Violating Journalistic Code Of Ethics, Tempo Apologizes To The Public For Content About Erick Thohir

Minister of SOEs, Erick Thohir. (Photo: Doc. Antara)

JAKARTA - Tempo through its Youtube content, Bocor Alus Politik, expressed his apologies to the public for content that did not match the truth in the edition discussing Erick Thohir. Represented by the Implementing Editor who is also the host of the Bocor Alus Politik show Stefanus Pramono, Tempo also publicly apologized to Erick Thohir for the broadcast which contained a number of personal accusations to the Minister of SOEs.

Previously, Tempo Content which reviewed Erick Thohir had been declared by the Press Council to have violated the Journalistic Code of Ethics.

"On behalf of the Bocor Alus Party, I apologize to Mas Erick Thohir if our news has an unpleasant impact. Likewise to viewers from Bocor Alus Politics, we apologize if there are words that are not pleasing or appropriate," Stefanus said through a right to answer broadcast on Youtube Tempo, Tuesday, August 8.

In the right to answer video, the Tempo and Erick Thohir teams can talk casually. The conversation took place within six minutes as part of Tempo's obligation which was stated by the Press Council to have violated three articles in the journalistic code of ethics.

In light and informal discussions, Erick stated that he as part of the press felt that the right to answer was part of the intention to uphold press freedom. Erick feels that the right to answer is the media so that the information submitted can be complete, balanced, and fair.

"So you don't have to be serious. Just like this (talk) about the right to answer," said Erick.

On that occasion, Erick explained the content that was far from the truth about the BUMN Social Media Ranger which was actually made as a means of publication of company performance, not personal.

Previously, the Press Council stated that Tempo violated Article 1, Article 2, and Article 3 of the Journalistic Code of Ethics (KEJ). The content was also declared unbalanced, the source was unclear, did not test information, mixed facts and opinions, and also judged.