Supervision Polemics of Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) on Internet Content

Aep Wahyudin
{"title":"Supervision Polemics of Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) on Internet Content","authors":"Aep Wahyudin","doi":"10.2991/assehr.k.200225.039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"—Internet users in Indonesia reached 171.17 million in 2019. Data on Spring 2014 Global Attitudes mentioned that in developing countries the impact of the internet has given bad influence. It rompted the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) to supervise the internet. However, it received disagreement from part of community by delivering the petition to reject KPI plan through www.change.org. This research aims to find out the pros and cons of KPI in supervising Netflix and YouTube content. The study used critical discourse analysis. The results revealed the polemic due to differences in interpreting the Broadcasting Law 32 of 2002, especially regarding 'other media' whether it includes the internet or not; whether Netflix and YouTube are included television broadcasting or video on demand (VOD) cable television identification; or whether KPI has been given the authority to supervise them. In the context perspective, KPI conveyed that the discourse was in line with the phenomenon where the creativity of internet users increased and television programs quality were below the standard. KPI should convey these issues to the Indonesian Parliament. The KPI supervision must have clear legal basis first, and do not obstruct internet users’ creativity.","PeriodicalId":295773,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2nd Social and Humaniora Research Symposium (SoRes 2019)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2nd Social and Humaniora Research Symposium (SoRes 2019)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200225.039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

—Internet users in Indonesia reached 171.17 million in 2019. Data on Spring 2014 Global Attitudes mentioned that in developing countries the impact of the internet has given bad influence. It rompted the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI) to supervise the internet. However, it received disagreement from part of community by delivering the petition to reject KPI plan through www.change.org. This research aims to find out the pros and cons of KPI in supervising Netflix and YouTube content. The study used critical discourse analysis. The results revealed the polemic due to differences in interpreting the Broadcasting Law 32 of 2002, especially regarding 'other media' whether it includes the internet or not; whether Netflix and YouTube are included television broadcasting or video on demand (VOD) cable television identification; or whether KPI has been given the authority to supervise them. In the context perspective, KPI conveyed that the discourse was in line with the phenomenon where the creativity of internet users increased and television programs quality were below the standard. KPI should convey these issues to the Indonesian Parliament. The KPI supervision must have clear legal basis first, and do not obstruct internet users’ creativity.
印尼广播委员会(KPI)对互联网内容的监管之争
——2019年,印尼网民规模达1.7117亿人。2014年春季全球态度数据提到,在发展中国家,互联网的影响已经产生了不良影响。这促使印尼广播委员会(KPI)对互联网进行监管。然而,通过www.change.org提交拒绝KPI计划的请愿书,遭到部分社区的反对。本研究旨在找出KPI在监督Netflix和YouTube内容中的利弊。本研究采用批评话语分析。结果显示,对2002年第32号《广播法》的解释存在分歧,特别是对“其他媒体”是否包括互联网的解释存在分歧。Netflix和YouTube是否包含电视广播或视频点播(VOD)有线电视标识;或者KPI是否被赋予监督他们的权力。从语境的角度来看,KPI传达的话语符合网民创造力增加、电视节目质量不达标的现象。KPI应将这些问题传达给印度尼西亚议会。KPI监管首先要有明确的法律依据,不能阻碍网民的创造力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信