When the Reporter is Called Londo Ireng

The president can be angry. The president can be upset. The president can also feel that his government does not get a fair space from the media.

But there are limits that the holders of power cannot cross. Criticism should not be equated with treason. The press should not be led as if it were working for a foreign party.

That's where the term "londo ireng" becomes a serious matter.

President Prabowo Subianto used the term when he gave a speech at the 28th PKB Birthday Anniversary at the Jakarta Convention Center, July 23, 2026. He said the government was not anti-criticism. However, he then alluded to the party he said was more loyal to other nations.

In the speech, Prabowo also referred to journalists, observers, and NGOs as "another suit" of londo ireng.

"Londo ireng" is not a neutral term. Literally, this term comes from the Javanese language which means black Dutch. In today's political usage, the term is understood as a label for people who are considered to be more loyal to foreign interests than their own people.

The problem is not only in the harshness of political language. The problem is who is talking, from what position he is talking, and to whom the label is directed.

When the term is applied to journalists, it is not just a mere insinuation. There is a moral stamp there. There is an impression that critical news is not public work, but rather work that should be suspected.

The National Journalists Forum or FWK regrets Prabowo's statement which is considered to equate journalists with londo ireng during the PKB event. FWK said the nickname was "very inappropriate, even insulting".

FWK also reminded, Indonesian journalists have a long track record in the struggle for independence and maintaining the republic. Through reporting, the press also broadcasts Indonesia's presence to the international community. FWK even said that some journalists took up arms.

With such a history, the nationalism of journalists should not be questioned just because they work critically.

The press is not an institution that must always make rulers comfortable. The press is also not the government's cheerleading team. In a democracy, journalists are tasked with recording facts, testing officials' claims, opening what is covered, and demanding promises that have ever been made in front of the people.

If the media is wrong, the path is available. There is a right to reply, a right to correction, the Press Council, the Code of Ethics for Journalists, and legal mechanisms. What is unhealthy is when criticism is answered with labels that make journalists like enemies of the state.

AJI and a number of journalist organizations also voiced similar criticism. They assessed that labeling londo ireng was degrading, trivializing, and delegitimizing the profession of journalists. They reminded, the press works under the Press Law and the Code of Ethics for Journalists.

The press is not pure. Journalists can be wrong. Media can be biased. Editors can be wrong in taking a point of view. Everything can be criticized. But criticism of the press must be answered with data, corrections, right of reply, and ethical mechanisms. Not with a label that makes public oversight work feel like betrayal.

Journalists are not palace employees. The media is not part of the government's communication team. The task of the press is not to make the ruler comfortable, but to ensure that the public gets facts. If there are damaged schools, the media has the right to write. If there is a problematic government program, journalists must ask. If state funds leak, the public has the right to know. That is part of the control as the fourth pillar of democracy.

Criticism is not sabotage. Bad coverage does not automatically have evil intentions. News that is not pleasing to the government is not necessarily the enemy of the nation.

YLBHI also gave a warning. According to the institution, this kind of label can build a stigma as if the party who criticizes is not loyal to the nation. This stigma is considered to trigger intimidation, persecution, and criminalization of journalists, students, and human rights activists.

These concerns are reasonable. The president's words are not coffee shop chatter. He can go down as a political signal. Supporters can feel vindicated. Field officers can read the wind direction. Officials can be more reluctant to open data. Sources can be more afraid to speak.

In the end, it's not just journalists who lose. The public loses too.

The public needs a press that can ask, write, and test officials' claims without fear of being labeled. Democracy does not live on applause. Democracy needs space to refute.

The history of the Indonesian press is also not as narrow as the label. As written by Hendry Ch Bangun on the PWI website, on February 9, 1946, about 180 journalists from Java, Sumatra, Sulawesi, Kalimantan gathered in the Congress of Journalists in Surakarta. The Republic at that time was still young, while the Dutch were trying to re-establish their influence with the support of the British occupation in a number of areas.

Journalists felt the need to unite. Through the republican media, they mobilized public opinion, united various groups, and maintained the people's loyalty to the Republic and its leaders. From that event, February 9 was then commemorated as National Press Day.

Therefore, the accusation that the critical press is automatically not nationalist feels too cheap. The history of the press was born from partisanship to the republic and the public. Not to the power that is in office.

The president certainly has the right to ask the media to be fair. The government has the right to deny false news. The government is also obliged to straighten out misleading information. But the best rebuttal is data, not stigma. The strongest answer is performance, not the label of a traitor.

The words "londo ireng" may be intended as a political attack on those who are considered to be exaggerating the state's bad condition. But when everything is equalized, the problem changes. This is no longer about diction on the party stage. It's about whether power still wants to accept supervision.

Prabowo can correct his speech. In the issue of the press, correction is not a weakness. It's the simplest way to show that criticism still has a place.

If the criticism is wrong, answer with data. If the media is wrong, use the press mechanism. Don't make the work of journalists a sign of hostility.