Today’s Page 4 lead story of The Jakarta Post Early campaigning not illegal, say experts sees a recurrence of that old disease called expertitis. The symptoms of the disease is to pass people off as experts, whether they are really experts or not. Its an unnecessarily editorial judgement that sometimes leads to intellectual shortcut-ism.
The story is about would-be Jakarta gubernatorial candidates raising their profiles as a prelude to the gubernatorial polls. When would that be? Soon but the date is not set yet so the campaigning period has yet to begin.
Why it should be a page lead is an interesting question as there is nothing unusual for would-be candidates to raise their profiles way ahead of elections. Why the double negative headline is another interesting question as I would have thought something like “Governor hopefuls jostle for higher profile ahead of polls” would be more suitable, provided the head count fits, of course.
Then there are the “experts” in question. The first quoted was Smita Notosutanto, former director of the center for Electoral Reform. Stating his former position is enough information for us readers to decide whether that qualifies him as an expert, so why is there still a need to call him an “expert”?
The second “expert” was Topo Sutanto, “a legal expert from the University of Indonesia.” But why is he a legal expert? Does he lecture on electoral laws, or doing a thesis on election-related topics? Or is it because, as the last line of the story suggests, he had been called an expert by others? Did Detik.com use the label and nobody else thought it worthwhile to speak to the man first hand and at least find out what qualifies him to be quoted as a legal expert who can speak on elections?
Meanwhile, there is some impressive reporting on the Lapindo affair on Page 18 of the Post. In a sidebar below the fold is a gem of a story headlined Bakrie’s conflict of interest. It’s a good story because it documents in detail who really owns what in Lapindo and why there appears to be a conflict of interest. A mentor once told me as a young journalist that good reporting is a bit like stripping a watch of its face and telling the story of what goes on inside: how one piece fits with another and makes the other turn. This story was in that tradition. Congrats JP.
The only thing marring the story was the bit of editorializing in the last sentence which sounded like an apology for the non-vigilance of reporters on the business dealings of their ministers. But it was overall an excellent effort.
Unspun 
Leave a reply to Jan Sutrisno Cancel reply