Media: The stepchild of WSIS?
In his 1992 book, How the World Was One, Sir Arthur C. Clarke described a bizarre vision of the near future: Ted Turner is offered the post of World President, but he rejects it because he didnt want to give up power!
Well, CNNs founder no longer runs the network and spends time popularising bison burghers and supporting the United Nations. But Clarke was again uncannily perceptive when he prophesied the emergence of media moguls whose power far exceeds that of nation states or political leaders. The media has always been a manipulator of political and commercial power. But only in the past two decades has this power been amplified by new information and communications technologies ICTs. These, and national market deregulation, enabled a handful of transnational corporations to build truly global electronic empires.
Turner and Rupert Murdoch are not the only best-known faces of this industry. And it is no longer a western monopoly: countries like India, Thailand and Mexico have produced their own mini-Murdochs. In the early 1990s, trans-boundary satellite television ended the monopoly of dull and propagandistic state-owned television across developing Asia. Private sector participation followed transforming the entire mass media landscape in a very short time. Good news and bad news A decade on, as the 2002 Global Civil Society Yearbook - published by the London School of Economics and Political Science - noted: "Liberalisation and diversification, particularly in Africa and Asia, have transformed both print and broadcast media from a largely government-owned, monopolistic and uncreative media environment to a more dynamic, popular, democratic, creative, commercial and complex one." That good news is also bad news - for some. Media liberalisation has not been matched by a corresponding increase in the public sphere.
Commercial media tend to ignore both poor people and those living in rural areas. Broadcasting has become a market-based activity catering mainly for the middle class - where profits are made. News has taken a particular beating from profit based media empires. Infotainment is a commodity and todays news coverage reflects market forces and the desire of media moguls to rule the airwaves, says Kunda Dixit, Nepali Times editor and leading media commentator. Meanwhile, state-run broadcasting systems have found their audiences migrating to newer channels and government subsidies reduced or withdrawn. Struggling to survive, they have abandoned their earlier remit for public interest broadcasting, and are trying to outdo private competitors in their own game. For many who are poor or living away from cities, there is now less information, fewer programmes on their concerns, and less chance to make their voices heard. As the Panos Institute has warned, without the capacity to seek information, to debate issues, and to make their voices heard, poor and rural people risk becoming increasingly marginalised. The dot com has not come to them and is unlikely to arrive anytime soon either.
Media ignored by WSIS? The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) provides an important opportunity to raise these critical issues about North-South and rich-poor gaps in media ownership, content and access. Unfortunately, the official preparatory processes have focused too much on computers and Internet, ignoring the fact that the mass media have far greater outreach and power over peoples lives and choices. In fact, the widely accepted definition of ICTs covers the conventional communications technologies of telephone, radio and television as well as the newer ones - personal computers, mobile phones, satellite and wireless technologies and the Internet. The crux of the matter is not technology but information itself availability, appropriateness and dissemination. Governmental and civil society participants at WSIS cannot afford to miss this crucial point. The media are likely to remain the principal source of outside information for the majority for years to come. Media are also a critical way through which the people can express their views and concerns in national discussion and debate. Consequently, the current status and on-going changes in the structure, content, ownership and access within these media is of equal, if not greater, importance in any discussion on how the Information Society affects the majority world. Media pluralism in the globalised world A key concern of the Information Society is media pluralism a situation where all people in society have access to information on issues that affect their lives and have a way of making their voices heard in national public debate. The global trend is that we are moving away from, not towards, real media pluralism. Media freedom is necessary, but not sufficient, for media pluralism. Media ownership - at the global, regional and national levels has been concentrating in fewer hands, squeezing out independent players. This now threatens to replace the earlier governmentally controlled concentration of media with an increasingly narrow commercial and political one. This has serious implications for diversity and accountability in the media. WSIS is not going to resolve these major concerns, but it can draw attention to them. We ignore these issues at our peril. One day soon we might wake up to find on the morning news, where else? that we do have a World President whose arrival we never noticed. Nalaka Gunawardene is a director of Panos South Asia and heads TVE Asia Pacific. A longer version of this article first appeared on OneWorld South Asia on 13 November. --- OneWorld Guest Editorials represent the viewpoint of the authors and not necessarily that of the OneWorld Network. Read and comment on previous Guest Editorials. If you would like to contribute or suggest a future OneWorld Guest Editorial, please contact miles.litvinoff@oneworld.net or josie.kirby@oneworld.net |
Comment List
"There is a limit - guaranteeing freedom - to what government can do....."Author:
Terry Maguire
Time: 11/22/2003 20:42
Comment: I could not disagree more strongly with what I understand to be the point of this statement: "Media freedom is necessary, but not sufficient, for media pluralism." [The line appears toward the end of this article.]
How could I possibly disagree? First, I agree completelythat "media freedom is necessary". Media freedom is essential for development and for all of the important causes represented by the people likely to read this note. Without media freedom, we all lose because the voice or voices of one or many never get a chance to "speak". For me, there is no difference between the "media freedom" of a single poor person who cries out for help and that of a rich person who owns a big media company who extols a position with which many may disagree; "media freedom" is synonymous with freedom of expression and this should never be overlooked. If one begins to look at the "media freedom" of an NGO differently than the media freedom of Time Warner, that person really has to spend more time understanding that freedom of expression is a right we all enjoy whether we own nothing or own a great deal, whether we work in an HIV/AIDS clinic or work at the Times of India. My disagreement comes in the idea that "media pluralism" is something that government can add on top of "media freedom". One cannot get "there" from "here". It is impoossible to impose restrictions on who can speak with what voice and still preserve freedom of expression, at least as far as private media are concerned. (Government-owned media are a different matter and my comments do not apply to them.) As soon as one embarks upon a well-intentioned effort, as I take it is suggested here, to reshape free and independent media into smaller pieces more to the critic's liking, some of that "media freedom" is lost. It is appropriate for anyone who does not like a media company or its owner or owners to use that person's voice to complain and to criticize. Information and communication technologies provide a great many ways to do so. That same person might very well want to organize a new media enterprise and invest the hard work and take the risks that are needed in order to make that enterprise successful. More power to all who do this! But don't suggest - whether at the colossal waste of time that the WSIS appears to be or through any other forum - that government can regulate free media enterprises to make them better. That's not freedom. And, from the standpoint of many, even worse - it will render the media less able to play their most useful role in helping to address global development issues. Take the energy and people's attention that might otherwise get diverted to this subject and put it to a higher and better use. Go write or record something and work even harder to find ICT-related and other media - however big or small - to share your thinking with others. |
Printable version
Back to top
