Forum documents
Setting the World Agenda
Moderator: Nik Gowing
10 December, 2003.
New technologies change the way traditional media access news and will soon alter the content of mainstream media. This session discussed how new media change the information landscape and challenge mainstream media.
Content
^top
Summary
Over the past decade alone, new technologies have dramatically changed the way traditional media report and disseminate the news. The mid-1980s, for example, witnessed the increasing use of computer-supported coverage, such as the emailing of print dispatches via the Internet by the journalist to the news desk of his or her parent organization. The 1990s, on the other hand, as became clear during the first Gulf War, saw the rapid expansion of mobile satellite links, satellite telephones and other means of broadcasting by radio and television for the ‘live’ reporting of events directly from the field. Such technologies have not only overwhelmingly altered mainstream media access to the news, but promise to continue to do so in the years to come. Nevertheless, as explored in this session and in related WEMF workshops, the process brings with it various positive and negative aspects that mainstream broadcasters and other news gatherers must take into account when setting the world agenda for the information society in the 21st century, particularly over the next 10-20 years.
Both as moderator and keynote speaker, NIK GOWING introduced this third plenary session by outlining different areas of progress, strengths and weaknesses, but also challenges triggered by new media and technologies. As an example, he showed a late 20th century cartoon depicting a solo journalist loaded with an assortment of equipment ranging from film cameras to computers. Today, he said, a single journalist can indeed perform all such functions, but with equipment that is far lighter and more compact. The laptop was now replacing what the traditional three-man reporting team would do with a truck, while television and radio news were available in real time on mobile phones.
The BBC World main anchor further questioned the definition of media. Holding up a small digital camera, Gowing noted that increasingly everyone – whether journalists, tourists or ordinary bystanders who happen upon a newsworthy incident - was “doing media” with pocket video cameras and mobile phones. “These new media actors are transforming the political and social landscape everywhere because individuals are empowered to communicate as never before,” he said. This plethora of information coupled with the ease of transmission not only represented a real threat to established media, but was also creating new political relationships, he said.
The famous “ Baghdad blogger”, he said, provided real time information of life in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, while ordinary citizens captured images of US forces intimidating the local population when individual cameras appeared to threaten military operations. It was a tourist who captured the first images of the Bali nightclub bombing in 2002 well before any journalists were on the scene. Ultimately, Gowing said, new technology was enhancing the capacity to bear witness. One could take a moral stand here in Geneva, he noted, but in a war zone, this could prove a threat. “The challenge of the media is to get the message right.”
The ensuing debate focused on the instant reporting made possible by new technology. Several speakers homed in on the apparent lack of application of codes of content when media are reporting events live. Others dwelt on instant news itself, wondering whether there really was any change in content and approach, or whether stories were simply being produced faster; how to differentiate between what is credible journalism and what is propaganda, rumour or unsubstantiated fact; and, even more importantly, how is one to ensure that the information disseminated has not been manipulated by governments and other parties, whether for political, commercial or personal interests.
SIDIKI N’FA KONATE of Mali asked where the old media stops and the new one starts, particularly in countries such as his own where television is still out of reach of most people. This directed the discussion to the complexities of the new media environment where television is becoming more and more entertainment-oriented while public debate is happening increasingly on the Internet. “More than ever, the media with their new technologies have become a battlefield for a titanesque struggle between the forces of homogeneity and globalization on the one hand, and the forces of individualism and separatism on the other.”
LUIS AJENJO stated that in a country such as Chile, where 20% of families receive 40% of the GNP, while a further 40% of families live on 10% of the GNP, commercial media have no incentives to deliver targeted contents to the poor. The poor are the majority of the population, but a minority for the mainstream media, he noted.
 JAVED JABBAR maintained that over the past four years, his own country, Pakistan, had witnessed phenomenal and progressive change as the result of new technology that in turn, had helped engender the acceptance of new media perspectives by the government. From 2000 onwards, he said, private satellite TV channels had begun broadcasting without obstruction from outside Pakistan but with content originating from within the country. “This was the result of a new law for private, independent, terrestrial electronic media, and a rapid growth of cable TV distribution bringing dozens of overseas channels to low and middle income households,” he said. He further noted that the fastest growth in South Asia of the Internet access has taken place in Pakistan due to massive reduction in prices as well as speedy extension of telecommunication services, coupled with a steady growth in the number of cellular phones. “The ultimate paradox is that Pakistan today has far greater freedom of expression in old media and in access to new media than several other countries in Asia that are far more advanced, socially and economically”, he said.
NITIN DESAI said that organizations such as the United Nations no longer have to rely on traditional media in order to mobilise the public. Civil society movements can communicate directly through the new media, with the result that open dialogue is receiving less attention within the old structures while the new ones gain importance. “This has important political implications,” he said. “Civil society is becoming increasingly empowered to act and even overthrow regimes (…) The new technologies have created a media of insurgency.” Such low-cost technology, he added, would eventually bridge the digital divide and enable citizens to connect freely, easily and rapidly with other citizens.
The second part of the session discussed new challenges to the mainstream media.
DANNY SCHECHTER highlighted the upsurge of websites concentrating on media criticism and debate. These channels of exchange, he said, respond to a crucial need at a time when media itself has become one of the world’s problems. Independent-minded journalists need to break the stranglehold of the mainstream media over information which does not conform or which is being manipulated by governments, particularly in the United States. “It is crucial for non-mainstream views to challenge what have become accepted standards or what poses as journalism,” he said.
This was supported by various participants who voiced concern over the fall in journalistic standards and, in certain cases, ethics. MAHFUZ ANAN (the Daily Star, Dacca) urged the enforcing universal standards of good journalism.
ROBERT RABINOVITCH of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio Canada maintained that new media platforms enhance and enrich communication but also increase the digital divide. The new media, he and others emphasised, should be viewed as a challenge, not a threat to traditional media. “Today’s empowered audiences are ‘leaning forward’ into the content,” he said. “They are demanding content on their terms…where, and when, and how they choose.”
DOMINIQUE WOLTON argued that this plethora of information has led to anarchy within the media, and abundance should not be confused with professional and ethical standards. Today, there is far too much focus on, if not obsession with, the technological aspects of the media, he said, noting that “these are easy to grasp but they obscure the realities of where the real power lies”. Wolton outlined three issues that he considered crucial when discussing the media: technological; economic; political. It is the political dimension, he stressed, that has the greatest impact, both positive and negative, on the media. Wolton maintained that the United States, with its massive media and technological superiority, had failed to understand the underlying political dynamics that had caused the tragedy of 11 September 2001. “If the media fails to inform, then it has failed in itself, no matter how advanced the technology,” he said.
Joining the session live from Johannesburg via satellite link, South African community media representatives explained how their radio stations (radio is regarded as the most important means of communication in the developing world) provide poor populations both with a sense of dialogue and with targeted information. The potential of community radio is great, they said, particularly when it comes to raising awareness for critical and life-threatening issues such as HIV/AIDS. However, as they pointed out, major obstacles remain, and there is a need for both good management and sustainability. In contrast to what some of the participants in Geneva said, cost remains very much a significant factor: how can community radio afford the Internet if they cannot even buy fax paper?
CARLO NARDELLO stressed the need for the media to provide accurate information, insisting that they must not alter the representation of reality and thus reality itself. At the same time, this gives rise to different perceptions, he said. “Today, information acts as a mirror in which everyone has trouble recognising him- or herself in the other person’s gaze”.
 JAMES DEANE stressed the importance of new media, but also noted how urgent it was not to ignore the ability of more traditional media, such as radio, to reach populations unable to access information sources that were not readily available in their parts of the world. The mushrooming of private radios in Africa is one of the most important phenomena of recent years, he said.
IGNACIO RAMONET argued that the media are no longer isolated from other strong actors, such as the entertainment industry. In fact, he said, we can no longer talk about the media. Information has become a commodity like everything else. Even if information is often provided free of charge, the consumers of media (readers, viewers, listeners, websurfers etc.) are sold to the publicity agents. Media, per se, is no longer useful for us as citizens. According to Ramonet, it has become just another oppressing power.
^top
Notes for a Broadcasters' Action plan
New technologies make it possible for almost everyone, including tourists and ordinary bystanders, to “do media” with pocket cameras and mobile phones. Individuals are empowered to communicate as never before.
A world broadcasters’ Action Plan must include guidelines for the treatment of more and more material coming from unchecked sources, which can be subject to all sorts of manipulation.
The need to reinforce – and perhaps redefine – professional standards is clear.
New media are challenging mainstream media as they become powerful vehicles of communication, quite independently from traditional media.
Yet this does not apply to the poorest areas, where radio remains the No. 1 media and paper is still a luxury.
The paradox that a broadcasters’ Action Plan must address is the challenge of mushrooming communication opportunities in one half of our world, while the information needs of the other half – the least privileged one - remain totally unsatisfied, particularly by mainstream media.
The need to invest in each country's local programming to avoid a media agenda entirely designed by a few culturally dominating countries must be strongly emphasized.
Guillaume Chenevière, Executive Director of the WEMF
^top
Input from viewers and listeners
Several hundreds of viewers-listeners registred on the WEMF website as "interactive participants". As of October 2003, the website included a questionnaire which recieved responses from 21 countries.
Questionnaire
Do you think the subjects that are most important to you in your professional and personal life are sufficiently reflected in the radio, television, and Internet programmes? Whether yes or no, please elaborate.
Sample answers
From South Africa: Information about my culture and tradition is not available in the media and this is what I am working on.
From Brazil: A partir du moment où on sait comment trouver ce qui nous intéresse, l’Internet est un outil précieux et ouvert. La télévision, par contre, et la radio ne présentent pas les contenus les plus spécifiques, Ce qui leur importe, c’est d’avoir l’intérêt de la majorité des sponsors. L’argent est ce qui leur importe.. Le contenu pas trop. Cela décourage ceux qui ont quelque chose à dire.
From Russia: I belong to the working class society. My voice is constantly played down by media conglomerates. Sports and entertainment gets more money and attention than the struggles of labourers and low income people.
From Iran: There is no democracy in the transnational media since the money speaks louder.
From Ireland: Equality, justice, human rights and anti-poverty issues are only reflected by the media in a sensational manner, because as such they are not seen as news. On a more positive note, the broadcasting commission is drawing up codes of practice…
From South Africa: Radio, TV and the Internet are awash with information that is interesting to me both personally and professionally. There is more than I could ever consume.
From Egypt: Most of the time, important subjects are not reflected in media programs simply because they enjoy only a margin of freedom. I have launched my own weblog to discuss issues related to the Arab media.
From Ireland: The media can produce programmes with high ratings without focusing on key issues. The balance has definitely shifted towards bland programming in recent years.
^top
|
