(Bagian 1)

PERTANYAAN di atas sering terlontar dari rekan maupun saat pelatihan. Saya hanya bisa menjawab bahwa artikel harus aktual, artinya sesuai dengan peristiwa terkini. Jawaban ini sesuai pengalaman saat untuk pertama kali artikel saya dimuat di halaman opini Kompas, yang dulu dikenal sebagai “Halaman 4”.

Waktu itu, artikel saya yang berjudul “Berharap dari KPAT Ke-8” bisa lolos seleksi dan dimuat di “halaman bergengsi” itu pada Rabu 20 Juni 1990, karena disesuaikan dengan adanya Kongres Perpustakaan se-Asia Tenggara di Jakarta. Saat artikel itu muncul, Kongres baru saja dimulai. Artinya, antisipasi dan persiapan saya saat menulis artikel itu dilakukan jauh-jauh hari sebelumnya!

Halaman 4 Kompas yang memuat Tajuk Rencana dan Opini yang sekarang menjadi Halaman 6, sering dianggap sebagai “Universitas”-nya Kompas. Tempat dimana pemikiran paling mutakhir dari para pakar tercurah. Ada tempat pembelajaran lintas ilmu di sini, selain juga bisa mengetahui arah kebijakan Kompas (baca keberpihakan) lewat Tajuk Rencana dalam menyikapi perkembangan zaman. Kecuali Tajuk Rencana, opini merupakan halaman khusus untuk pembaca atau dalam hal ini pakar, tidak boleh wartawan Kompas menulis opini di situ. Selain bergengsi, honor yang diberikan pun di atas rata-rata honor artikel pada media massa lain.

Mengetahui syarat-syarat yang diinginkan Kompas mengenai sebuah artikel, mungkin salah satu strategi dalam menyiasati artikel agar bisa dimuat. Setelah meminta izin dari Fitrisia M (Mbak Poppy) dari Desk Opini, saya memaparkan 17 penyebab sebuah artikel ditolak oleh Desk Opini Kompas.

1. Topik atau tema kurang aktual
2. Argumen dan pandangan bukan hal baru
3. Cara penyajian berkepanjangan
4. Cakupan terlalu mikro atau lokal
5. Pengungkapan dan redaksional kurang mendukung
6. Konteks kurang jelas
7. Bahasa terlalu ilmiah/akademis, kurang populer
8. Uraian Terlalu sumir
9. Gaya tulisan pidato/makalah/kuliah
10. Sumber kutipan kurang jelas
11. Terlalu banyak kutipan
12. Diskusi kurang berimbang
13. Alur uraian tidak runut
14. Uraian tidak membuka pencerahan baru
15. Uraian ditujukan kepada orang
16. Uraian terlalu datar
17. Alinea pengetikan panjang-panjang.

Sahabat sekalian yang berminat menulis opini tinggal menegasikan saja 17 persyaratan di atas. Poin pertama, misalnya, topik atau tema harus aktual. Poin kedua argumen dan pandangan harus hal baru. Poin tiga, penyajian jangan berkepanjangan alias cukup singkat saja, dan seterusnya. Tentu saja ada “trik” lain agar opini bisa lolos dan dimuat, tetapi itu akan saya paparkan di lain kesempatan.

Syarat lain yang amat penting menurut Kadesk Opini Kompas Tony D. Widiastono, adalah panjangnya artikel yang cukup 5.300 karakter atau 700 kata saja dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Biar lebih cepat sampai,tulisan dikirim lewat imel ke alamat: opini@kompas.co.id. Naskah yang lolos pemeriksaan akan dimuat secepatnya. Jika tidak bisa dimuat, dipastikan dikembalikan paling lama dua minggu dari penerimaan naskah.

Bagaimana, Anda berani mencoba?

Apa Syarat Menulis Opini Kompas?

(Bagian 2)

SEORANG sahabat memberi komentar pada postingan saya sebelumnya, bahwa syarat menulis di Kompas harus ditambahkan dua poin lagi, yakni poin 18: kesulitan tempat untuk memuat artikel Anda, dan 19: nama penulis tidak terkenal. Mungkin ini satir atau sindiran halus semata.

Bahwa ada coretan editor di Desk Opini terhadap naskah yang dikembalikan (retour) dengan tulisan tangan berbunyi “Redaksi kesulitan untuk memuat artikel Anda”, ada benarnya. Sekadar berbagi info saja, setiap hari editor Desk Opini serta stafnya harus membaca kurang lebih 80-100 artikel yang masuk. Padahal, naskah yang kemungkinan bisa dimuat hanya 2 sampai 4 artikel saja.

Sesungguhnya jika ada coretan tangan editor bahwa “Redaksi kesulitan untuk memuat artikel Anda”, itu artinya artikel tersebut masuk nominasi. Sudah dibaca sekian orang dan lolos saringan. Hanya saja setelah dibandingkan dengan artikel lain yang senada dan juga lolos nominasi, pilihan mau tidak mau harus dilakukan.

Bahwa penulis harus orang yang terkenal atau dikenal sehingga penulis tidak terkenal tidak bisa lolos, itu sepenuhnya salah. Saya tidak akan jauh-jauh mengambil contoh pengalaman orang, tetapi pengalaman saya sendiri, meski mungkin terpaksa harus saya ceritakan kembali.

Pada hari Rabu, 20 Juni 1990, saat artikel saya dimuat untuk pertama kalinya di halaman 4 Kompas, percaya atau tidak: itu adalah artikel pertama yang saya kirimkan ke Kompas sekaligus tulisan saya yang dimuat pertama kalinya di Kompas . Tentu saja saya bukan siapa-siapa saat itu, tidak pula penulis yang dikenal. Kecuali mungkin komunitas pembaca majalah berbahasa Sunda, Mangle, sebab di majalah itu saya sering menulis “carpon” atau cerita pendek. Itupun tidak banyak.

Mengapa artikel saya yang bukan siapa-siapa bisa lolos dan dimuat? Fakta ini mungkin bisa mematahkan asumsi bahwa tidak harus penulis terkenal saja yang artikelnya bisa dimuat di halaman 4 (kini halaman 6) Kompas!

Memang sekali waktu, sebagaimana saya tangkap dari Kadesk Opini Kompas Tony D. Widiastono saat temu penulis di Surabaya dua tahun lalu, bahwa mereka yang menulis untuk halaman opini diutamakan yang setidak-tidaknya sarjana atau sudah lulus S1, bukan masih mahasiswa. “Tulisan opini bukan untuk coba-coba, tetapi kepakarannya harus jelas dan bisa dipertanggungjawabkan,” kata Tony saat itu.

Meski demikian, mahasiswa (yang belum sarjana S1) tidak dilarang menulis dan mengirimkan opininya ke Kompas. Menurut staf sekretariat Desk Opini, sampai sekarang sejumlah mahasiswa yang belum lulus S1 mengirimkan artikelnya. Bahwa opini mereka belum bisa dimuat, itu soal lain.

Akan tetapi rekan sefakultas saya di Universitas Padjadjaran, Yudi Latif (kini bergelar doktor dan menjadi Deputi Rektor Universitas Paramadina), tiga artikelnya dimuat di halaman opini Kompas dalam kurun waktu 1989. Untuk diketahui, saat itu Yudi masih mahasiswa. Hal sama terjadi pada Denny JA yang sangat produktif menulis di halaman 4 Kompas justru saat ia masih mahasiswa alias belum lulus S1. Anda, mengapa tidak?

Apa Syarat Menulis Opini Kompas?

(Bagian 3)

DALAM dua postingan terdahulu, Berbagi Pengalaman Menulis (34 & 35), selintas saya memaparkan syarat-syarat menulis artikel untuk Kompas. Mengapa tidak syarat menulis cerita pendek (cerpen) atau tulisan lainnya? Barangkali soal waktu dan pilihan saja. Ke depan, saya juga akan menyentuh hal itu.

Anggapan umum mengatakan: jangan lepaskan peristiwa atau wacana terkini, lalu tulis dan cepat kirimkan tulisan kepada Kompas (atau mungkin media lainnya), jangan biarkan penulis lain memangsa isu mutahir itu! Begitu kira-kira.

Maaf bukan maksud mematahkan anggapan ini. Untuk Kompas, main ambil peristiwa mutahir untuk kemudian sesegera mungkin kita tulis, tidaklah cukup. Ada hal lain dari sekadar main cepat-cepatan seperti itu, yakni kepakaran penulis.

Pakar bukan berarti doktor atau professor. Menunggu doktor atau professor menulis, sama saja menunggu Godot tiba karena tidak sedikit professor dan doktor Indonesia yang malas menulis. Kepakaran dengan sendirinya mematahkan anggapan ‘ambil secepatnya peristiwa/isu mutahir’.

Kalau ada peristiwa terkini, katakanlah ledakan bom di Pakistan saat menyambut Benazir Bhutto, tentu saja tidak sembarang penulis yang akan mengambil peristiwa hot itu untuk dijadikan sebuah opini maupun artikel. Anda yang bukan pakar Pakistan, tentu cukup tahu diri untuk tidak akan membuat analisis berita atau artikel mengenai peristiwa berdarah di negerinya Ali Bhutto ini.

Sebaliknya, Kompas akan melihat kepakaran penulis, apakah dia orang yang tepat (prominent) dalam menulis Pakistan, atau sama sekali tidak. Beda misalnya dengan Anda yang mahasiswa S1 Jurusan Hubungan Internasional yang sedang menyusun skripsi mengenai politik kontemporer Pakistan, Anda adalah orang yang tepat. Setidak-tidaknya Anda menulis atribusi Anda sebagai ‘mahasiswa, sedang menyusun skripsi mengenai politik kontemporer Pakistan’.

Apakah hanya karena menulis skripsi Anda dianggap cukup pakar soal Pakistan? Dewan redaksi opini yang akan menentukan, toh setidak-tidaknya Anda punya perhatian dan minat khusus pada politik Pakistan dibanding penulis lain yang baru mengenal Pakistan “kemarin sore”. Anda pasti membaca banyak buku referensi mengenai Pakistan dalam menyusun skripsi. Anda pasti lebih “berharga dan berilmu” dibanding penulis yang menggunakan atribusi ‘pemerhati Pakistan’ atau ‘peminat masalah Pakistan’. Dengan demikian tulisan Anda bakal dilirik editor opini karena kepakaran Anda yang dalam hal ini intensitas Anda dalam mendalami Pakistan.

Anda yang professor, doktor , atau pengkaji khusus masalah-masalah Pakistan, dengan sendirinya “seharusnya” menulis mengenai politik Pakistan mutakhir pasca pengeboman dahsyat. Asal tahu saja, editor Opini sering menelepon pakar tertentu hanya untuk menanyakan apakah bersedia menulis mengenai peristiwa terkini. Nah, bukankah ini peluang yang baik jika Anda yang memiliki kepakaran tertentu segera menulis artikel atau opini mengenai peristiwa mutahir ini.

Apa yang harus Anda tulis dari peristiwa bom Pakistan? Bukan bermaksud mengajari bebek berenang, Anda setidak-tidaknya harus menjelaskan siapa Benazir Bhutto? Apa hubungannya dengan ‘Bapak Pakistan’ Zulfikar Ali Bhutto? Mengapa Benazir kembali ke Pakistan? Mengapa dia dibuang atau mengasingkan diri di negeri orang? Apa maksud Benazir kembali ke Pakistan? Bagaimana reaksi Parvez Musharraf? Apa yang kemungkinan akan dia lakukan terhadap Benazir: dirangkul atau ditentang?

Mengapa pelaku bom disebut-sebut Al Qaeda? Apa betul organisasi pimpinan Osamah bin LAden itu yang melakukannya? Apa tidak ada kemungkinan lain, misalnya intelijen Pakistan? Apa hubungan Benazir dengan Al Qaeda? Mengapa Al Qaeda begitu marah kepada Benazir? Coba jelaskan situasi politik Pakistan ke depan pasca kehadiran kembali Benazir dan aksi-aksi Al Qaeda yang semakin massif ke depan! Cermati pula peran Amerika Serikat yang berkepentingan menjadikan Pakistan sebagai penangkal teroris dalam kemelut Pakistan ini!

Satu hal yang perlu diingat, Anda harus menuangkan semua persoalan di atas dalam sebuah tulisan yang concise, ringkas, dan padat. Tidak lebih dari 5.000 karakter.

Ada beberapa hal lain yang akan saya ceritakan, tetapi baiknya di postingan mendatang saja. Masih tema yang sama soal menulis artikel di Kompas, tetapi dalam tema yang lain, yakni soal atribusi. Sampai bertemu lagi.

Apa Syarat Menulis Opini Kompas ? (Bagian 4)

ARTIKEL atau opini yang ditulis untuk Harian Kompas, menunjukkan siapa, apa dan bagaimana kapasitas penulisnya. Untuk itu, artikel yang ditulis oleh dua orang atau lebih sudah otomotis akan dianulir alias dikembalikan kepada para penulisnya. Artikel mutlak harus ditulis sendiri, tidak boleh tandem.

Mengapa artikel harus ditulis sendiri? Sebab artikel itu harus bisa dipertanggungjawabkan secara ilmiah oleh penulisnya sendiri. Ibarat mempertahankan skripsi, tesis atau disertasi, semua harus dilakukan sendiri oleh penulisnya. Bukankah tidak ada yang menulis skripsi, tesis, atau disertasi secara keroyokan? Begitu pula menulis artikel.

Memulai menulis bukan berarti harus tandem dengan penulis yang sudah jadi atau ternama. Asumsinya, penulis ternama yang sudah biasa menulis di media massa, adalah jaminan mutu. Dengan demikian ia bisa “mempromosikan” kolega, kerabat atau keluarganya untuk “sama-sama” menulis. Sebaliknya, penulis baru bisa mendompleng nama penulis yang sudah dikenal. Pokoknya asalkan nama penulis itu bisa termuat di koran. Alhasil, artikel ditulis oleh dua orang atau lebih. Ini tidak boleh dilakukan kalau ingin menulis artikel di Kompas. Sendiri saja dan percaya diri sajalah.

Atribusi atau penyebutan yang melekat ke dalam diri penulis, juga harus menunjukkan kepakaran penulisnya. Misalnya: Polan, penulis adalah Dokter Bedah. Atau penulis adalah Peneliti LIPI, atau penulis adalah Guru Besar Linguistik, atau bahkan penulis adalah Guru TK, dan seterusnya. Jadi, tidak ada lagi atribusi yang menyebutkan bahwa penulis adalah pengamat seni atau penulis adalah penikmat sastra. Tidak ada lagi atribusi yang tidak menunjukkan kepakaran penulisnya.

Pengamat dan penikmat meskipun bisa dan mampu menulis, tetapi tentu saja kedalaman bahasan yang mereka tulis akan berbeda dengan penulis yang sudah teruji kepakarannya. Namanya juga pengamat apalagi penikmat, hal itu bisa dilakukan sambil lalu saja, tidak benar-benar mendalami persoalan yang ditulisnya. Padahal, pembaca artikel atau opini Kompas tidak sedang membaca sambil lalu. Para pembaca memerlukan opini yang mencerahkan, sesuatu yang baru atau setidak-tidaknya ada kebaruan (novelty), suatu bahasan atau kajian yang berbeda dari yang lain dan syukur kalau bisa memberikan inspirasi.

Postingan berikutnya, masih soal tips menulis artikel untuk Kompas, yakni menyangkut substansi yang dibahas dalam artikel. Harap bersabar…..

Oleh Satrio Arismunandar

http://satrioarismunandar6.blogspot.com/

Wartawan Harian Kompas, Pepih Nugraha, dalam blognya menyatakan, bagi yang berminat mengirim artikel ke Kompas, perlu mengetahui syarat-syarat yang diinginkan Kompas. Penjabaran kriteria ini bisa menjadi salah satu strategi, dalam menyiasati artikel agar bisa dimuat. Pepih memaparkan 17 penyebab sebuah artikel ditolak oleh Desk Opini Kompas. Yaitu:

1. Topik atau tema kurang aktual

April 2008

Asia’s Fight for Web Rights by Rebecca MacKinnon

*In November 2007*, Yahoo! Inc. did what it could have done two years ago

when it became known that the company had aided the 2005 conviction of

Chinese journalist Shi Tao, now serving 10 years in prison for “revealing

state secrets.” In a legal settlement, Yahoo pledged to provide an

undisclosed amount of “financial, humanitarian and legal support” to the

families of Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning, another dissident jailed in 2003 for

10 years with the help of email data supplied by Yahoo. This came

immediately after Yahoo cofounder and chief executive officer, Jerry Yang,

made a dramatic public apology to Shi Tao’s mother, Gao Qinsheng, at a

United States Congressional hearing. He bowed solemnly to her three times as

tears rolled down her cheeks.

This January, the company went even further, setting up a “Yahoo! Human

Rights Fund” to be administered by human-rights activist Harry Wu to

“provide humanitarian and legal assistance to persons in the People’s

Republic of China who have been imprisoned or persecuted for expressing

their views using the Internet.” Mr. Yang convinced Condoleeza Rice to raise

the cases of Messrs. Wang and Shi with Chinese leaders on a trip to Beijing

in February. Meanwhile, according to Yahoo executives, human-rights

assessments are now conducted before entering sensitive markets or launching

new products in those markets. The company is also an active participant in

a “multistakeholder process” to establish a global code of conduct on free

expression and privacy for Internet and telecommunications companies.

These are all positive steps, but getting to this point has been a painful

journey. The company had to be called on the carpet twice by the U.S.

Congress, denounced by human-rights groups and condemned by journalists

around the world in support of Shi Tao.

How might Yahoo have avoided complicity in the conviction of Chinese

political dissidents in the first place?  The answer brings sobering lessons

for all Internet and telecommunications companies. Many would agree that

being a socially responsible Internet or telecommunications company requires

respect for users’ rights to privacy and free expression, but there is great

disagreement over how to accomplish this ideal.

*Evil or Negligent? *

Shi Tao’s case was the last of Yahoo’s four known data-handover cases in

China. Wang Xiaoning, plus two other dissidents Li Zhi and Jiang Lijun, were

all convicted with Yahoo’s help in 2003. But the Shi Tao case became public

first, had more details associated with it and has provoked the greatest

amount of international controversy. It thus highlights many of the thorny

privacy challenges that Internet companies face in China and around the

world.

At the time of his arrest, Mr. Shi worked for Dangdai Shangbao (Contemporary

Business News), based in Changsha, Hunan province. In April 2004, he

attended an editorial meeting to discuss a classified document containing a

series of instructions about how the media should work to prevent social

unrest in the run-up to the anniversary of the June 4, 1989 crackdown. Later

that night he wrote up his notes summarizing the document and sent them from

his office computer via his Yahoo China email account to a New York-based,

pro-democracy publication and Web site, Minzhu Luntan (Democracy Forum),

which published his article under a pseudonym.

Two days later, the Beijing State Security Bureau issued a “Notice of

Evidence Collection” to Yahoo’s Beijing office, requesting account

information linked to Mr. Shi’s email address (which did not contain his

name), plus contents of his emails. Beijing-based employees of Yahoo China

complied with the request. Mr. Shi was detained and arrested at the end of

2004 and charged with “leaking state secrets.” His trial in March 2005

lasted two hours, resulting in a guilty verdict and 10-year prison sentence.

In September that year, a copy of the court verdict was obtained and

translated by the San Francisco-based Dui Hua Foundation, and then published

on the Web site of Reporters Without Borders. Among the evidence it listed

“Account holder information furnished by Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd.,”

including his office computer’s Internet protocol address and his office

address.

In response to an outcry in Hong Kong about the role of a Hong Kong-based

entity, Hong Kong’s Privacy Commissioner held an investigation, and

concluded that Shi Tao’s data had always been located on computer servers in

mainland Chinese jurisdiction, and therefore no Hong Kong privacy laws had

been broken. Yahoo had launched its Hong Kong operation in January 1999 and

set up a Beijing office later that year, unveiling a simplified

Chinese-language portal that included a search engine, email and instant

messaging services. Until the Chinese company Alibaba Group assumed full

operational control over all “Yahoo China” operations in late 2005, Yahoo

China’s business license was officially registered in the name of Yahoo

(Hong Kong) Holdings. Actual operations of Yahoo China were conducted in

mainland China by two mainland-China-based entities: Yahoo Beijing and the

Peking University Founder Group Corp.

*Corporate Responsibilities And Realities*

For two years after Yahoo’s role in Shi Tao’s case first came to light, the

company’s public statements characterized the plight of Shi Tao and the

three others as if they were acceptable collateral damage in the great task

of bringing Internet information services to the Chinese people. Executives

argued that the Chinese people were still better off in the long run thanks

to Yahoo’s presence. In 2006, Mr. Yang said, “we have no way of preventing

that beforehand… If you want to do business there you have to comply.” It

was as if Yahoo had only two choices: leave China or roll over and play

dead.

Yahoo executives also argued that the company’s nose was legally clean on

two fronts:  Not only did employees respond to a legally binding written

order; actions by Yahoo’s China-based employees were consistent with the

user “terms of service” that Shi Tao and all other Yahoo email users agree

to in order to create an account. In these terms the user promises not to

use the email account to commit a list of actions, including “damaging

public security, revealing state secrets, subverting state power, damaging

national unity,” etc. The same document, to which Mr. Shi technically agreed

(regardless of whether he actually read or understood it), acknowledged that

his information would be disclosed if required to do so by law.

For these two reasons it is possible that if the families’ lawsuit against

Yahoo had proceeded in U.S. court, Yahoo may have prevailed. But a legal

victory would have been hollow because it would not have absolved Yahoo in

the eyes of the human-rights community and socially responsible investors.

They point out that Chinese law in this area contradicts international

law–and that socially responsible companies have an obligation to do

something more than participate in a “race to the bottom” as far as global

practices on privacy and freedom of expression are concerned.

After much public pummeling, Yahoo management eventually came to acknowledge

that companies can and do make choices all the time not only about whether

to do business in a particular market, but also how to do business there,

and what products and services are appropriate given the nature of that

market’s controlling government.

Yahoo was the first major U.S. Internet brand to enter the China

market—Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp.’s online content division, msn, did

not establish physical presences in China until nearly six years later. To

this day Yahoo is the only foreign brand (though now managed entirely by

Alibaba) providing an email service that keeps user data on computer servers

inside mainland China. Different business decisions by Google and Microsoft

have made Mr. Yang’s claims of having “no choice” ring hollow. A more honest

statement was that Yahoo as first mover made the bulk of the mistakes that

competitors would learn from.

Microsoft and Google say they have no plans to follow in Yahoo’s footsteps

with localized Chinese versions of their respective email products, Hotmail

and Gmail: executives from both companies have been candid about not wanting

any more Shi Taos on their hands. msn and Yahoo both provide localized

Chinese blogging platforms: Yahoo Chinese blogs are censored to a similar

degree as other domestic Chinese blog-hosting services, while msn now

censors very little—after a major international uproar over its deletion of

a controversial Chinese blog on authorities’ request in late 2005.

Google has chosen not to provide that particular service in China. All three

companies do offer censored search engines in China–with Yahoo China

censoring the most, msn China a bit less and Google.cn censoring

substantially less than Yahoo China. This observation is based on tests I

conducted for a 2006 Human Rights Watch report on corporate complicity in

Chinese Internet censorship: I ran Chinese-language searches across all

three search engines plus Baidu, using a range of phrases on a variety of

subjects with varying political sensitivity. The relative degree to which

the three censor search results in China has not changed much since then.

Much has recently been written by journalists and academics about the

mechanics of Internet censorship and search engine censorship in China, and

there has been much debate over the ethics of providing a censored search

engine of any kind, even if it does censor less than the local competition.

Some believe it’s unacceptable to comply with any political censorship

demands, while others focus on the need to be more transparent with users

about what is being censored, on whose authority and according to what

process, so that users can be better informed of the skewed information

picture the service is providing. How to deal with government censorship

demands in an ethical and honest manner is an important debate. Satisfactory

solutions that would enhance overall freedom of expression are difficult to

pin down–mainly because there is disagreement about how censorship impacts

the lives of individuals. With data privacy, things are much more clear cut:

when user data is handed over a person can go to jail and his or her life is

ruined or shortened. So what to do?

*Toward a Solution*

Debates about what Internet companies should or shouldn’t do with user

information tend to focus on combinations of four different options:

**Selective compliance option*. Companies should comply with government

information requests only in truly criminal cases and refuse to cooperate in

cases involving political dissent

**Offshore option. *Companies should not host important user information on

computer servers inside a jurisdiction such as the PRC, whose definition of

“crime” is well known to include political activities and speech

**Minimal data option*. Companies in any jurisdiction should retain the

minimum amount of personally-identifying user data for the minimum amount of

time necessary to provide a particular service

**Strong warning option*. While a company may cover its legal obligations

with existing terms of service, it has a moral obligation in jurisdictions

such as the prc (or arguably anywhere) to make explicit to users where their

data is being stored and how it may be used.

Shi Tao and others may have had a false sense of security when choosing to

use email accounts with an American brand-name attached. All or some of

these four options form the basis for different solutions advocated by

different groups:

* *Lawmakers.* In early 2006 members of the U.S. House of Representatives

introduced a bill called the Global Online Freedom Act. Sponsored by Rep.

Chris Smith (R-NJ), the proposed legislation was reintroduced in 2007 and

passed all the required committees this past February. In its current form,

GOFA would require U.S. companies to adhere to all four options described

above in their approach to data-privacy issues when operating in any

“internet restricting country” —as designated by the President. (For

nondesignated countries, it’s business as usual.) In cases where companies

are asked to hand over data, the U.S. Department of Justice would decide

what does or doesn’t constitute “legitimate law enforcement purposes.”

Companies would also be required to report to the U.S. State Department all

keywords and Internet addresses that designated governments require them to

censor. Victims of U.S. company data disclosure would be able to sue the

companies in U.S. court more readily, and noncompliant companies could be

fined up to $2 million. Rep. Smith now plans to take the bill to a full

House debate and vote, although a time has yet to be scheduled. So far no

similar bill has emerged in the Senate.

Critics of the bill point to several problems. Danny O’Brien of the

Electronic Frontier Foundation, a free speech group, has pointed out that

the bill treats companies as “enemies to be controlled and puts them in the

middle of a ‘fight between the U.S. government and other governments.’”

Others (including myself) have been critical of an approach that would

divide the world into “good” and “bad” countries according to Washington’s

view of the world. There is no country on earth where Internet and

telecommunications companies do not face at least some pressure from

governments to do things that would potentially infringe on users’ rights to

free expression and privacy.

* *Activists.* GOFA was drafted in consultation with several human-rights

groups—some though not all of which advocate all four options above. The

bill has been endorsed by 16 human-rights groups including Human Rights

Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to

Protect Journalists.

In 2006, Reporters Without Borders, Amnesty International, and Human Rights

Watch all published recommendations for how Internet companies might engage

with the China market in a more socially responsible way. Reporters Without

Borders advocated all four options, with a strong role for the U.S.

government in monitoring and supervising company relations with governments

of “repressive countries.” Human Rights Watch recommended versions of all

four options, but with an emphasis that if user data is kept offshore the

selective-compliance option might be avoided.  Amnesty International took a

broader approach, asking companies to develop human-rights policies,

“publicly commit to honoring the freedom of expression provision in the

Chinese constitution,” and “exhaust all judicial remedies and appeals in

China and internationally before complying with state directives where these

have human-rights implications” (a more flexible form of the selective

compliance option than what gofa recommends). All groups called for

companies to develop a voluntary code of conduct, support the development of

technologies that protect users, and work for policy and legislative change

in markets where they operate in ways that favor their users’ rights.

** Investors.* Investors concerned about corporate social responsibility

have been asking tough questions about companies’ labor and environmental

practices for decades. But the free-speech and privacy aspect of corporate

social responsibility did not hit the radar screens of the CSR investment

community until about three years ago when shareholders began to bring

resolutions against Cisco Systems Inc. for its relationship with Chinese law

enforcement in addition to the role played by its routers in the Chinese

blocking of many overseas Web sites. In 2007 a shareholder resolution filed

by the New York City Comptroller against Yahoo called for “certain minimum

standards” involving the offshore option, the minimal-data option, and

strong-warning options. No mention of the more problematic

selective-compliance option.

The resolution did not pass, nor did a similar resolution against Google

calling for greater transparency in how it censors. Both companies advised

shareholders to vote against the resolutions. Yahoo management argued that

while they are working to improve their corporate policies on free

expression and privacy, the resolutions’ “overly prescriptive” and “static”

standards would make it hard to do business at all in many markets, and that

a more “flexible” approach might in the end be more effective in upholding

the spirit of the resolutions.

** Multistakeholder initiative:* For the past two years, Yahoo, Google,

Microsoft, Vodafone, France Telecom and the Swedish telecoms company

TeliaSonera, have been participating in a “multistakeholder process” with 24

“stakeholder groups” including the major human-rights groups mentioned

above, free-speech organizations, socially responsible investment funds and

several academic institutions. (Full disclosure: I am also a participant.)

Led by the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology and the San

Francisco-based Business for Social Responsibility, the aim of the process

is to craft a realistic but meaningful set of standards to help Internet and

telecommunications companies who want to be socially responsible to uphold

core principles of free expression and privacy. The idea is also to set up a

workable system for evaluating companies’ actions in this area in order to

benchmark over time who are the industry leaders and laggards—so that

investors and users can make more informed decisions about where to put

their money or whose services to use for what purpose. Furthermore, “one

size fits all” prescriptions for a range of products, services, technologies

and markets are not always the most effective way to achieve privacy and

free expression, and can be counterproductive or have unintended

consequences. A better way forward may be for all nongovernment stakeholders

to agree to a set of common principles, then commit to an on-going process

of benchmarking, watch-dogging, shared learning, and broader dialogue with

society and governments.

The process of bringing these diverse groups to agreement has been difficult

and often contentious. The exact content of the drafts under discussion

remains confidential but on the issue of data privacy they tend to focus on

the minimal data option and strong-warning option, plus a more flexible

approach to the offshore option, emphasizing the need for companies to think

through the implications of where, how and for how long they store what user

data. Final agreement has yet to be reached but participants are hopeful

that a meaningful set of principles on free expression and privacy—with

mechanisms to measure company adherence, plus a commitment to shared

learning and public dialogue—will likely be announced this year. Companies

and concerned organizations from any country in the world will be welcome to

join. No governments are involved.

*Global Issue, Global Standards*

The multistakeholder initiative (yet to be named) aims to be truly global,

because the problem is global: it is hard to find a country where Internet

and telecommunications do not face some pressure from governments to do

things that arguably are harmful to free expression and privacy. One of the

admitted problems is that it currently does not include any non-Western

companies. It is the hope of many participants that this will change soon

after the initiative goes fully public and starts expanding its membership.

While it may be difficult for mainland Chinese companies to commit publicly

to uphold their users’ rights to free expression and privacy, this

initiative is not targeted at China or any one country specifically. It is

likely that many companies in places like South and Southeast Asia, Hong

Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan will see it in their long-term interest

to participate—for the same reasons that companies around the world are

increasingly signing up to multistakeholder initiatives committed to

environmental protection, sustainable development and basic labor standards.

Information-technology companies everywhere rely largely on user trust for

their business success. It is in their interest to join hands in setting

industry-wide standards and practices that will minimize harm to their

users. Companies in many markets once claimed they would be committing

business suicide if they changed their behavior when it came to

environmental and labor practices, but have since come round to recognizing

that corporate social responsibility is not optional. It’s time to make

respect for free expression and privacy equally nonoptional.

Thorny problems certainly abound: one involves local subsidiaries of

multinationals that make the commitment. Yahoo China, for instance, is now a

division of Alibaba. When asked how Yahoo will avoid contributing to the

conviction of any more Chinese dissidents, company executives have pointed

out that since ownership of Yahoo China was transferred to Alibaba in

October 2005, Yahoo Inc. no longer has day-to-day control over the Chinese

email and Web services even though they still bear the Yahoo brand name.

Yahoo holds one of four seats on Alibaba’s board. But it is unclear how much

influence they have over Alibaba’s relationship with Chinese law enforcement

and state security.

All of this is further complicated by recent news of Microsoft’s bid to buy

Yahoo Inc., followed by a strong rumor, recently reported by Reuters, that

Alibaba is seeking investors to purchase Yahoo’s 39% stake in Alibaba so

that Microsoft will not end up getting the same stake in Alibaba. None of

the major Western venture-capital or private-equity investors pouring cash

into Chinese Internet companies has shown any sign of trying to influence

those companies to maximize their respect for Chinese user rights—even

within the constraints of the Chinese system. It’s impossible without a very

high-level State Security mole to get data on how many dissidents Chinese

email service companies have helped to put behind bars. But research I am

presently conducting on the way in which Chinese companies censor their

users’ blog and chat-room postings indicates that there is substantial

variation in how different Chinese companies treat their users. To merely

say “I have no choice” is oversimplistic in any market.

Meanwhile, the rest of us should not simply sit around and wait for our

Internet and email service providers, Web-hosting services, and mobile-phone

carriers to do the right thing on their own. Technology users around the

world have an interest in joining together to insist that the products and

services with which we increasingly entrust our careers, our beliefs and the

most intimate parts of our lives, will not sell us out because they feel

they have “no choice” since all their competitors are selling out their

users too.

*Ms. MacKinnon is an assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong’s

Journalism and Media Studies Centre. She writes frequently about the

Internet, free speech and China at

**http://rconversation.blogs.com*<http://rconversation.blogs.com/>

*. (This article appears in the April 2008 issue of FEER.)*

Minggu, 13 April 2008

Reportase

Aku Cinta Laura

Dari akting dia akan beralih ke tarik suara.

Cinta Laura Kiehl yang terkenal dengan Cinta Laura cepat beken. Dalam waktu kurang dari dua tahun berkarier di dunia model dan sinetron, anak semata wayang pasangan Michael Keihl dan Herdiana itu meraih popularitas. Wajah peraih penghargaan SCTV Awards dengan kategori Aktris Ngetop pada 2007 itu mejeng di televisi, media cetak, dan media online.

Banyak yang menilai aktingnya tergolong lumayan untuk pendatang baru, tapi ejekan mesti diterimanya sepaket dengan popularitasnya. Masalahnya, lafal bahasa Indonesianya tak sempurna. Ejekan beredar di milis-milis sampai nada dering di telepon seluler yang berbunyi: “Mana ujyan, bechyek, ngga ada ojyek, becyek, becjek.”

Pukul 07.00. Sabtu pekan lalu
Rumah Cinta Laura Kiehl, Jalan Jasmine, Rancamaya Golf & Country Estate, Bogor.

Cinta Laura: “Hello, syelamat paghi. Jham berapha dari Jhakarta?”
Air mukanya jutek. Berompi, jins pendek biru, sepatu Nike putih, remaja 14 tahun lalu itu satu jam bersepeda.

Cinta Laura: “Tenang ajha. Nanti setelah syiang, syikap aku syudah tidak begini. Aku syudah asyik lagi kok.”
Akhir pekan itu, Cinta memulai hari dengan mengayuh sepeda mengelilingi kompleks perumahan di kaki Gunung Salak itu.

Olahraga adalah rutinitasnya di akhir pekan. Biasanya, Cinta menyambungnya dengan berenang. Namun, karena flu, remaja 14 tahun kelahiran Quackenbruck, Jerman, itu segera mandi, lalu sarapan.

Di gazebo belakang rumahnya, menu sarapan telah menanti.
Cinta pun sarapan bersama ibunya.

Sarapan Cinta pagi itu semangkuk sereal, buah anggur merah, dan susu. Ia sangat berhati-hati memilih makanan.

Cinta selalu memilih makanan berbahan organik dan segar. Susu, misalnya, tanpa tambahan pemanis dan asli dari Australia. Kalau selai, harus dari buah murni.

Herdiana: “Ususnya pernah berdarah karena makan makanan di lokasi syuting yang mengandung monosodium glutamate.”

Sehabis menyantap sereal dan dua butir anggur, dari pojok kolam renang tak jauh dari gazebo, Cinta membuka laptop untuk mengecek surat elektronik pribadi dari teman-temannya. Duduk di kursi persis di pojok kolam renang selama 15 menit, siswi grade 9 Jakarta International School ini memantengi laptopnya.

Pukul 09.00
Honda CR-V hitam metalik yang dikemudikan ibunya mengantar Cinta ke Dharmawangsa Square.

Herdiana: “Sopir kami sakit, jadi saya yang menggantikan mengantar Cinta.”
Selama di perjalanan, Korn dan Paparoch tak henti menghentak.

Pukul 09.55
Dharmawangsa Square

Baru beberapa toko yang buka ketika Cinta tiba. Ia bergegas ke studio foto di lantai 1. Penggemar sushi ini menjalani sesi pemotretan untuk sampul majalah remaja Aneka bersama teman dekatnya, Popy Bunga.

Karier peraih penghargaan SCTV Awards dengan kategori Aktris Ngetop pada 2007 itu berawal dari audisi artis dan foto model pada 2006. Melihat bakat Cinta yang jago berdansa dan bernyanyi, seorang guru menyarankan dia ikut serta. Tanpa disadari dia sampai ke final.

Cinta Laura: (pasti bete menunggu syuting).

Atas dorongan kedua orang tuanya, Cinta meneruskan audisi hingga terpilih membintangi sinetron Cinderella yang ditayangkan di SCTV.

Sebelum membintangi sinetron, Cinta sempat belajar bahasa Indonesia empat bulan kepada MD Entertainment, pembuat Cinderella.

Ia belajar bergaya di depan kamera melalui majalah dan televisi.

Cinta Laura: “Mungkin faktor keturunan juga, Nenek dan Mami aku sering jadi model di majalah-majalah wanita.”

Herdiana: “Mungkin tomboinya itu menurun dari saya.”

Berpose di depan kamera dengan tiga kali berganti kostum.

Pukul 12.00
Keluar dari studio.
Pekerja infotainment menunggu. Wajah judesnya berubah jadi ramah, ceria. Ia kerap melontarkan candaan segar.

Pekerja infotainment: “Bagaimana menanggapi gaya bahasa Anda yang beredar di Internet, seperti ‘udah ujyan, bechyek, gak ada ojhyek?’”

Cinta: “Itu cuplikan Cinderella episode 38. Kata orang-orang lucu dan aneh hahaha.

Pekerja infotainment: “Soal global warming is cool. Benar begitu?”

Cinta: “Thidak. I said that global warming is dangerous.”

Herdiana: “Di sekolah Cinta ada pelajaran environment. Kok, kesannya seperti Cinta itu bodoh.”

Cinta ke kawasan Sentul City untuk pengambilan gambar film layar lebar perdananya, Oh Baby.

Pukul 13.30
Sentul City, Bogor, Jawa Barat.
Cinta langsung dirias.

Cinta: “Aku tidak syuka make-up thebhal.”

Film Oh Baby berkisah tentang cinta remaja, musik, dan dansa seperti film Hollywood Step Up. Di film ini, Cinta berperan sebagai gadis bernama Baby yang cuek, pandai berdansa, berasal dari keluarga yang cerai-berai.

15 menit kemudian pengambilan gambar dimulai.

Cinta: “Tholong bhelikan saya sushi.”

Selama berakting, Cinta tidak mengalami gangguan berbahasa Indonesia. Tidak seperti yang dikenal khalayak selama ini.

Cinta: “Jhangan syuruh aku berbhahasya Indonesia. Thapi kalau menghafal naskah, aku jhago.”

Cinta: “Chintha kepada bhangsya thidak harus ditunjukkan dengan pandai berbhahasya Indonesyia. Aku berdarah Jherman, tapi Bhahasa Inggrisku lebih bagus dari Bhahasya Jhe(r)man. Aku chintha Indonesia, aku buktikan dengan perbuatan. Thidak harus dengan pandai berbhahasya Indonesia.”

Ia tak grogi saat beradegan mesra dengan lawan mainnya. Cinta mengajari lawan mainnya dalam film itu berdansa.

Cinta ingin merambah Hollywood. Ia juga ingin menjadi duta PBB seperti personel U2, Bono, duta lingkungan, dan Angelina Jolie, duta HIV/AIDS.

Demi belajar akting, Cinta menerima tawaran bermain di layar lebar.

Cinta: “Karena kalau soal bayaran, di sinetron jauh lebih tinggi.”

Untuk apa saja honornya?

Sebagian penghasilan dari bermain sinetron dipakai untuk membeli apartemen di depan sekolahnya, Jakarta International School. Sebagian ditabung, dan 10 persen untuk membantu yayasan pendidikan yang dikelola ibunya.

Pengambilan gambar baru selesai menjelang tengah malam. Ayah Cinta, Michael Kiehl, membuat aturan yang ketat bagi putrinya. Gadis yang bercita-cita kuliah di Harvard University, Amerika Serikat, ini tidak boleh mengikuti syuting selepas tengah malam. Saat menghadapi ujian, Cinta dilarang syuting atau apa pun yang berhubungan dengan keartisan.

Hampir setiap hari kegiatan Cinta berakhir menjelang dini hari, tapi semuanya tidak mengganggu sekolahnya. Penggemar Sandra Bullock dan Angelina Jolie itu selalu masuk peringkat lima besar di sekolahnya. Nilainya selalu A atau A plus.

Cinta berjanji akan mengurangi aktivitas kelak menjelang masuk universitas. Tapi, jauh sebelumnya, Juli 2009, Cinta hanya akan bernyanyi. Dia sudah menyiapkan diri dengan berlatih vokal pada musisi Ahmad Dhani.

Pukul 01.00
Pulang

Meski selalu pulang dini hari, Cinta selalu mandi sebelum tidur. Lokasi syuting yang polutif, menurut dia, buruk bagi kesehatan. Semprotan air hangat ke tubuhnya membantu menghilangkan penat. Di hari biasa, ia biasa mengerjakan pekerjaan rumah dari sekolahnya sebelum tidur. ERWIN DARIYANTO

koran tempo

Blogged with Flock

Tags: earth