TV ONE CASE BROKER: How They Faced the Crisis According to Crisis Communication Theories?

by: Veronica Sri Utami

(ditulis untuk tugas final exam mata kuliah corporate communication – Paramadina Graduateschool 2010)


This paper will review the crisis faced by TV One, related with the person who admitted as a case broker they were interviewed in “Apa Kabar Indonesia Pagi” Program on March 18th, 2010.

From this analysis, we can see that TV One trying to push away all negative statement for them. They use several strategies such as apologia, giving the truth, using spoke person. But, their strategy for facing this crisis are not well prepared. At the end, they admitted that they do not make cover both stories in this program.


“Apa kabar Indonesia Pagi”  a News Program in TV One, at March, 18th , 2010 investigate someone, named Andris, who admitted as a case broker at Badan Reserse Kriminal Mabes Polri for about 12 years. In that program, Andris using a mask, so his face can’t be seen.[1]

At April 7th , 2010 Andris or Andri Ronaldi was caught by police, and soon become suspect. On his confession to the police, Andris said that he was being trapped by TV One crew. He said that before he perform as a case broker person, actually he was asked to be a source person about perusahaan Jasa Tenaga Kerja case. [2]

Andris said that the person who arranges this program is Indy Rahmawati, TVOne’s presenter. He also admitted that TV One was paid for his false confession as a case broker resources person, 1,5 million rupiah.[3]

At April 8th, 2010, Indonesia’s Police Departemen through Kadiv Humas Mabes Polri, Irjen Pol Edward Aritonang, said that they will report this case to Dewan Pers (Press Council) and Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia, an institution who have authority to handle cases related to media. “UU No.32 tahun 2002 tentang penyiaran melarang menyiarkan sesuatu yang bersifat fitnah, menghasut, atau berbohong,” said Aritonang. [4]

What was public concern and criticsm?

Indonesia’s Police Department action, reporting this case to Press Council and Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia, rather than doing legal action, get a positive response from Agus Sudibyo, Press Council member. He said that every conflict related with media, should processed by Undang-Undang Pers.[5] Press Council then cross checking this case to the TVOne as well as police department.

It is different with the audience of the media. They tend to response this case negatively. At several website that published news related with TV One case, we can see that some of the people criticize media. They say that now they do not know wich news that true and which one that not true. Media tend to make a dramatic, provocative, and bombastic program for the sake of rating rather than spread the truth.

Faced public opinion

When people, as an audience do not believe anymore with the media, because they think this media cannot become their source to look for the truth, then it become a problems for that media. And maybe, not just a problem. We can define it as a crisis because we all know that media’s business depend on the audience, how much like their programs and watch it everyday.

As Fearn Banks says, in a crisis public perceives truth to be whatever public opinion says. So, an organization must prove to its publics that negative opinion is not factual. [6]

As we all know, now every people can easily give their comment about some news, especially at online media. Negative comment can spread to the public in seconds. Of course, TV one cannot just ignore this situation. Two days after Andris was caught, Totok Suryanto, General Manager News and Sport TV One, trying to clarified the case, and influence public opinion. He said that it is impossible for TV One to make a news arrangement (Tidak mungkin kami melakukan rekayasa berita). “TV one adalah lembaga penyiaran yang menjunjung tinggi azas akurasi,” he said[7].

Crisis Communication

The person who sent the argument is the most credible person, because he is  general manager news and sport TV One. So we can say that he can be seen as the true representative of the company, as Fearn-Banks says as a spokeperson requirement[8]. But,  in my opinion, what Totok Suryanto said is something that not prepared enough and could be a danger.

Although Totok said that editorial division of TV One already made an evaluation and verification about this case before he made the statement, but the word “impossible” (“tidak mungkin” kami melakukan rekayasa berita), can’t give them any space to move if at the end there is a proof that TV One do that mistakes. And if it is happen, public that starting to lost their trust, can be really lost their trust to TV One.

To face this crisis, TV One not just using one spokeperson. Beside Totok, Produser Eksekutif TVOne, Alfito Deannova, and Indy Rahmawati, herself, also speak to the public about this case on a press conference set up by TV One at their office April, 9th, 2010.[9]

Telling the truth?

At the press conference, Indy explain about the money they gave to Andris that accused as a commission because he help TVOne pretending as a case broker in the Apa Kabar Indonesia Pagi program. She disagreed with the opinion that TV One pay Andris to pretend as a case broker. She said, “Andris ask more (Justru Andris minta dibayar lebih)”.

In fact, different people can differently interpret her words. For example, It is understandable if Andris ask more money, if TV One as him to pretend as a case broker in  police department, because he will taking a big risk along his life. The number of rupiahs explains by Indy, maybe also give negative impact for people that ever become a resource person for TV One.

Altough Fearn-Banks says that truth is essential when we are in the crisis communication[10], but I think Indy said something that unnecessary said. We need to tell the truth but still, we need to understand wich information needed by public, wich statement need to say that effect with the corporate reputation or herself reputation, maybe.

Alfito Deannova, give a wiser explanation, “The money we give to the source person is our appreciation for their willingness to become our source person, not for other intention.” (Uang untuk narasumber adalah bentuk apresiasi atas kesediaan mereka menjadi pembicara. Bukan karena maksud lain.)[11]


In other occasion, Alfito salso said that TV One already made a source person verification when they choose Andris as their source person.[12] And, they already preparing any proof, and persons that can give testimony that Andris is a case broker.

If we see al the statement given by TV One, through Totok, Alfito, or Indy, we can say that TV One using dissociation strategy. Eventough TV One sounds to be the one who made a mistake, but they said not.

Unfortunately, Dewan Pers,  after investigate this cases found that TV One didn’t use cover both side technique when they made a case broker programme, wich is important for news media, to give public a balance information. And, TVOne admitted their false in a meeting with Press Council April 12th, 2010.[13]

In this situation, TV One finally using conciliation strategy, admitted they are wrong, because neglecting cover both side, according to Ketua Dewan Pers Bagir Manan,  is a collide for journalistic code of ethic.


We still don’t know yet, if TV One really made an arrangement for their programme. Ketua Pokja Pengaduan Masyarakat dan Penegakan Kode Etik Dewan Pers Agus Sudibyo said that Dewan Press still trying to collect the information about this.

Proven or not, I think TV One still have to work hard to repair their reputation and maintain public trust, because it is not the only case that made people lost their trust for TV One. Before this case, there is an opinion about TV One’s terrorist news that sounds too much, and maybe also not covering both sides.[14] Few days ago, TV One also made a mistakes when they said that our Componist, Gesang past away, when the fact is he is still alive.

Again, reputation and people trus is the main factor in media business.


Fearn-Banks, (2007), Crisis Communication: A Case Book Approach, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: London.






[6] Fearn-Banks, 2007, p. 15


[8] Fearn-Banks, 2007, p.27


[10] Fearn-Banks, 2007, p.28