The Patriot and Raja Wayang

In the ceremonial hall, the buffalo lay silent, its head placed upon the red carpet as though awaiting judgement. The honoured figure, newly crowned with titles, pressed his foot upon the beast’s skull. The elders nodded, the cameras flashed, and the ritual was sealed—not in the annals of tradition, but in the archives of suspicion.

For in the world of symbols, the buffalo was no longer a buffalo. It had become a bull. And the bull, in the minds of the people, was not merely an animal but the emblem of a party. To tread upon it was to challenge the party of the bull, to declare oneself above its creed.

Others whispered darker interpretations: the bull’s head was not only partisan, it was national. In the fourth principle of Pancasila, the bull symbolised deliberation and unity. To place a foot upon it was to diminish democracy itself, to mock the very idea of collective will.

Thus the act, simple in appearance, became a parable of power. The buffalo, mute and unconsulted, was transformed into a metaphorical victim. From sacred beast to partisan emblem, from ritual symbol to ideological cornerstone—all because one foot found its perch upon its skull.

Defenders invoked Piil Pesenggiri, the Lampung philosophy of honour, dignity, hospitality, social participation, and solidarity. Critics retorted that no Lampung ritual required trampling upon a buffalo’s head. The gesture, they said, was not reverence but arrogance.

And so the interpretations multiplied. Some saw a king asserting dominion, others saw a dynasty consolidating power—sons and sons-in-law rising to thrones of their own. The photograph became tinder for quarrels with the bull’s party, the very party that once bore him aloft.

On the screens of the people, metaphor travelled faster than context. The image was consumed not as culture but as satire. Public opinion bent towards suspicion: a king upon a beast, a foot upon a symbol, a gesture upon a creed.

In Orwellian fashion, the ritual became allegory. The buffalo’s head was a stage, the foot a pen, the photograph a scripture. And in that scripture, the lesson was clear: symbols are fragile, power is theatrical, and even a beast of burden can be drafted into the service of politics.

What was meant as ceremony became a satire of authority. In trampling upon the buffalo, the figure trampled upon more than an animal—he trampled upon a party, upon a creed, upon the very notion of unity. And the buffalo, silent and unchosen, became the most tragic comedian of them all.

PART I: RAJA WAYANG AND THE THRONE BUILT FOR HIM

In a republic rather fond of venerating anyone capable of appearing humble before a camera, there reigned a president whom his admirers called “Father of the People”, yet whom a more discerning public dubbed the “Puppet King of Solo”. The epithet was not merely a taunt—it was a diagnosis. For behind the narrative of an ordinary man ascending the throne by popular will, there stood a throne he had never truly built himself: it was erected by the hands of the oligarchy, maintained by an invisible network of loyalists, and guarded by an army of online operatives labouring around the clock. A puppet king is not without power — he wields it, but wields it along rails laid by others. 

And this essay is a record of the one figure who from the very outset refused to enter that performance—who stood outside those rails and ultimately altered the direction of the stage itself: Prabowo Subianto, the Patriot. Yes, only the Patriot is able to match the Puppet King.

The label “puppet king” carries an ironic depth that no other epithet quite matches. In Javanese cultural tradition, the wayang puppet moves, speaks, and appears alive—yet is in truth animated by hands that remain unseen. When a president hailing from Solo, the very heartland of Javanese wayang tradition, presents himself not as the master puppeteer but as the crowned puppet, the irony is complete. Vedi R. Hadiz, in Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia (2010), had already forewarned us that the old elites of the New Order era never truly perished — they merely waited for a new vessel sufficiently popular to serve as the face of power. And "sang Raja Wayang", the Puppet King of Solo, was the perfect such vessel: a fresh face, a narrative of humble origins, a reassuring smile—whilst behind the curtain, the old interests continued to revolve without interruption.

The ritual of blusukan that he practised so assiduously — walkabouts to traditional markets, chats with street vendors, photographs alongside housewives at the roadside — was the most sophisticated wayang performance of them all. Every visit was filmed, every expression was crafted, every moment packaged for social media consumption. The cost of producing this image, as various political communications scholars have observed, was far removed from the impression of simplicity it sought to convey. Here lies the most fundamental paradox of a puppet king: he spent vast sums in order to appear to spend nothing at all. And this machinery of image-making did not cease when his term ended — it was bequeathed to his successor, because there was simply no other substance left to sell.

Marcus Mietzner, in Money, Power, and Ideology: Political Parties in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia (2013), explains that Indonesian political parties in the post-reformasi era operate fundamentally on the logic of capital rather than ideology. The Puppet King understood this perfectly. He required no great party; he needed only to become a sufficiently saleable product for any coalition of parties in need of a fresh face to purchase. And from this point began a pattern that would endlessly repeat itself: dependence upon the oligarchy financing his stage, exchanged for access and privilege on behalf of powerful interests concealed behind the curtain. The Puppet King held power, but that power was paid for in ways he never announced to the public.

Jeffrey A. Winters, in his canonical work Oligarchy (2011), provides the most apt framework for understanding this phenomenon: formal political power is the front stage, whilst the material power that truly governs the state operates behind the scenes. The grand infrastructure erected during his tenure—motorways stretching across thousands of kilometres, near-empty airports, seaports that served more frequently as backdrops for ceremonial photographs than as centres of genuine economic activity—was not merely a development programme. It was a wayang performance on a national scale: appearing to move, appearing to live, appearing to work diligently—whilst behind the figures, national debt continued to accumulate and state-owned enterprises bore losses that would eventually fall upon the shoulders of the next generation. And who knew that these projects would become a gold mine for building a dynasty with the ambition of making Indonesia like North Korea?

Eve Warburton, in her article “Jokowi and the New Developmentalism” published in the Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies (2016), notes that the developmental model of this era prioritised physical speed and visibility over fiscal sustainability. These projects existed not solely because the people needed them, but because the narrative required them — a narrative that could be photographed, rendered into infographics, and distributed across social media as proof of “real work”. Ironically, not one other significant opposition figure dared to consistently question the fiscal sustainability concealed beneath that euphoria — save Prabowo, the Patriot, who continued to voice concern about the nation’s readiness for a global storm even as the celebrations were at their height.

Political dynasty-building is the most conspicuous crown of a puppet king. When the throne began to be prepared for his descendants — when his children and in-laws were positioned in strategic offices, when political parties competed to lay red carpets before the ruling family — the performance could no longer be called democracy with a straight face. The more attentive public began to see what was truly unfolding: this was not a democratic succession; it was the inheritance of a throne, wrapped in the procedural garments of an election. And amidst this entire process, opposition figures fell one by one into compliance, into silence, or even into open support — all save one.

Edward Aspinall and Ward Berenschot, in Democracy for Sale: Elections, Clientelism, and the State in Indonesia (2019), dissect how Indonesian elections more frequently function as mechanisms of legitimation for pre-existing clientelistic networks than as arenas of genuine free choice. Within this logic, an incumbent possessing access to state power, the national budget, and a network of loyalists dispersed to the most remote corners of the archipelago holds a structural advantage that is almost impossible to overcome. Almost — because there was one figure who had spent decades building his own base of strength, long before that throne was ever erected, and who could be neither purchased nor held hostage by the same means.

Many of Prabowo’s supporters believe that the legal manoeuvring that cleared the Puppet King’s eldest son to stand as a vice-presidential candidate was part of a grand design to ensure that the throne did not change hands entirely. This narrative circulated widely, went viral, and became the subject of heated public debate following the controversial ruling of the Constitutional Court. It must be stated honestly: this is a narrative held by supporters, not a criminal verdict that has attained the force of law. Yet public conviction of this kind constitutes a legitimate part of democratic discourse, and indeed reinforces the argument for why the presence of a patriot who could not be co-opted by the throne was so vital and irreplaceable.

Dan Slater, in Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia (2010), together with Erica Simmons in her various writings on political legitimacy across Southeast Asia, demonstrates that leaders whose support base is rooted in nationalist and military identity tend to build structures of loyalty that are far more organic and durable than those who rely upon transactional machinery. Within this framework, Prabowo’s endurance as a counterweight is not merely a matter of sheer obstinacy — it is because his foundation rests upon something that cannot be purchased with envelopes of cash or the promise of office: the conviction that this nation deserves to be fought for by someone who genuinely cares, rather than merely by a king whose crown was borrowed from others.

PART II: THE PATRIOT WHO REFUSED TO SUBMIT

Amidst the puppet king’s performance that captivated so many of its audience, a figure emerged who from the very beginning refused to become part of that theatre. Prabowo Subianto arrived not as a rival seeking to seize the puppet king’s crown — he arrived as a patriot who questioned whether that throne had been erected upon the right foundations at all. His military background was not merely biographical ornament; it formed a worldview in which the state is an entity to be protected rather than merely a stage to be dominated. And here lies his most fundamental difference from every other opposition figure who appeared and disappeared in turn: Prabowo did not arrive to play within the existing system — he arrived to question that system, from without and from within.

Consider what befell other opposition figures across the two terms of the Puppet King’s rule. Some spoke loudly at first, then gradually softened as positions of office began to be extended in their direction. Some attempted to build opposition fronts, but these were built on coalitions of interest rather than coalitions of principle, and so collapsed before they could reach the root of any matter. Some merely waited their turn — not to change direction, but to receive their portion of the same power. Amidst these ranks falling one by one, Prabowo stood apart: he entered the cabinet not in surrender, but in the understanding that a true patriot does not always work from outside the fortress — sometimes he must enter within to ensure the fortress does not crumble from the inside.

Prabowo’s refusal to countenance the planned rise in subsidised fuel prices was one of the clearest demonstrations of his patriotic character. When that policy was on the verge of implementation and nearly the entire elite circle endorsed it with various technocratic justifications, Prabowo stated his opposition plainly—not purely from a calculation of popularity, but from his understanding that ordinary citizens cannot be made the instrument of fiscal adjustment by a state that had already spent extravagantly on prestige projects. This stance, whatever the debates surrounding it, revealed a rare consistency: that there is a line he will not cross, even under pressure from the prevailing authority.

The grand rhetoric that is his hallmark—concerning food sovereignty, national defence, geopolitical threats, the self-reliance of the nation—is frequently ridiculed by his critics as a style better suited to an age of warfare than to deliberative democracy. But it is precisely there that the essence of his patriotism resides: a patriot does not speak of what is pleasant to hear; he speaks of what needs to be heard. Whilst the puppet king soothed the public with bicycles, fried rice and the names of fish, the Patriot reminded his audience that the genuine threats facing this nation cannot be resolved with small and endearing symbols.

The decision to join the cabinet—described by many as a compromise or even a betrayal of his support base — may in fact be read as an expression of mature patriotism. A patriot does not refuse power because he dislikes wielding it; he refuses or accepts power on the basis of what serves the nation best. By entering the cabinet whilst retaining his own political narrative and base, Prabowo demonstrated that his loyalty was not to the Puppet King — but to the republic that happened at that moment to be led by him.

His emotional style — the sudden tears in public, the anger displayed without filter, the expressions far removed from the composed bearing of protocol — is dismissed by his critics as a sign of immaturity. Yet for his supporters, this is precisely the clearest mark of authenticity. One who genuinely cares about the fate of the nation cannot always conceal his feelings behind a rehearsed smile. There is an authenticity in the emotional outbursts of a patriot that will never be found in the carefully managed composure of a puppet king who has practised for months to appear serene before the cameras.

The narrative of independence he has built — that his leadership must not become an extension of the puppet king’s era, that he stands upon his own mandate from the people — is the most emphatic of patriotic declarations. In many post-authoritarian states, the successor to a leader who ruled by holding the system hostage tends to become merely an instrument of the old power’s perpetuation. Prabowo refused that scenario. Mietzner, in Money, Power, and Ideology (2013), reminds us that ideological consistency is a rare commodity in Indonesia’s fluid and opportunistic political landscape — and it is precisely that rarity which makes Prabowo’s patriotic character a genuine and enduring distinction.

On the question of legitimacy, the Patriot has consistently maintained that his strength derives from votes cast directly by the people at the ballot box, rather than from the blessing of oligarchs behind the throne. This argument must be understood within the context that Aspinall and Berenschot (2019) lay out: that Indonesia’s clientelistic system structurally favours the incumbent. That Prabowo endured as an adequate counterweight within such a system for more than a decade, without selling himself entirely to oligarchic interests, is evidence that his base of support has a different root — an ideological root that grows from conviction rather than from transaction.

The symbols he has chosen — food sovereignty, defence self-sufficiency, national resilience in the face of global crisis — are not symbols designed to endear or to reassure. They are the symbols chosen by a patriot who understands that this nation will always face threats greater than the price of staple goods at the traditional market. If the puppet king offered a bicycle as a symbol of hope, the Patriot offered toughness as preparation for the storm — and in the long run, only one of those two offerings is truly of use.

His frontal style, which ensures that political opponents can no longer operate beneath the radar, is itself an expression of patriotism. A patriot has no need to conceal his position. He need not play in grey areas, need not hold opponents hostage with information, need not dispatch operatives to silence criticism. He need only stand plainly and declare: “This is my position, this is my reasoning, and I am prepared to answer for it.” This is precisely why the Puppet King never truly succeeded in taming Prabowo as he had tamed other figures — because a horse that knows its own way home cannot be led to someone else’s stable.

If the Puppet King of Solo built his power upon bricks of compromise, managed smiles, and invisible networks, then the Patriot built his influence by the opposite means: by standing in plain sight, speaking loudly, and choosing consistency over comfort. Not because he is without flaw — no patriot is. But because amongst all the players on Indonesia’s political stage across the past decade, only he proved sufficiently tenacious, sufficiently independent, and sufficiently deeply rooted to resist being swallowed by the system that sought to absorb him.

PART III: WHEN THE THRONE CHANGES ITS OCCUPANT

The Democracy Index published annually by The Economist Intelligence Unit records a consistent downward trend in Indonesia’s democracy score throughout the period of the Puppet King’s rule. This is not data to be lightly dismissed, originating as it does from an independent international institution with no stake in Indonesian domestic politics. The decline occurred in tandem with a narrowing of civil liberties, a rise in the criminalisation of critical voices, and an ever-thickening wall between power and public accountability. It is against this backdrop that the question of who constitutes the genuine counterweight becomes most pressing: not who shouts the loudest for a brief moment, but who endures long enough without being dissolved by the Puppet King’s mechanisms of control.

Those mechanisms of control operated with a subtlety that was nonetheless entirely effective. Activists who were too critical found themselves confronted with elastic statutes. Academics who spoke too freely felt a pressure that was invisible yet real. Journalists who investigated too deeply discovered that doors had quietly closed before them. All of this proceeded behind the face of a president who smiled perpetually, who was never seen to lose his temper before the cameras, whose public image was one of calm and simplicity. Herein lay the genius of the puppet king: he had no need to display open anger, for the system he had constructed was sufficient to exhaust his opponents of its own accord.

Prabowo’s contrasting style — emotional, open, sometimes erupting without filter — has never been demonstrated to conceal any such mechanism of suppression. When the Patriot disagreed, he said so. When he was angry, his anger was visible. When he refused something, his refusal was plain before the public. There is no room for below-the-radar manoeuvring in a style of leadership of this kind — and for a people who had spent years living under authority that was sweet before the cameras and hard behind them, rough honesty is far more refreshing than refined deception.

The politics of hostage-taking that characterised the Puppet King — permitting his ministers to operate in grey areas, then storing that information as a card of leverage — is the clearest expression of the disposition of power that Winters (2011) describes within his framework of oligarchy: power more concerned with control than with clean and transparent governance. But this strategy has its limits. It cannot operate upon a figure who entered the cabinet not because he required protection, but because he already possessed sufficient political strength of his own to serve as his own shield. The Patriot was precisely such a figure, and that is why he could never truly be held hostage.

Prabowo’s maintenance of critical distance even from within the cabinet is the most demanding expression of patriotism in the context of contemporary Indonesian politics. It is easy for someone to be critical from outside power. It is far more difficult to remain critical once inside. Other figures who attempted this generally failed — they dissolved, merged, and eventually became indistinguishable from the very forces they had once criticised. Prabowo chose not to dissolve, not to merge, and not to relinquish the line of conviction he had built across decades.

Dan Slater and Erica Simmons remind us that durable political legitimacy across Southeast Asia almost invariably has its roots in what they term critical antecedents — the formative experiences and conditions that shaped a leader’s character long before he held formal power. For Prabowo, those formative experiences were decades of confronting a system that continually sought to swallow him: defeat at the polls, accusation, marginalisation, ostracism — yet never truly extinction. Such experience does not forge an opportunist — it forges a patriot. For the opportunist surrenders when the price to be paid grows too high, whilst the patriot grows only more resolute as the pressure intensifies.

Mietzner (2013) observes that parties with a strong personalised base, such as Gerindra under Prabowo, tend to maintain their ideological line with greater consistency than parties built upon the interests of the moment. This consistency — which critics call obstinacy and supporters call principle — is one of the Patriot’s greatest assets amidst Indonesia’s political landscape, notorious for its fluidity, its opportunism, and its readiness to change direction with whatever wind of power happens to be blowing.

If we trace back through the entirety of this drama from the beginning — the throne erected for the puppet king, the oligarchy maintaining it, the democratic space shrinking, and opposition figures falling one by one — that great question must at last be answered: who, from the very outset, refused to become part of this theatre, endured throughout the most intense pressure, and ultimately became the occupant of a new throne by means altogether different? The answer is not a mystery. It is the one figure who could never truly be purchased, co-opted, or destroyed by the system he faced.

Now that the Puppet King has descended from his throne and seeks to ensure that his influence persists through the successor he shaped, the Patriot faces his greatest test: to demonstrate that his leadership is not merely a continuation of the wayang performance with a different player in the lead role. The narrative of independence he has built must be proved not in words, but in decisions — real, courageous decisions prepared to diverge from the former king’s interests whenever the interests of the people demand it.

In the end, history will not remember who smiled most winningly before the cameras. History will remember who stood firm when the system sought to bring him to his knees, who spoke honestly when honesty was the most costly of commodities, and who remained a patriot even when becoming a king would have been far more profitable. Amongst all the players in this long drama, only one deserves to be remembered by that title — not as a puppet king wearing a borrowed crown, but as a patriot whose crown, if indeed he wears one, was earned in a manner that requires no apology.

ACADEMIC REFERENCES

Aspinall, E. & Berenschot, W. (2019). Democracy for Sale: Elections, Clientelism, and the State in Indonesia. Cornell University Press.

Hadiz, V. R. (2010). Localising Power in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia: A Southeast Asia Perspective. Stanford University Press.

Mietzner, M. (2013). Money, Power, and Ideology: Political Parties in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia. NUS Press.

Slater, D. (2010). Ordering Power: Contentious Politics and Authoritarian Leviathans in Southeast Asia. Cambridge University Press.

Warburton, E. (2016). Jokowi and the New Developmentalism. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 52(3), 297–320.

Winters, J. A. (2011). Oligarchy. Cambridge University Press.

The Economist Intelligence Unit. (various years). Democracy Index. The Economist Group.

Bahasa

Artificial Intelligence in Journalism

For more than five centuries, journalism has evolved alongside every major technological revolution that transformed human communication. The invention of the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg dramatically expanded public access to knowledge. The telegraph accelerated the transmission of news across continents. Radio and television brought current events directly into people's homes, while the internet fundamentally reshaped the speed, accessibility, and global reach of information. Today, Artificial Intelligence represents the latest chapter in this continuing evolution. Yet unlike previous innovations that merely altered the methods of distributing news, AI is beginning to influence the very process through which journalism is researched, written, edited, and presented. This development raises an important question: can journalism continue to uphold its commitment to truth while increasingly relying upon intelligent machines? Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach, in The Elements of Journalism (2021, Crown), argue that although technologies continually change, journalism's central obligation remains unchanged—to provide citizens with truthful, verified, and independent information.

Preserving Truth in the Age of Intelligent Machines

An incident involving Representative Anna Paulina Luna illustrates how rapidly AI has entered professional environments previously regarded as almost entirely dependent upon human judgement. During the preparation of a congressional document, observers noticed the phrase "Claude responded:", suggesting that Anthropic's AI assistant had been used during part of the drafting process. Although it was subsequently clarified that AI merely assisted in summarising material and refining language rather than writing legislation itself, the episode generated widespread public discussion. The controversy did not arise because AI had been used, but because people wished to understand the extent of its involvement and whether appropriate transparency had been maintained. For journalists, the incident offers an important lesson: audiences increasingly expect openness whenever artificial intelligence contributes to the production of information. In journalism, credibility depends not only upon factual accuracy but also upon transparency regarding how information has been gathered and prepared.

Artificial Intelligence should therefore be understood not as a replacement for journalism but as another technological instrument within journalism's long history of innovation. Throughout history, journalists have embraced cameras, typewriters, computers, satellite communication, digital databases, and internet search engines without abandoning their professional responsibilities. AI belongs within this same historical tradition. Its ethical value depends entirely upon the manner in which human beings choose to employ it. Stuart Russell argues in Human Compatible (2019, Viking) that artificial intelligence achieves its greatest value when it operates in support of human objectives rather than attempting to replace human judgement. Within journalism, this principle is particularly important because public trust ultimately rests upon human accountability rather than computational efficiency.

One of the most significant contributions of AI to modern journalism lies in the field commonly known as computational journalism. News organisations now confront unprecedented volumes of information generated through government databases, financial records, satellite imagery, scientific publications, court documents, and social media platforms. Analysing such enormous collections of information manually would require months or even years of labour. Artificial intelligence enables journalists to identify meaningful patterns, detect anomalies, and organise complex datasets within remarkably short periods of time. Nick Diakopoulos explains in Automating the News (2019, Harvard University Press) that AI is expanding journalism's investigative capacity by allowing reporters to explore data at a scale previously impossible through conventional reporting techniques.

Investigative journalism has perhaps benefited more from AI than almost any other branch of the profession. Complex investigations frequently involve reviewing hundreds of thousands of emails, procurement records, banking transactions, judicial decisions, or corporate filings. Artificial intelligence can rapidly classify documents, identify recurring names, trace financial relationships, and highlight irregularities worthy of closer examination. Nevertheless, discovering suspicious patterns is only the beginning of an investigation. Determining whether those patterns genuinely indicate corruption, misconduct, or abuse of power requires experienced journalists capable of interviewing sources, evaluating evidence, and understanding political, legal, and social contexts. Philip Meyer, in The Vanishing Newspaper (2009, University of Missouri Press), argues that journalism's future depends increasingly upon combining advanced analytical tools with traditional reporting skills rooted in rigorous verification.

Artificial Intelligence has likewise transformed data journalism by enabling reporters to explain complex public issues through accessible analysis. Modern societies generate enormous quantities of statistical information concerning healthcare, education, employment, climate change, elections, public spending, and economic development. AI assists journalists in identifying trends, producing visualisations, summarising findings, and recognising relationships that may otherwise remain hidden within millions of numerical observations. Such capabilities allow news organisations to produce richer, more evidence-based reporting that helps readers understand issues extending beyond isolated events. Alberto Cairo, in The Truthful Art (2016, New Riders), argues that data only becomes meaningful when journalists interpret it responsibly, combining statistical accuracy with clear and honest storytelling.

Another practical advantage of artificial intelligence involves the automation of repetitive newsroom tasks. Journalists routinely spend substantial amounts of time transcribing interviews, translating foreign-language materials, organising notes, correcting grammar, and preparing preliminary summaries of lengthy reports. AI now performs many of these administrative activities within minutes rather than hours, allowing reporters to devote far more attention to original reporting, source development, and investigative work. Ethan Mollick argues in Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI (2024, Portfolio) that AI creates the greatest value when it removes routine burdens while leaving human professionals free to concentrate upon higher-order intellectual tasks requiring creativity and judgement.

Artificial intelligence also strengthens international journalism by reducing linguistic barriers. Global news organisations regularly report upon events occurring across regions where journalists may not speak the local language fluently. AI-powered translation systems enable reporters to access foreign government statements, academic research, court documents, and eyewitness accounts with unprecedented speed. Although professional translators remain indispensable for preserving cultural nuance and contextual precision, AI significantly expands journalists' ability to investigate stories beyond their native linguistic boundaries. Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt, and Daniel Huttenlocher argue in The Age of AI (2021, Little, Brown and Company) that artificial intelligence possesses extraordinary potential to facilitate international cooperation through faster and broader access to information.

The increasing adoption of AI within journalism should not be interpreted as evidence that reporters themselves are becoming obsolete. Writing coherent sentences has never been the defining characteristic of journalism. Authentic journalism requires curiosity, scepticism, ethical judgement, courage, persistence, and the willingness to question powerful interests regardless of political or commercial consequences. Artificial intelligence may organise information, suggest possible narratives, or summarise complex documents, yet it cannot independently cultivate confidential sources, recognise subtle deception during interviews, appreciate cultural sensitivities, or determine whether publishing certain information genuinely serves the public interest. Alan Rusbridger observes in Breaking News (2018, Canongate) that the enduring strength of journalism lies not in technology but in its commitment to public accountability and fearless inquiry.

Consequently, the arrival of Artificial Intelligence should not be viewed primarily as a threat to journalism but as an opportunity to redefine the profession's highest priorities. By delegating repetitive mechanical tasks to intelligent systems, journalists gain greater freedom to pursue deeper investigations, verify evidence more carefully, engage more thoughtfully with their communities, and produce reporting that contributes meaningfully to democratic society. Artificial intelligence may dramatically increase the efficiency of news production, but it cannot replace the intellectual integrity upon which journalism ultimately depends. So long as AI remains an assistant rather than an editor, and a tool rather than an authority, its contribution to journalism is likely to strengthen rather than diminish the profession's essential mission of seeking truth and informing the public responsibly.

Ethics, Risks, and the Defence of Public Trust

The remarkable efficiency offered by Artificial Intelligence inevitably introduces ethical challenges that journalism cannot afford to ignore. Throughout history, journalism has never judged technology solely by its speed or convenience, but by whether it strengthens the profession's ability to pursue truth. AI should therefore be evaluated according to the same standard. If it enhances accuracy, transparency, and public accountability, it serves journalism well. If it undermines those principles, it becomes a liability rather than an asset. Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel emphasise in The Elements of Journalism (2021, Crown) that journalism's first obligation is to the truth, while its first loyalty belongs to citizens rather than technology, governments, or commercial interests.

One of the greatest dangers associated with AI in journalism is the phenomenon known as AI hallucination. Unlike traditional databases that retrieve existing information, generative AI systems are designed to predict plausible sequences of words. As a consequence, they occasionally produce entirely fabricated quotations, imaginary references, incorrect dates, or fictitious events while presenting them with remarkable confidence. Such errors may appear convincing even to experienced readers. In ordinary conversation these mistakes may be harmless, but within journalism they can seriously damage public confidence and, in some circumstances, harm individuals whose reputations depend upon accurate reporting. Brian Christian explains in The Alignment Problem (2020, W. W. Norton & Company) that AI systems optimise linguistic fluency rather than factual certainty, making human verification indispensable.

Several high-profile incidents have already demonstrated the consequences of relying excessively upon AI-generated content without adequate editorial oversight. Some news organisations experimenting with automated writing have been forced to issue corrections after publishing inaccurate financial reports or misleading summaries generated by AI systems. These incidents reveal that artificial intelligence is capable of accelerating the publication of both accurate and inaccurate information with equal efficiency. Speed therefore cannot become the defining value of journalism. Craig Silverman argues in Verification Handbook (European Journalism Centre, 2015) that verification remains journalism's defining discipline, particularly in an era when digital technologies enable misinformation to spread faster than ever before.

Another profound challenge arises from the rapid development of deepfake technology. Artificial intelligence can now generate photographs, videos, and audio recordings that are virtually indistinguishable from authentic material. Political speeches can be fabricated, interviews invented, and visual evidence manufactured with extraordinary realism. For journalists, this development fundamentally alters the evidential value of digital media. Images and recordings that once served as compelling proof now require extensive authentication before publication. Nina Schick warns in Deepfakes (2020, Monoray) that synthetic media will become one of the defining information challenges of the twenty-first century because it erodes society's confidence in visual evidence itself.

The proliferation of deepfakes also presents a broader democratic concern. Journalism has traditionally relied upon photographs and recorded interviews to document reality and hold public officials accountable. If citizens begin to doubt every image, every recording, and every video presented as evidence, public discourse risks descending into a condition where objective reality becomes increasingly difficult to establish. Such uncertainty benefits those wishing to deny genuine wrongdoing by dismissing authentic evidence as fabricated. Hannah Arendt argued decades before the emergence of AI, in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951, Harcourt), that the systematic erosion of factual truth weakens the foundations upon which democratic societies depend. Artificial intelligence has amplified the urgency of that warning.

Algorithmic bias represents another ethical issue that deserves careful consideration. Artificial intelligence learns from existing data, and historical data frequently reflects historical inequalities, cultural stereotypes, political preferences, or geographical imbalances. Consequently, AI-generated analyses may unintentionally reinforce biases already embedded within the information used during training. Journalists who rely uncritically upon AI-generated summaries risk reproducing those distortions without recognising them. Kate Crawford argues in Atlas of AI (2021, Yale University Press) that artificial intelligence should never be regarded as neutral because every dataset embodies human choices concerning what information is collected, preserved, and prioritised.

Beyond questions of factual accuracy lies another limitation that is far more difficult to overcome: AI lacks genuine human judgement. Journalism is not merely the mechanical transmission of information; it requires the capacity to evaluate ethical dilemmas, understand emotional circumstances, and appreciate cultural contexts that cannot easily be reduced to statistical patterns. A reporter interviewing the family of disaster victims understands when compassion should take precedence over aggressive questioning. An experienced correspondent covering armed conflict recognises when publishing particular information may place vulnerable individuals in danger. Such decisions require moral reasoning rather than computational analysis. Michael Schudson explains in Why Journalism Still Matters (2018, Polity Press) that journalism continues to perform an irreplaceable civic function precisely because it depends upon responsible human judgement rather than automated information processing.

Artificial intelligence also raises important questions concerning editorial independence. Many contemporary AI systems are developed by large technology companies whose algorithms remain proprietary and inaccessible to public scrutiny. News organisations that become excessively dependent upon these systems may gradually surrender aspects of editorial control to technologies whose underlying assumptions cannot be independently examined. Responsible journalism requires not only transparency towards audiences but also institutional independence from political, commercial, and technological influence. Emily Bell has repeatedly argued in her writings on digital journalism that news organisations must remain vigilant against allowing technological platforms to determine editorial priorities, since journalism ultimately serves the public rather than software providers or algorithmic systems.

Copyright and intellectual property present further ethical complexities. Generative AI systems are frequently trained upon enormous collections of books, newspapers, photographs, illustrations, and other creative works, many of which remain protected by copyright law. This has generated ongoing legal and ethical debates concerning whether creators receive appropriate recognition and compensation when their work contributes to AI-generated outputs. For journalism, respecting intellectual property is particularly important because the profession itself depends upon protecting original reporting from unauthorised appropriation. Lawrence Lessig argues in Free Culture (2004, Penguin Press) that innovation flourishes most effectively when balanced with fair recognition of creators' rights and contributions.

Ultimately, the ethical challenges surrounding Artificial Intelligence reinforce a timeless lesson rather than introducing an entirely new one. Journalism has always depended upon verification, editorial responsibility, independence, fairness, and transparency. Artificial intelligence does not abolish these principles; instead, it makes them even more essential. AI may generate drafts, analyse data, identify patterns, and accelerate workflows, but it cannot assume responsibility for the consequences of publication. That responsibility belongs exclusively to journalists and editors whose professional judgement determines whether information deserves public trust. For this reason, the most successful newsrooms of the future will not necessarily be those possessing the most sophisticated AI systems, but those demonstrating the strongest editorial ethics while employing AI wisely, transparently, and under consistent human supervision.

The Future of the Profession in the Age of Intelligent Machines

As Artificial Intelligence becomes increasingly embedded within modern newsrooms, the future of journalism will depend less upon whether AI is adopted and more upon how wisely it is governed. The question facing journalists is no longer whether intelligent machines should participate in news production, for that transition is already well underway. Instead, the profession must determine how technological innovation can coexist with the enduring principles that have defined journalism for generations. Every technological revolution has required journalism to adapt without abandoning its ethical foundations. Artificial intelligence presents precisely the same challenge. Alan Rusbridger argues in Breaking News (2018, Canongate) that journalism survives periods of disruption by preserving its public mission even as its tools continue to evolve.

Rather than replacing journalists, AI is likely to become what many researchers describe as a co-pilot—an intelligent assistant that supports human professionals while leaving editorial authority firmly in human hands. Just as airline pilots rely upon sophisticated autopilot systems without surrendering responsibility for passenger safety, journalists may increasingly rely upon AI to perform repetitive analytical tasks while retaining complete responsibility for editorial judgement. Ethan Mollick argues in Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI (2024, Portfolio) that the greatest benefits of artificial intelligence emerge when humans and machines collaborate, each contributing strengths that the other lacks. In journalism, this partnership allows technology to provide speed while humans contribute wisdom.

Many observers fear that AI will eventually eliminate the need for reporters. Such concerns underestimate the true nature of journalism. Gathering facts is only one dimension of reporting. Journalists must also recognise which facts deserve investigation, distinguish between public interest and public curiosity, cultivate confidential sources, negotiate access to reluctant interviewees, understand political and cultural sensitivities, and make ethical decisions under uncertain circumstances. None of these responsibilities can be reduced to statistical prediction alone. Michael Schudson explains in Why Journalism Still Matters (2018, Polity Press) that journalism is fundamentally a civic institution rather than merely an information industry, because it requires judgement grounded in democratic responsibility.

Investigative journalism will remain particularly resistant to automation. Some of history's most influential investigations—from the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate scandal to the Panama Papers and the Paradise Papers—did not succeed because reporters possessed superior technology. They succeeded because journalists demonstrated persistence, scepticism, courage, and an unwavering commitment to uncovering truths that powerful individuals sought to conceal. Artificial intelligence may greatly accelerate document analysis, financial tracing, and pattern recognition, but it cannot persuade reluctant whistle-blowers to speak, assess a witness's credibility during an interview, or decide whether publishing sensitive information ultimately serves the public good. Philip Meyer reminds readers in The Vanishing Newspaper (2009, University of Missouri Press) that technology strengthens investigative journalism only when guided by disciplined human inquiry.

Editors likewise become even more indispensable in an AI-assisted newsroom. Traditionally, editors have not merely corrected grammar or improved style; they have safeguarded accuracy, challenged unsupported assumptions, identified ethical concerns, and protected publications from legal and reputational harm. Artificial intelligence may recommend headlines, restructure paragraphs, or summarise lengthy reports, but it cannot assume legal responsibility for defamation, invasion of privacy, or breaches of professional ethics. The editor therefore becomes the essential guardian ensuring that every AI-assisted article satisfies the standards expected of responsible journalism. Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach emphasise in The Elements of Journalism (2021, Crown) that accountability ultimately resides with human editors rather than technological systems.

The relationship between AI and democracy deserves equally careful attention. Independent journalism performs a constitutional function within democratic societies by informing citizens, scrutinising governments, exposing corruption, and facilitating informed public debate. Artificial intelligence may strengthen these functions by enabling journalists to analyse vast public databases, detect irregular patterns in government expenditure, and uncover evidence of misconduct more efficiently than ever before. Conversely, AI may also be exploited to generate disinformation, manipulate public opinion, or overwhelm citizens with fabricated content. The technology itself remains politically neutral; its democratic consequences depend entirely upon those who control and deploy it. Yuval Noah Harari argues in Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI (2024, Random House) that information technologies possess the extraordinary capacity either to strengthen democratic institutions or to undermine them, depending upon the ethical principles governing their use.

Closely connected to democracy is the question of public trust, which remains journalism's most valuable asset. A newspaper, broadcaster, or digital publication possesses no lasting authority apart from the confidence placed in it by its audience. Once trust is lost, technological sophistication cannot easily restore it. The widespread use of AI therefore imposes an even greater obligation upon news organisations to disclose when artificial intelligence has contributed significantly to reporting, editing, illustration, or content generation. Transparency should not be viewed as a weakness but as a demonstration of professional integrity. Charlie Beckett, in New Powers, New Responsibilities: A Global Survey of Journalism and Artificial Intelligence (London School of Economics, 2019), concludes that audiences are generally willing to accept AI-assisted journalism provided that news organisations remain transparent and maintain robust editorial oversight.

An important philosophical question naturally follows: do the benefits of Artificial Intelligence outweigh its risks in journalism? The answer depends not upon AI itself but upon the ethical framework within which it operates. When artificial intelligence is employed to accelerate research, analyse public records, transcribe interviews, translate documents, detect emerging patterns, and support investigative reporting under careful human supervision, its advantages are considerable. It increases efficiency, expands analytical capacity, and enables journalists to devote more attention to reporting that genuinely serves the public interest. Under such conditions, AI strengthens journalism rather than weakening it.

However, the balance changes dramatically when AI replaces rather than supports professional judgement. If news organisations permit algorithms to publish unverified reports, generate fictional quotations, create misleading images, personalise news solely to maximise engagement, or prioritise speed over accuracy, the harms become profound. Journalism ceases to function as a public service and instead risks becoming another mechanism for producing misinformation at industrial scale. Neil Postman warned in Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (1992, Vintage Books) that societies become vulnerable when they begin allowing technology to determine their values instead of ensuring that human values govern technological development. His warning remains strikingly relevant in the age of generative AI.

After weighing both perspectives, the evidence suggests that the potential benefits of Artificial Intelligence are greater than its potential harms—provided that journalism continues to place ethical responsibility above technological capability. AI has already demonstrated its capacity to improve investigative reporting, strengthen data journalism, reduce administrative burdens, expand international reporting, and improve newsroom efficiency. At the same time, its risks—including hallucinations, deepfakes, algorithmic bias, copyright disputes, and disinformation—are serious but manageable through rigorous editorial standards, transparent disclosure, independent verification, and meaningful human oversight. Artificial intelligence should therefore be regarded neither as journalism's saviour nor as its enemy. It is a powerful instrument whose value depends entirely upon the integrity of those who wield it. As long as journalists remain committed to truth, independence, verification, fairness, and accountability, AI is more likely to become one of the greatest allies journalism has ever possessed than one of its greatest threats. The future of journalism, therefore, will not be determined by machines learning to think like journalists, but by journalists learning to use intelligent machines without surrendering the ethical principles that have always defined their profession.

References

•  Beckett, Charlie. New Powers, New Responsibilities: A Global Survey of Journalism and Artificial Intelligence. London: London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), 2019.
• Cairo, Alberto. The Truthful Art: Data, Charts, and Maps for Communication. Berkeley: New Riders, 2016.
• Christian, Brian. The Alignment Problem: Machine Learning and Human Values. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2020.
• Harari, Yuval Noah. Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI. New York: Random House, 2024.
• Kovach, Bill, and Tom Rosenstiel. The Elements of Journalism. 4th ed. New York: Crown, 2021.
• Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: Penguin Press, 2004.
• Meyer, Philip. The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism in the Information Age. 2nd ed. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2009.
• Mollick, Ethan. Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI. New York: Portfolio, 2024.
• Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books, 1992.
• Russell, Stuart. Human Compatible. New York: Viking, 2019.
• Rusbridger, Alan. Breaking News: The Remaking of Journalism and Why It Matters Now. Edinburgh: Canongate, 2018.
• Schick, Nina. Deepfakes. London: Monoray, 2020.
• Schudson, Michael. Why Journalism Still Matters. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2018.
• Silverman, Craig (ed.). Verification Handbook. European Journalism Centre, 2015.
• Diakopoulos, Nick. Automating the News. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019. 

Bahasa