[Part 4]As mentioned by Prabowo in his book Paradoks Indonesia, the landscape of Indonesian mainstream media is largely dominated by a few powerful conglomerates and well-established outlets that have become household names over the years. Indeed, upon closer examination, these include major television networks such as RCTI, SCTV, Metro TV, Trans TV, and TV One, each with its own distinct political and commercial affiliations. On the print and digital side, Kompas, Tempo, Detik, Tribun Network, CNN Indonesia, and Republika command significant influence in shaping public discourse. Most of these media outlets are owned by business groups with close ties to political elites, making their editorial stances often reflective of prevailing power dynamics. Despite this, a number of them still strive to maintain journalistic credibility, though the degree of independence varies greatly depending on the issue and the owner’s interests. In today’s digital age, even legacy media outlets such as Media Indonesia and Berita Satu have adopted online platforms to maintain relevance and connect with a younger, more digitally connected audience.The media landscape in Indonesia can be broadly classified into three categories based on their editorial alignment and political disposition. The first category consists of pro-government media. These are outlets that consistently construct positive narratives, offer glorified portrayals, and actively minimise criticism directed at the government and key figures such as President Joko Widodo and his family. These media outlets tend to position the government as the central protagonist in the story of national development, while often sidestepping any problematic aspects or controversies.Their editorial characteristics include the frequent use of euphemistic language—terms like “sustainable development,” “the people’s commitment,” or “a humble leader.” They generally provide limited investigative depth into controversies, and they allocate significant coverage and stage time to government-aligned sources, making them central voices in public discourse.The second category includes media that remain critical of the government. These outlets uphold the principles of journalistic professionalism and do not shy away from presenting critical perspectives on government policies, including suspected abuses, political disputes, or nepotistic practices.Editorially, they maintain openness toward diverse voices, such as academics, NGOs, and opposition figures. Investigative journalism remains a key priority for these platforms, even in politically charged circumstances. They are also known to address sensitive issues carefully, balancing legal caution with a strong commitment to transparency and public accountability.The third category encompasses strongly oppositional media. These platforms or channels openly serve as counterweights, and sometimes direct adversaries, to dominant government narratives. They frequently adopt rhetorical, populist, or investigative techniques in order to expose the darker corners of power.Their editorial traits often include provocative headlines and sharply worded analysis. They demonstrate a willingness to expose and examine the realities beneath orchestrated political image-building. These outlets amplify the voices of civil society, student movements, and alternative public figures who are frequently sidelined by the mainstream.In Indonesia, many mainstream media outlets are not just independent news institutions—they are often extensions of powerful conglomerates with business and political stakes. RCTI, along with MNCTV and iNews, is owned by MNC Group, which is controlled by businessman-politician Hary Tanoesoedibjo, a known ally of pro-government coalitions. SCTV and Indosiar fall under the Emtek Group (Elang Mahkota Teknologi), which also owns Liputan6.com and is known to maintain strategic relationships with various political interests, though often perceived as pragmatic rather than ideological. Metro TV and Media Indonesia are part of the Media Group, founded by Surya Paloh, the chairman of the NasDem Party, which has previously aligned with Jokowi but has shown opposition shifts more recently. Trans TV and Trans7 belong to CT Corp, led by Chairul Tanjung, a business mogul who tends to maintain neutrality and flexible alignments. TV One and ANtv are owned by the Bakrie Group, associated with Aburizal Bakrie, a senior figure in Golkar, historically aligned with establishment politics. Kompas TV and Kompas.com are under the Kompas Gramedia Group, a media giant with a long-standing reputation for middle-class journalism and nationalistic tone, often seen as moderate and balanced. Tempo, a prominent weekly magazine and online platform, is managed by the Tempo Inti Media group, which has retained a more independent stance and critical voice. Meanwhile, Tribun Network and Serambi Indonesia are owned by Kompas Gramedia as well, but cater more to regional audiences and are often considered less confrontational. Lastly, CNN Indonesia and Detik.com are subsidiaries of Trans Media, part of CT Corp, giving them both wide reach and corporate-style editorial direction.
What about the opposition media? In Indonesia, the term “opposition media” is somewhat fluid and context-dependent, especially since most major outlets are owned by conglomerates with shifting political alliances. However, a few media platforms have carved out reputations for offering more critical perspectives against the ruling administration or challenging dominant narratives. TV One, under the Bakrie Group, has often been associated with oppositional tones, particularly during the earlier Jokowi years, aligning with Golkar's more critical stances at the time. Republika, although formerly tied to the Islamic organization ICMI (Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals Association), is now under the Mahaka Group, which was connected to Erick Thohir but editorially has allowed more conservative and at times oppositional narratives, particularly through its religious and political content. Suara Islam, Media Umat, and Hidayatullah.com are niche Islamic media outlets not linked to major conglomerates but are known for their openly critical content regarding liberal policies, government secularism, and foreign influence—often aligning ideologically with conservative Muslim groups like HTI, FPI, or similar circles, although not always officially affiliated. Gelora.co, founded by former PKS politicians who now lead the Partai Gelora, also presents a more oppositional tone, especially towards what they perceive as elite co-optation of the democratic space. Rmol.id and Pojoksatu.id, although owned by larger media networks like Jawa Pos Group, sometimes publish populist or nationalist content that appeals to anti-establishment sentiments. Narasi TV, led by journalist Najwa Shihab, while not overtly oppositional, has gained a reputation for critical investigative journalism and hosting voices outside the mainstream establishment, especially among youth and civil society groups.
On the ground in Indonesia as of July 2025, there are several media and platforms that remain openly critical of the government and its policies. These include outlets like Suara Tanpa Batas and Jurnal Rakyat, which grew rapidly as independent digital platforms offering uncensored reporting and investigative content, and often directly challenge state narratives. Watchdoc Indonesia, through its documentaries and features, continues to address social justice issues and confront power structures, firmly resisting government-aligned messaging. Konde.co, though not huge, serves voices of marginalised groups and frequently highlights systemic issues that mainstream outlets might avoid. Besides these, Tempo remains one of the most high‑profile critiques of the administration, even facing intimidation as noted internationally in March 2025, for its unapologetic coverage of military law amendments and attacks on press freedom.These media act as a counter‑narrative to the dominant discourse, often reporting on protest movements, violations of civil rights, democratic backsliding, and institutional abuses—even when the political climate grows more repressive.In the increasingly polarised media landscape of Indonesia, particularly as of July 2025, a number of alternative voices have taken root not through traditional press but via social media platforms—most notably YouTube and Twitter (now X). These digital outlets often function as opposition media, offering criticism and counter-narratives to the state-controlled or pro-government mainstream. One of the most prominent among them is Refly Harun’s YouTube channel, which combines constitutional law analysis with sharp political commentary, openly criticising the erosion of democratic values and constitutional violations. Similarly, Rocky Gerung Official continues to attract large audiences through his intellectually provocative discussions, often laced with irony and delivered with biting humour.Channels like Hersubeno Arief’s “Hersubeno Point” and Abrahan Samad Speak Up serve as satirical or intellectual responses to government propaganda. Beyond individuals, there are coordinated networks such as Forum News Network (FNN) and Kanal Anak Bangsa which amplify dissenting voices and frame their content around constitutional decay, social injustice, and the perceived autocratic drift under the current regime.In contemporary Indonesia, mainstream media outlets do not merely function as conveyors of information—they are active participants in the country’s political theatre. As of 2025, a significant portion of national media is perceived by the public as being excessively favourable toward President Joko Widodo and his inner circle. This perception stems not only from editorial choices that highlight his achievements but also from a persistent absence of critical reporting on controversial matters involving his administration or family.
Names such as Kompas, Metro TV, Detik.com, Tribun and TVRI frequently top the list of outlets seen as echoing state narratives. These organisations are owned by conglomerates with notable economic and political entanglements. From the national broadcaster TVRI, which is state-funded, to BeritaSatu, under the Lippo Group, these outlets often adopt euphemistic language and selectively amplify government-friendly stories.
This pattern is not coincidental. Media alliances in Indonesia are shaped by complex forces: political patronage, business dependency, and access to power. Media perceived as too confrontational are denied access to vital information or even advertising revenue. The cult of personality surrounding Jokowi further reinforces media compliance, framing him as the humble leader of the people—a narrative repeated ad nauseam.
As of July 2025, Tempo stands as one of Indonesia’s most resilient and respected journalistic institutions—positioned delicately between the increasingly co-opted mainstream media and the loud, often unfiltered voices of social media opposition. While it no longer holds the singular aura of fearless dissent it did in earlier reformasi years, Tempo continues to serve as a crucial watchdog, especially in an environment where many major outlets have softened or surrendered under political and economic pressure.
Meanwhile, social media has emerged as the battleground for alternative voices. Platforms like YouTube and X (formerly Twitter) have become havens for more critical content. Figures such as Refly Harun, Rocky Gerung, and digital channels like Narasi TV, Project Multatuli, and Independen.id offer contrasting narratives—often exposing government failures or contradictions that mainstream channels ignore.
This analysis draws from search engine observations, content framing trends, academic reports, and social media data to categorise media outlets across five axes: from government-worshipping to critical opposition. Yet it recognises that no classification is perfect. Bias—whether from the analyst, the source, or the audience—is inevitable. Some readers will see Kompas as balanced; others will call it submissive. The goal, therefore, is not to present a singular truth, but to provoke more discerning media consumption. This is our disclaimer. We’re only human, after all—so bias is inevitable. It may stem from data, or from perception. What truly matters is being aware that such bias exists, and making a conscious effort to compare multiple sources so we don’t fall for a single, dominant narrative. The bottom line? This analysis isn’t gospel. But it can serve as an initial map to help identify who’s singing praises, who’s being snarky, and who genuinely cares about the public. In the end, it’s our choice: do we remain passive spectators, or become critical readers?
Indonesia’s current media terrain is reflective of a deepening political fragmentation. On one end, large-scale media institutions continue to produce what may be regarded as soft propaganda. On the other, an increasingly vocal and courageous wave of digital and alternative media platforms offers contrasting narratives that challenge dominant power structures.The balance of public information heavily relies on both the diversity of available sources and the editorial courage to uphold truth over loyalty to authority. When citizens depend solely on one type of media, public discourse becomes lopsided and impaired. Therefore, it is essential for the public to actively engage in cross-verification and draw information from multiple spectrums of the media.In an era of increasing media concentration and political manoeuvring, the need for critical literacy is urgent. Indonesians must recognise when narratives are being manufactured—and by whom. The media landscape is not black and white; it is shaded by interests, loyalties, and silence.Now let's talk about the book. In Paradoks Indonesia dan Solusinya, Prabowo Subianto outlined an ambitious and idealistic vision for the Indonesian media. He imagined a press that was fearless, nationally conscious, and free from both foreign manipulation and domestic oligarchic interests. For him, the media had a moral responsibility to educate the public, resist sensationalism, and defend the nation's values. He condemned the culture of clickbait, shallow journalism, and media that merely chased profits or political endorsements.Yet by 2025, the reality under Prabowo’s presidency has grown increasingly contradictory to the ideals he once championed. As of mid‑2025, new patterns of repression—both overt and subtle—have emerged under President Prabowo Subianto’s leadership. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report a sharp increase in threats, physical assaults, arrests at protests, and digital harassment targeting journalists, activists, and protesters, specifically during Prabowo’s tenure.In March 2025, Tempo journalist received symbolic threats—a mutilated pig’s head and six decapitated rats—linked directly to her critical coverage of government policies, including military law amendments that expanded TNI’s role in governance. These incidents occurred while Prabowo is in power and were widely condemned as a form of targeted intimidation—without any previous decree from an earlier regime. During large student protests over controversial policies such as budget cuts and the TNI law revision, journalists covering the events were physically attacked by police, forced to delete footage, and subject to arrests and beatings—even though mass detentions were not carried over from prior administrations.Critics and civil society observers emphasise that this pattern of “soft repression” is new and coincides with Prabowo’s own rise—a press environment where dissent is not outlawed, but actively discouraged through threats, lawsuits, and orchestrated pressure. Therefore, while activism may not result in imprisonment yet, the level and specificity of pressure faced by media and civil society actors reflect a clear shift in climate under Prabowo, rather than mere continuation of the previous government’s legacy.It is entirely possible that the media atmosphere under Prabowo’s leadership has not yet fully stabilised simply because his administration is still in its early stages. Like many leaders at the beginning of their tenure, Prabowo may be focused on consolidating power, forming coalitions, and avoiding overt conflict with powerful media conglomerates. This cautious start could explain the lack of bold reforms or the continued dominance of media structures he once criticised. So yes, it may be too early to judge conclusively.In envisioning a solution to Indonesia's enduring paradoxes, Prabowo frames the nation's 100th year of independence—2045—as both a symbolic milestone and a moral deadline. He believes that Indonesia’s vast natural wealth and youthful population can no longer be squandered or mismanaged. The country must undergo a total transformation, grounded in justice, national pride, and strategic independence.Prabowo’s vision is unapologetically bold. He argues that the time for half-measures has passed; what Indonesia needs is systemic change, not cosmetic reforms. This includes empowering the economy to serve the people, reforming democracy so that it reflects the will of the rakyat, and ensuring that national assets are protected from foreign exploitation. He sees the centennial of independence not merely as a date to celebrate, but as a test: will Indonesia finally break free from the chains of inequality, dependency, and internal betrayal?The message is clear: Indonesia must act now or risk becoming permanently trapped in its paradox—rich in resources, yet poor in practice.In the section titled “Ini Potensi Negara Kita”, Prabowo Subianto passionately asserts that Indonesia possesses vast and extraordinary potential—far greater than what many citizens realise. He describes Indonesia as a land blessed with rich natural resources, expansive seas teeming with marine life, and a fertile climate capable of producing abundant food and energy. He argues that if properly managed, these assets could ensure Indonesia’s self-sufficiency and elevate its standing as a powerful, independent nation.Moreover, Prabowo emphasises the human factor: the strength of Indonesia lies not only in its minerals or forests, but in the resilience, creativity, and spirit of its people—especially its youth. With sound leadership, honest governance, and a return to national values rooted in justice and unity, he believes Indonesia can rise to global prominence and finally break the paradox of being rich in potential, yet poor in distribution.Prabowo emphasises that realising a constitutional economy means adhering to the spirit and mandate of the 1945 Constitution, particularly Article 33. He argues that the Indonesian economy must not be left to the mercy of free-market forces or foreign interests, but must be organised based on family principles, collective welfare, and national sovereignty. According to him, the Constitution clearly outlines that vital sectors of the economy should be controlled by the state for the benefit of the people.For Prabowo, re-establishing an economy grounded in constitutional ideals is the antidote to decades of inequality, corruption, and elite dominance. He calls for bold political will to reverse the trend of liberalisation that has, in his view, betrayed the founding spirit of the republic. This includes strengthening cooperatives, protecting small farmers and workers, and ensuring that wealth circulates fairly among citizens. The constitutional economy is not a romantic idea for him—it is a national duty.In discussing “Mewujudkan Demokrasi Rakyat”, Prabowo makes it clear that Indonesia’s democracy must not be a theatrical performance staged by elites, but a system genuinely rooted in the will and needs of the people. He argues that political power should not be controlled by a small group of wealthy individuals or dynastic interests, but must be reclaimed by the rakyat through fair, transparent, and accountable institutions.He criticises how democracy in practice has been distorted—where votes can be bought, surveys manipulated, and media used as a weapon for image-making. For him, people’s sovereignty is not just about voting every five years; it is about meaningful participation, protection of public interest, and a political culture built on honesty, justice, and national unity. True democracy, he argues, must serve those who have long been silenced—the poor, the farmers, the workers—and not merely enrich the privileged class.In conclusion, Paradoks Indonesia dan Solusinya is more than a political manifesto—it is a moral appeal, a strategic roadmap, and a passionate cry for national awakening. Through this book, Prabowo reminds us that Indonesia’s greatness lies not only in its natural wealth or demographics, but in the courage to correct its course and fulfil its historical promises. As the nation moves closer to its centenary of independence, the question is no longer whether we have potential, but whether we have the will to realise it. The time to solve Indonesia’s paradox is now—and the responsibility rests not only on the shoulders of leaders, but in the hands of every citizen who dares to care.
We shall now delve into Prabowo Subianto’s next book, entitled “Strategi Transformasi Bangsa: Menuju Indonesia Emas 2045 (National Transformation Strategy: Towards a Golden Indonesia 2045)”, bi'idhnillah.
[Part 2]
