SP-Indonesia.com, Malaysia – A statement regarding media partnerships made by the Deputy Mayor of Batam who also serves as the Deputy Head of the Batam Free Zone Authority (BP Batam) Li Claudia Candra, has drawn a sharp response from Nuryanto, the Chairman of the Batam City PDI-P branch (DPC).
Nuryanto emphasized that a partnership between the government and the media is not a license to silence criticism. In his view, such cooperation must not cause the media to lose its independence or feel compelled to remain silent when encountering issues that affect the public interest.
Public officials must be prepared to face criticism.
“Partnerships require mutual care, respect, and appreciation. A good partner is one who can call out their friend when necessary, even if the truth is bitter,” Nuryanto asserted on Monday (September 7, 2026).
This statement has drawn attention because it addresses a sensitive issue in the relationship between the government and media companies: the point where a partnership transforms into pressure that compromises editorial independence.
COOPERATION IS NOT A “GAG ORDER”
Nuryanto rejected the notion that media outlets partnering with the government or BP Batam are obligated to always validate or defend official policies.
He maintained that the media retains its journalistic duty to convey factual information while simultaneously performing its function as a social watchdog.
“A partnership with the government or BP Batam must not negate the press’s obligation to report information based on facts,” he stated.
In other words, while the media may engage in partnerships, it must not lose its voice.
Criticism does not automatically equate to hostility, nor does a rebuke imply disloyalty. On the contrary, Nuryanto argued, a partner who has the courage to point out errors is demonstrating a healthy partnership.
“PARTNERS WHO ALWAYS SAY ‘YES’ CAN ACTUALLY LEAD YOU ASTRAY”
Nuryanto went even further with his criticism.
He warned that allowing an institution to make mistakes without offering a rebuke does not constitute loyalty. “If you have a good partner but allow them to engage in actions that violate the rules without intervening, that amounts to leading them astray,” he asserted.
The message is clear: the government does not need media outlets that merely serve as a mouthpiece for those in power.
Instead, the media is needed to offer reminders, provide corrections, and present facts whenever policies or actions warrant questioning.
THREATS TO TERMINATE PARTNERSHIPS RAISE CONCERNS
The issue becomes particularly sensitive when partnerships are linked to the potential termination of cooperation should the media be deemed overly critical.
Nuryanto believes such a dynamic places the media in a difficult dilemma.
On one hand, the media is expected to exercise its role of social oversight. On the other, the continuity of a partnership can become a factor when the media intends to report on matters that might be perceived as unfavorable to certain parties.
“Resorting to threats shows a lack of respect for the status and capacity of a partner or friend,” he said.
According to Nuryanto, partnerships should be built on mutual respect rather than mutual pressure.
CRITICISM IS NOT THE ENEMY
Nuryanto also emphasized that the media must continue to operate based on facts.
Press independence, he noted, does not grant journalists license to report without a factual basis.
“The media is accountable to the public. If the media reports things that do not align with reality or facts, then it is reporting a falsehood,” he stated.
Therefore, he argued, two things must go hand in hand: the media must remain independent, and the government must be prepared to accept criticism.
If reporting is erroneous, there are avenues for clarification, the right of reply, and legal mechanisms available under the regulations.
However, Nuryanto added, the response to criticism should not take the form of pressure that intimidates the media into shying away from its journalistic duties.
“UNWILLING TO FACE CRITICISM? DON’T HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE”
Nuryanto’s statement ultimately led to a much stronger message: holding public office means being prepared to face public scrutiny.
Criticism, reprimands, and feedback are inherent consequences for anyone exercising public authority in an official capacity. “If they do not want to be reprimanded, advised, or receive input, yet they commit errors…” he said.
For Nuryanto, officials cannot simply expect positive media coverage.
After all, the role of the press goes beyond merely reporting on ceremonies, government successes, or achievements.
When issues arise, the media has an obligation to ask questions. When policies are questionable, the media is duty-bound to scrutinize them. When there are allegations of wrongdoing, the media has the right to seek explanations.
And when such criticism is fact-based, the government should respond with data and arguments, not with pressure.
Nuryanto reminded everyone that the debate over the relationship between the media and the government is ultimately about more than just cooperation contracts.
There is a far greater public interest at stake.
(Ahmady, Malaysia Reporter)
