normal and healthy sign in a democratic society. However, as the fourth pillar of democracy, the mainstream media needs to adopt a more balanced position and adhere to strict verification standards. Alternative voices, such as those raised by Dedek Prayudi, a politician from the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI), should also be heard by the media.

The essence of Dedek’s statement is clear: Why does the use of private jets by political figures such as Megawati, Puan Maharani, or Mahfud MD not receive the same level of criticism? Is the attack on Kaesang, Bobby, or the Jokowi family driven more by political motives than facts? Even if there are no malicious intentions from the media, merely riding the wave of social media buzz to gain traffic risks transforming the media into a tool for trial by press.

When the media begins framing every action by a particular public figure as a symbol of larger societal issues, the line between criticism and defamation becomes increasingly blurred. This is where the real danger lies—not just in damaging an individual’s reputation but in eroding the foundations of justice and public trust. Noam Chomsky has long pointed out that mainstream media often functions as a tool for the political elite, amplifying narratives that benefit certain power structures. The criticisms against Kaesang may be part of this dynamic, where the media is not just a neutral observer but a participant in broader political mechanisms.

Political Opposition and Delegitimization

The attacks on Kaesang appear to be not just personal but part of a larger political strategy aimed at weakening Jokowi ahead of the 2024 regional elections. Opposition forces, particularly from the PDIP party, seem intent on delegitimizing Jokowi’s remaining influence. By emphasizing negative issues about his family, they hope to erode public support for candidates aligned with Jokowi.

This strategy is often referred to as scapegoating politics, where individuals are used as symbols to reflect broader dissatisfaction. In this case, Kaesang becomes the focus of attacks to undermine the legitimacy of the Jokowi political dynasty. This is not merely a policy debate but an attack on the moral authority and reputation of the president’s family. As Michel Foucault pointed out, power often works through surveillance and the creation of narratives about “normality” and “abnormality.” In this context, Kaesang is placed in a position of abnormality by political opponents, under intense public scrutiny by the media.

Media: Watchdog or Weapon?

The media plays a dual role in this scenario: on the one hand, it serves as an important source of information, but on the other, it becomes an instrument for amplifying issues that could otherwise be seen in a more balanced light.

When the media consistently builds narratives that exaggerate personal faults—faults that are not even fully verified—it damages not only public trust in the media but also in governmental institutions. In this situation, we must recall the importance of truth as a foundation for a healthy political discourse. If we allow scandal-driven narratives to dominate without verifying facts, we weaken the political structure we seek to improve.

Avoiding Radicalism in Criticism

We must acknowledge that authority in this country stems not only from political mandates but also from morality and justice. When media and public focus shifts more towards exploiting scandals for political gain than towards seeking truth, we lose our grip on the ethics that should guide fair public action. Attacks on the President and his family must not ignore the importance of maintaining integrity in public criticism.

Radicalism in political critique, as noted by Roger Scruton, only worsens the situation. Legitimate criticism must still exist, but it must be based on clear and balanced evidence. Today, public discourse is too often shaped by sensationalism and political interests, rather than by justice or a genuine desire to improve policy.

Political discourse must not become an arena for character assassination or personal attacks. We must hold fast to the principles of justice, where individuals are judged based on their actual deeds, not by unverifiable narratives crafted for political purposes. As a society, we must resist the temptation to let scandal and sensationalism dominate our public discourse. Instead, we should reaffirm our commitment to justice, balance, and healthy debate.