Forum documents

The Way Forward

Notes for a Broadcasters' Action plan

WEMF statements, discussion and workshop summaries outline the contours of what might become a world broadcasters’ Action Plan. Such a document would highlight basic principles – media freedom, pluralism – , broadcasters’ best practices – professional standards – and industry’s commitments to social development and democracy, for example:

- to adopt an international code of ethics with regard to violence in entertainment and children’s programming.
- to increase the volume of current affairs programmes in relation to instant news
- to give more space to the coverage of peace building efforts, conflict prevention issues and non-violent social and political change
- to deliver frequent information on main issues which are useful to the welfare, development and health of listeners and viewers, both in information and entertainment programmes
- to avoid gender imbalance and stereotyping
- to improve the training of media practitioners, using e-training opportunities
- to encourage voluntary self-regulation and/or certification processes based on internationally recognized quality standards in broadcasting
- to recognize the need for mainstream media to give more voice to the underprivileged
- to faithfully represent the diversity of views on main issues, whether cultural, religious, social or political, at the local, national and global level
- to preserve and promote cultural diversity.

If an agreement can be found amongst broadcasters – possibly through their regional organizations – on some form of Action Plan, a second step might consist in a negotiation with government delegations at the second phase of the WSIS, in Tunis, November 2005, so that the broadcasters’ Action Plan is backed up by governments’ commitments such as:

- to treat broadcasters as independent partners, not as mouthpieces.
- to recognize both the importance of broadcasters in social development and their editorial independence as a prerequisite to this function.
- to encourage the pluralism of free broadcasting media in every country
- to transform state broadcasting into editorally independant public service broadcasting
- to facilitate access to information for journalists without discrimination
- to discuss with broadcasters in each country the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting
- to invest in quality local content as much as in technical infrastructure
- to give priority to free and impartial information in crisis situations – war, natural disasters, pandemic diseases, etc- and in long term development, rehabilitation or health prevention plans
- to develop media literacy programmes in school curricula.

Guillaume Chenevière, Executive Director of the WEMF

Questionnaire to WEMF Participants

On December 18, the WEMF Secretariat e-mailed to all WEMF rank and file participants, excluding VIPs and speakers, the following questionnaire:

1) did you get something useful and/or thought provoking out of the Forum?

2) would you like the Forum to be repeated during the WSIS in Tunis, November 2005?

3) any observation on you part we might use in the WEMF final report or for an improved version of WEMF in Tunis?

We received 70 answers, from 39 different countries. This is more than 10% of participants, from countries all around the world (almost a third of all those represented at the Forum). All answering participants, except two, say yes to the first and second questions. One person says no the first question, but yes to the second. Another one says yes to the first, but no the second. Most answers include remarks and/or recommendations. They can be summarized under the following headings:

a) compliments and encouragements: “WEMF was one of the best parts of WSIS” (Slovenia), “WEMF event was the most successful of WSIS” (Bengladesh), “A well organized and content-rich forum which raised some critical issues“ (South Africa), “We heartily request you if it is possible to organize every six months, because electronic media is heart of the WSIS” (Nepal), “It was the best side event from my point of view” (Canada), “Je n’ai réellement et sincèrement compris l’expression “fracture numérique” qu’en assistant au WEMF. Débats beaucoup sensibilisants et porteurs (Algérie)." Thank you for the great job. It was really a world forum for the exchange of ideas…, very important especially for developing countries” ( Serbia), “Everything was just excellent. The sessions provided me with grasp of the latest electronic media innovations” (Azerbaidjan), “WEMF provides a good hub for establishing new contacts” (Hong Kong), “The event was impressively organized and all credit to the exceptional organizational skills”(Sri Lanka), “The WEMF was actually what made the Summit worthwhile for me. The range of debates, themes and the calibre of speakers and participants was extremely high” (Zambia), “Among all the seminars I attended, the WEMF seemed to me the best”(Denmark)

b) gender and age representation: “A concern is the under-representation of women in media management positions and consequent gender imbalance in speakers at WEMF” (South Africa), “More gender (and age) balance” (Senegal), “I would like to see only one main change – to invite more woman speakers as well as young media specialists with strong leadership potential” (Canada), “Few women participating in the forum, even though two women moderators were excellent” (Korea), “More panels needed on women” (Zambia).

c) final report: “If it is possible to have more than a little summary in the final report, it would be good” (Lebanon), “If it is possible, include information about my country in the final report” (Nepal), “It might be interesting to publish the records in order to increase the public impact of the WEMF” (Germany), “Brochure comprenant tous les textes du WEMF en français” (Switzerland).

d) internationalisation and enlargement: “We can run some national initiative in each country. So WEMF may get more attention of the people worldwide” (Bengladesh) “I want to distribute work of the Media Forum ; problems which have been mentioned during the forum are very actual for today’s condition in Tajikistan” (Tajikistan), "A report should be made on the media sector in each country" (Turkey), "There needs to be more involvement by other organizations in the broadcasting sector" (UK).

e) scheduling: “Too many quality workshops on hot topics are scheduled back-to-back” (Hong Kong), “Try not to schedule all the sessions together” (UK), “It is inconvenient that some events were taking place at the same time as it was hard to choose between them”. (Armenia), ”There needs to be better coordination between WEMF, WSIS and ICT4D as quite a few interesting sessions were clashing with each other” (Sri Lanka), “Réduire sensiblement le nombre des ateliers” (Côte d’Ivoire), “Make a better coordination with WSIS and within WEMF in order to have a better schedule” (Indonesia).

f ) problems linked to WSIS organization: “WEMF was crowded out/minimized by WSIS. WSIS organization was poor. WEMF gained nothing from WSIS but suffered a lot as it as overshadowed” (Pakistan); “The distinction between WSIS and WEMF events was not clear enough” (Switzerland); “Many people expressed frustration in trying to find the room; some said they looked up 20-30 minutes (…) We were competing with a lot of noise from other workshops and conferences” (USA), “The working conditions in some of the conference rooms were awful ; there was so much noise from other rooms that it was difficult to get across to the audience” (Switzerland).

g) time: “More time to know the matter to work in the WEMF” (Mexico), “We need more time to prepare this kind of forum” (Japan), “One or two plenary sessions could have been much improved by a little more time for preparation” (Switzerland), “It would have been useful to receive the programme before the event” (Switzerland).

h) public service broadcasting: “It was very interesting to hear people from all over the world discuss media issues, not least the problems concerning public service broadcasting” (Denmark), “The UNESCO workshop on public service broadcasting demonstrated the renewed importance of public service broadcasting in the actual audiovisual landscapes of the world” (Slovenia), “Organize a much stronger network among various organizations of public broadcasters for exchange of trade information and training of journalists in developing countries” ( Japan), “Public service broadcasters constitute the central structure of reference in the information society. They should do so in a self-critical attitude” (Germany).

i) focusing: “Smaller panels that are less diverse” (Germany), “I would appreciate a smaller range of topics in order to increase the public impact of the WEMF” (Germany).

j) Q&A: “ More time could have been allocated for discussion and specially Q & A sessions” (Sri Lanka), “Greater time and opportunity for the common audience to react to the panel presentations” ( Senegal),”More time for the debate with the public” (Switzerland), "It would be good to have a session purely for experience sharing" (Kenya).

Isolated remarks: “The WEMF should help the participants to create a network just to exchange informations” ( Burundi), “Need to invite government policy makers and engage them in the discussions and way forward” ( Zambia), “Pas de raison de différencier medias électroniques et presse écrite” ( France), "Moderators not well prepared. Perhaps you can invite me as a moderator" (Turkey), “Equilibrer l’usage du français et de l’anglais” (Côte d’Ivoire),“Greater emphasis on broadcasting as a key to development and economic growth” (Switzerland),”You should pay more attention to co-sponsors during opening ceremonies and during official lunches/dinners” (Italy), “Workshops not very well attended. A pity because they were very interesting” ( Switzerland).

^top