GFMD Media Matters 2009-2011 by Assistant GFMD

Media Matters GFMD 2009-2011

TAB LE OF C ON T E N TS

The GFMD

GFMD: From Division to Community by David Hoffman

Why we need the GFMD by Joyce Barnathan

Building a Community of Practice by Bettina Peters

The GFMD in the Regions

GFMD Regional Conferences

Conclusions RFMD Africa

Conclusions RFMD Asia

Conclusions RFMD Eurasia 20 Conclusions RFMD LAC

Conclusions RFMD MENA 22

Making the Case for Media Development

Media and Development: Finding the Most Effective Pathway by Mark Nelson

Are We Asking the Right Questions by William Orme

News Media as Public Sentinel by CommGAP

The Pain of Change and the Need for a New Mindset over Journalism and Development by Aidan White

Cyber News: Malaysia’s First Decade by Sevan Doraisamy

Monitoring Impact: The Spheres of Influence Approach by A.S. Panneerselvan

Donors´ Perspectives on Media Development

Gordana Jankovic

Pia Hallonsten

Ivar Evensmo 50 Marguerite Sullivan

About the GFMD

Join the GFMD

GFMD Steering Committee

Constitution 57 GFMD Code of Practice

Donors

Credits Photos, Publication Credits

The GFMD ATH E N S WOR LD C ON F E R E NC E

„No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press.“

AMARTYA SEN Winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics

„Think of a world where everybody

is afraid to speak out, then think of a world where no one is afraid to speak up “ MARY ROBINSON Member of The Elders, former President of Ireland, former UN Human Rights Commissioner

TH E G FM D

GFMD: From Division to Community by DAVI D HOF F MAN N

Shortly after the end of the civil war in East Timor, I was returning on a plane from Dili with my board Chairman, Peter Pennekamp, feeling frustrated and perplexed. We had just witnessed how vital independent media could be in such a post-conflict situation. It was equally obvious that a host of other global problems--from the environment to poverty reduction to the establishment of civil society—could hardly be addressed without the engagement of local, independent media.

And yet, media development remained largely a marginal afterthought in foreign assistance policies. Although no politician would ever conceive of running a political campaign without a media strategy, the word “media” didn’t even appear in the US government’s Foreign Assistance Act and received equally little attention in Europe. We discussed the many possible explanations for this policy myopia, but the important question remained what to do about it. Peter suggested that we try to convene a meeting of our competitors to work in concert to “raise the level of the sea.” As a solitary organization, he argued, Internews or any other media NGO would appear to be self-serving as an advocate for media development. But if the whole sector could come together and speak with one voice, it was certain to have far greater credibility.

The first hurdle was to convince the other major international media development NGOs that this effort was not a ruse by Internews to gain some “market advantage.” Indeed, we had tried something similar in East Europe the year before and had the door shut in our face by local NGOs who thought we were attempting to invade their territory. This time we went out of our way to assure the founding organizations that we would stay in the background as much as possible. At every step along the way we encouraged others to take the lead. Serendipitously, I ran into someone named Jerry Hirsch whose small family foundation focused on a single issue—how to get NGOs to cooperate. He immediately recognized the opportunities in what we were attempting to do. His early funding allowed us to bring together the heads of the leading international media NGOs in Bangkok. It was a painstakingly slow process to achieve consensus, but over the course of five meetings the group began to bond

TH E G FM D

together and soon trust replaced suspicion. In the end we were all firmly dedicated to creating an umbrella organization that could lobby on behalf of all its members and advocate with governments, multinational organizations and private funders as representatives of the media development community. An early issue was what to call the new organization. I suggested “The Global Forum of Media for Development,” but Peter posed a question I hadn’t considered. Were we promoting “media for development” or supporting “media development.” Although the two sectors often overlapped, there was a consensus among the founders of GFMD that the development of media per se, i.e. the strengthening of the nascent media industry in developing and transitional countries, had unique and particular needs that had largely been overlooked. Policymakers were quick to see the benefits of using media to advocate for specific development goals but were slow to understand and appreciate the value of independent media in their own right. It is a measure of GFMD’s success that this debate has at last largely subsided, as recognition of the distinct needs of the media development field has grown. What had been a disparate field of ad hoc projects and a multitude of competitive organizations suddenly crystallized in Amman in October 2005 into a coherent and substantial movement. Five hundred representatives from 97 countries managed to outline a common purpose, establish rules for governance and define a set of shared value—all through a completely practitioner-led process, a rare, if not wholly unprecedented event. An interim Steering Committee established in Amman agreed to set up a small secretariat to run the GFMD. We launched the secretariat in July 2007 in Brussels and set about trying to bring media assistance groups closer together. Through regional forums for media development taking place in Africa, Asia, Eurasia, Middle East/North Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean media support NGOs starting working together and building closer links. The process culminated in the second Global Forum for Media Development in Athens in December 2008 where the GFMD was launched as a membership organization with agreed statutes and an elected global Steering Committee representing media assistance groups from all over the world. GFMD put media development on the map and we are now starting to see how the rising sea level has begun to benefit us all.

More information: www.internews.org

DAVID HOFFMANN is the Chairman Emeritus of the GFMD. He is also the President of Internews Network, a global non-profit organisation headquartered in California that empowers local media worldwide to serve the information needs of their communities. Internews has worked in more than 70 countries and has trained over 750,000 people in media skills. Hoffman has written widely about media democracy, the Internet, and the importance of supporting pluralistic, local media around the world. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune and Foreign Affairs.

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

Why We Need the GFMD by JOYCE BAR NATHAN

Originally, I was one of the skeptics. Why do we need yet another international media development organization? What’s its purpose? And if I have to pay to join, what am I getting for my hard-earned funds?

Now I have the answers to those questions. After chairing the Global Forum for Media Development since the Athens gathering in 2008, I know now how vital this organization has become for those of us who believe that independent media play an important role in building civil society. First and foremost, all of us in the media-development field now have a collective voice. That voice is heard at major meetings and conferences around the globe. GFMD makes the case for investing in media development in an intelligent and convincing way. We have spoken to policymakers in the U.S. Congress and to the governments of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, among others. GFMD not only supports that media-development goal superbly, but it goes a step further. GFMD argues that to make any aid program effective, whether it’s a health initiative or an anti-poverty effort, donors should include a component to develop independent media. If donors want governments to be more transparent and officials to be more accountable, then a strong, vibrant media can serve as a watchdog to ensure responsible behavior. In 2009 and 2010 our voice was heard loud and clear in Africa. GFMD Director Bettina Peters lobbied vigorously against the establishment of a pan-Africa media “observatory,” which essentially amounted to a press council with government involvement. The proposal originally had backing from the

African Union and the European Union. GFMD made the case that this new institution would hinder press freedom simply by involving governments in the process. On March 24, 2010 the African Union Commission and the European Commission rejected the proposal—and instead raised “practical proposals” to support African media. It was a huge victory – and it will not be our last. Over the past year, we have brought together an array of traditional and potential funders who increasingly want to help GFMD do its part to support good government. Our efforts across the board are paying dividends. It is difficult to come up with precise figures on a global basis, but I suspect that investments in media development are growing—and that’s in part because of our collective voice at GFMD. We are helping to organize a meeting that will bring even more prospects together with our base of supporters in an effort to increase the flow of investments to this vital area. We are also offering an array of services to our members. GFMD provides advice and new tools in the Insider—our in-house newsletter. Our efforts to provide a real-time map of media development programs should be a tremendous benefit to all of us. With it, we can easily find good partners and projects and avoid duplication and waste. We are in talks with the Center for International Media Assistance and others about creating a web site where we can post news of all the media innovation that is taking place in the developing world. There is a great deal of experimen-

TH E G FM D

tation underway—involving digital mapping, cell phones and data visualization—and we want to make it easy to find appropriate new tools and use them. So I am a believer now—and a strong one. We speak with clarity and purpose about the importance of developing strong, vibrant media around the world. We are being heard—and making a difference

Joyce Barnathan is president of the International Center for Journalists, a non-profit professional organization dedicated to promoting quality journalism worldwide in the belief that independent, vigorous media are crucial in improving the human condition. Since its founding in 1984, ICFJ has trained more than 60,000 journalists around the world. She also serves as the Chair of the Global Forum for Media Development. Previously, she was Executive Editor - Global Franchise at BusinessWeek, where she helped create

More information: www.ICFJ.ORG

new editorial extensions and alliances. As Assistant Managing Editor, she supervised nearly every department of the magazine. She worked as Asia Regional Editor, helping to launch the Asia edition, which won prestigious awards for coverage of China‘s growth, Asia‘s financial crisis and the turmoil in Indonesia. She began her career at BusinessWeek in 1990 as an editor in the international department. From 1979 until 1988, she held a number of posts at Newsweek, including Moscow Bureau Chief, Special National Political Correspondent and State Department Correspondent. For her work, she has been honored with five Overseas Press Club Awards and one National Headliner Award, among other honors. She also served as a Freedom Forum Fellow in 1989 - 1990. She has a B.A. in Russian and Chinese area studies and M.A. in Asian studies from Washington University, and M.A. in journalism from the University of Missouri. She speaks conversational Chinese, Russian, and Spanish.

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

Building a Community of Practice by B ET TI NA P ETE R S

When it comes to history Athens is a good place as any to make your mark and on December 10, 2008 the Global Forum for Media Development did just that at the end of its World Conference.

In the splendid setting of a Greek winter organisations covering the whole spectrum of media development joined forces and launched the GFMD as a membership network. They adopted statutes, elected a global Steering Committee and agreed priorities for action, setting course on an unprecedented journey for supporters of free media and sustainable development. Today the GFMD has some 200 members from over 80 countries covering different areas of media development, whether it is media law reform, helping to set up new media outlets, training journalists, organising community radio or organising media literacy programmes. What seemed very difficult when the process first began in Amman in October 2005 with the first conference of the Global Forum for Media Development was achieved in Athens three years later. The success of this process owes much to the relentless

support from Chairman Emeritus David Hoffman. Media development organisations, although they may compete over funding and donor contacts, have set aside rivalries to form a community of practice, sharing ideas and promoting better recognition of media development among donors and policy makers. The initiative is timely. The last two decades have seen an increase in free and independent media in many parts of the world. By nourishing new publications, television, radio and Internet sites, media development gives hundreds of millions of people access to fresh, reliable and relevant information sources. Policymakers and donors freely admit that media play a key role in democratic development, but they have often been slow to give the media sector its own identity in the development landscape, which has meant that media programmes have not achieved their full potential. The failure to identify media as a development sector in its own right means media assistance

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

programmes are rarely linked strategically to overall democracy building, good governance and development goals. They are too often relegated to the status of public information campaigns. The GFMD addresses this problem by lobbying donors and governments and arguing for policies and structures that recognise how free, independent and pluralistic media are cornerstones in building democracy and advancing human development. The GFMD faces the same challenges many non-profit, non-governmental organisations grapple with: how to raise funds for regional and global forums and a secretariat while providing members with key services. The GFMD is a lean organisation, with a modest secretariat, but as it gears up for the next GFMD World Conference in 2011, it has some achievements to be proud of thanks to the support of the Steering Committee and the Chair Joyce Barnathan:

with which donor support. • Regional Forums for Media Development organised by GFMD continue to provide members with unique opportunities for face-to-face discussion and exchange of experience. The results since Athens show that the GFMD has come a long way and the message of the Athens Conference defines our work until the next GFMD 2011: Media development aiming to create and support free, independent, pluralistic media is a good in itself; free information and quality journalism have an intrinsic value. Support for media development means support for democracy, good governance and human development. A start has been made and there is evidence of progress on all fronts, but the history-making of Athens has to continue if free journalism and media are to establish their rightful place in the heart of building democracy and contributing to human progress.

• First Class Advice: GFMD members receive advice and tips on programmes and running their NGOs, they can share best practice and ideas through the GFMD community; More information: www.gfmd.info • Information and Insight: The GFMD Insider, a quarterly on-line information briefing, provides members with insight on new media development trends, donor policies and new issues facing the media development community;

Bettina Peters is the director of the GFMD. She leads the organisation’s activities and coordinates the GFMD’s efforts to promote recognition of the key role

• Media Development On the Policy Agenda: Since Athens GFMD has made its presence felt at the Salzburg Global Seminar Initiative for Supporting Independent Media aimed at finding new support for media development; at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development which is making media part of their governance and aid effectiveness policies; and at the Global Reporting Initiative, a collaborating centre of the UN Environment Programme that pioneered the world’s most widely used reporting framework to assess companies’ performance in sustainability is creating guidelines for media companies. In all of these initiatives as well as donor brainstorming sessions and at the African Union’s first ever consultation on media development, the GFMD voice has been heard.

media play in strengthening democratic development. Before joining GFMD in July 2007, Bettina worked as the director of programmes at the European Journalism Centre, where she was in charge of EJC’s programme of media support and journalism training. From 1990 until 2002 Bettina worked at the International Federation of Journalists, where she set up the IFJ’s Project Division. She was responsible for the IFJ’s global programme on media development and capacity-building for journalists’ organisations. She holds a Masters Degree in political science and journalism from the University of Hamburg and has edited a range of publications, including a global survey of women in journalism for the IFJ and the EJC handbook on Civic Journalism. Her recent publications include the

• Mapping Media Development: The GFMD is developing a searchable Google map listing all programmes members are organising worldwide. It is the first mapping of the sector that gives a real-time, bottom-up view of what programmes are being carried out where, by whom and

conclusions of “European Media Governance – The Brussels Dimension” and “Future of Journalism and Challenges for Media Development: Are We Exporting a Model that No Longer Works At Home?”

The GFMD in the Regions

T H E G F M D I N T H E R EG IO N S

GFMD Regional Conferences

Latin America Regional Forum for Media Development Cartagena March 200 8

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

Eurasia Regional Forum for Media Development PAR I S AP R I L 200 8

Middle East/North Africa Regional Forum for Media Development B eirut November 2 0 0 8

Asia Regional Forum for Media development C olombo J uly 200 8

Asia Regional Forum for Media development Ja k arta April 20 1 0

Africa Regional Forum for Media Development G rahamstown S eptember 200 8

T H E G F M D I N T H E R EG IO N S

Africa Forum for Media Development G rahamstown, South Africa S eptember 7-8, 200 8

Media support groups from across Africa have added their voice to global calls for action to put media at the heart of international development planning.

development, rather than simply channels for advocacy and promotion of messages in support of development policy,â&#x20AC;? the letter states.

The first African Forum for Media Development was organised by the GFMD in Grahamstown, South Africa, on September 7-8, 2008. The meeting was attended by 65 participants from 30 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The regional forum called on governments and donors to create financial mechanisms for media development that are independent of undue political or government influence and to increase overall support to media in Africa.

The conferene issued an an open letter addressed to the Africa Union, the European Union and the OECD calling for better recognition of media development as an integral part of development strategies.

In launching the Africa Regional Forum for Media Development media support groups agreed to work more closely together in lobbying governments and international institutions for targeted and long-term support to strengthen free, independent and pluralistic media systems in Africa.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Governments, donors and policy makers need to recognise that media are intrinsic components of democratic

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Media support groups in Africa have the expertise and com-

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

mitment to improve media freedom and independence. We have come together in the Africa Regional Forum for Media Development in order to make sure that our voice is heard by governments, donors and policy makersâ&#x20AC;?, said Gabriel Baglo, Director of the Africa office of the International Federation of Journalists. The GFMD set up an Internet forum to exchange information and materials on best practice in media development in Africa. The Africa Forum was organised in conjunction with the Highway Africa Conference, hosted by Rhodes University and received support from the Open Society Institute Africa and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The meeting in Grahamstown and the regional session on Africa at the GFMD World Conference in December 2008 echoed many of the recommendations made by other regions. GFMD members in Africa focused on making the case for media development with donors and policy makers. Since the GFMD World Conference, they have organised several campaigns on media development in the region. In July 2009 GFMD members in Africa lobbied against a controversial proposal made by the African Union and European Union to set up a pan-African media observatory, that would have given governments the right to interfere in media content. Thanks to the GFMD campaign, the African Union has withdrawn the proposal and instead listened to the call of media development practitioners to establish a consultative group on media development policy.

The first meeting of the consultative group took place in Addis Ababa in March 2010. It agreed to establish a panAfrican media network bringing together journalists, media owners, media development practitioners, media councils, journalism trainers and media researchers. The GFMDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Africa Forum for Media Development was asked to organise the establishment of this network. GFMD members from Africa elected elected Gabriel Baglo of the IFJ Africa office in Senegal and Jeanette Minnie of Zambezi Fox in South Africa to the GFMD Steering Committee. David Makali of the Kenya Media Institute serves as the reserve. The next Africa Forum for Media Development is scheduled to take place in September 2011.

T H E G F M D I N T H E R EG IO N S

Asia Forums for Media Development 2nd

Jakarta, I ndonesia April 1 5-1 6, 20 1 0

1ST

C olombo, S ri Lan ka J uly 4-5, 200 8

The Asia region is the first in the GFMD to hold its second Regional Forum for Media Development. Some 40 participants from 21 countries attending the second forum in Jakarta on April 15-16, 2010 highlighted the positive contribution internet journalism and news blogs have made to increasing pluralism in the region. “Even though many sites are blocked in China, there are countless examples of local news blogs that target corruption and promote public debate,” said Ying Chan, GFMD Steering Committee member from Hong Kong. Internet penetration in China has reached almost 30% and continues to grow. Even though social networking sites such as twitter are blocked, there are Chinese internet providers that offer similar interactive services. In Malaysia, internet based media such as Malaysiakini are now setting the news agenda and are providing news and information that cannot be found in traditional media. “Internet media in Malaysia is not covered by the existing press laws and we have shown that we can work to high ethical standards with our own system of self-regulation,” said Premesh Chandran of Malaysiakini. “But we need more training and more established structures to make sure that we can provide news not only fast but well-sourced and presented in context.” Press freedom, freedom of information and opening up restrictive media systems were at the heart of the debate at the 1st Asia Regional Forum for Media Development, which took place in Colombo, Sri Lanka on July 4-5, 2008. The 40 participants from 17 countries of Asia established the Asia regional network of the Global Forum for Media Development.

Media support groups from Asia recognised that they have to work more closely together, try to avoid unnecessary competition between different projects and build expertise in monitoring the impact of their work. A. S. Panneerselvan of Panos South Asia presented a new approach to monitoring and evaluation to the conference. The Panos South Asia model focuses on defining spheres of influence to measure the impact of media development work. Media development programmes can influence members of the media community, as a result, issues raised by media and behavior of media professionals can change; media can act as a catalyst to address pressing social issues but there are other actors – government, municipalities, industry etc – that may or may not make improvements as a result of the media reports. The first Regional Forum was hosted by Free Media Movement, Sri Lanka and organized in cooperation with GFMD and the South East Asia Press Alliance. The UNDP and the Norwegian Foreign Ministry provided financial assistance. The second Regional Forum, hosted by the Indonesian Press Council and organised with financial support of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, agreed a set of detailed recommendations that will define the work of the GFMD in Asia in the coming years: • The GFMD should link up media development groups and other relevant partners in the region to give information and advice on establishing independent media or press councils. • The GFMD should aim to prepare an on-line publication that show-cases examples of where assistance to internet media has proven successful in promoting pluralism and a wide range of sources of information in the region. The publication should be distributed widely including to donors and policy makers.

• The GFMD should investigate forming partnerships with human rights and press freedom groups to support campaign against impunity of attacks against journalists in the region. • The GFMD should join campaigns to bridge the digital divide in the Asia-Pacific region. Internet penetration varies widely from, for instance, 28% in China to just 2% in Afghanistan. Take account of the digital divide and media development programmes should reflect this reality. • The GFMD should consider creating an on-line database listing all relevant internet sites and news blogs in the region that make a contribution to increasing pluralism. • The GFMD should prepare a guide on developing funding proposals for local media development NGOs with tips and advice on framing proposals, how to deal with administration issues etc. • The GFMD should provide members with examples of best practice for organisational models of media development NGOs. • The GFMD should lobby donors to provide more detailed explanations on their priorities and to explain to applicants more clearly their reasons when projects are rejected.

information on their programmes. • GFMD should continue its dialogue with donors to understand the difference between media development versus media for development. • GFMD should continue to lobby for separate funding arrangement for monitoring and evaluation after a lapse of time to effectively map the impact. • GFMD should promote its toolkit for assessing media development and the sphere of influence model with donors and policy makers. • GFMD should continue to promote the Code of Practice for Media Development Organisations especially issues of accountability to beneficiaries. • GFMD should collect information on new players in the sector and what type of media development they support. In order to carry out this work, the GFMD will establish a special web-presence in the region to improve communication between members as well as with other partners. The new site, hosted by the Southeast Asian Centre for E-Media, will go on-line in the second half of 2010.

• The GFMD should aim to organise a workshop for local media NGOs to meet with donors for a more targeted discussion on priorities, how to frame proposals etc. • The GFMD should continue mapping media development and members in Asia committed to providing

T H E G F M D I N T H E R EG IO N S

Eurasia Forum for Media Development Paris, F rance April 17-1 9, 200 8

More than 150 media development organisations from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union gathered at the first Eurasia Regional Forum for Media Development on April 17-19 in Paris to agree recommendations and strategies for their future work. Their message to donors was clear: Media development, ranging from law reform to journalism training, and aimed at creating free, independent and pluralistic media systems is a crucial factor in building democratic societies. A lot more support to media development is needed, especially in the former Soviet Union, where democratic development has experienced a backlash in many countries. Media support groups recognised that they have to work more closely together, try to avoid unnecessary competition between different projects and build expertise in monitoring the impact of their work. One of the main conclusions of the meeting was that media development organisations needed to reach out more to other civil society groups. More coalitions and links must be built with civil society to withstand undue influence on media content by governments and powerful business interests. The event was hosted by Internews Europe with the support of the Council of Europe, the Maison de l’Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Open Society Institute and UNESCO. Participants agreed that in order to increase their say in decisions by donors on what type of media programmes to support, they have to define common priorities and lobby jointly for the recognition of media development as a key sector of development work. This has been a key priority for GFMD work since the World Conference in Athens in December 2008.

The meeting identified priorities for action that were agreed at the GFMD World Conference and that are shaping GFMD work until the next World Conference in 2011: • Media support groups in the region have to work more closely with civil society organisations to be better prepared to withstand undue influence on media content. • GFMD should create a database of media development organisations (GFMD members). • GFMD should undertake a review of media development programmes carried out by GFMD members. • GFMD should carry out a review of funding provided by donors to media development. • GFMD should create mechanisms for information sharing (web-site etc) at global and at regional levels. • GFMD should develop a set of principles (code of conduct) for media assistance organisations. GFMD members from Eurasia elected Manana Aslamaziyan from Russia, Director of Internews Europe and Remzi Lani from Albania, president of the South East European Network for Professionalisation of Media to the GFMD Steering Committee. Ognian Zlatev of the Bulgarian Media Development Center and Katerina Myasnykova of the Ukrainian Independent Association of Broadcasters are sharing the position of reserve. The next Eurasia Forum for Media Development will take place in Kiev in second half of 2010.

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

Latin America and the Caribbean Forum for Media Development Cartagena, C olombia March 13-1 4, 200 8

The Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region of the GFMD was the first to hold its regional meeting in the run up to the GFMD World Conference. The LAC Forum for Media Development took place in Cartagena on March 13-14, 2008. It was attended by 50 participants from across the region. The conference examined the challenges, strategic issues and possibilities of the media development sector in Latin America and the Caribbean, and identified strategies to improve recognition of the key role media play in strengthening democracy and human development. The event was hosted by the New Journalism Foundation (FNPI - Fundación Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano) with the support of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Andean Development Corporation (CAF), and the AVINA Foundation.

With these goals in mind, the meeting decided to create a virtual network of media development groups in the region. The network is hosted on the FNPI web site has been defining the work of the GFMD in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Cartagena conference defined key points of the GFMD work plan that were supported by the other regions at the GFMD World Conference in Athens in December 2008. The meeting agreed that the GFMD should establish a database of members, that it should carry out a review of media development programmes world-wide and that it should draft a code of practice for media assistance organisations defining principles of accountability and transparency. Participants also set out regional priorities, including: • To promote greater editorial independence;

Participants agreed on three priorities that media development programmes should focus on in the region: • The right to communication and to receive information • Quality in journalism • Corporate Social responsibility of media companies “Media can play an important role in promoting democracy and social justice”, said Jaime Abello Banfi of FNPI, Colombia. “We have many examples of media initiatives supporting marginalised communities and indigenous populations in this region, but they need to receive more recognition and more support. “

• To promote social responsibilities of media organisations; To create links with media assistance organisations and community media in the region. GFMD members from the LAC region elected Jaime Abello Banfi of FNPI in Colombia and Veet Vivarta of Brazilian News Agency for Children’s Rights (ANDI) to the GFMD Steering Committee. Wesley Gibbings of the Association of Caribbean Media Workers from Trinidad and Tobago serves as the reserve. The next Latin America and the Caribbean Forum for Media Development is scheduled to take place in 2011.

T H E G F M D I N T H E R EG IO N S

Middle East/North Africa Forum for Media Development B eirut, Lebanon November 1-2, 200 8

GFMD members from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) held the first Regional Forum for Media Development for the region in Beirut on November 1-2, 2008. The meeting was attended by more than 60 participants from 18 countries and succeeded in establishing the GFMD presence in the MENA region. As the other GFMD regional gatherings, the MENA region identified the main challenges facing media development and agreed on priorities for action. Participants agreed that the lack of an enabling legal and institutional environment for media freedom was the biggest problem blocking media development in the region. But in spite of the restrictive environment, participants shared experience of how different media assistance groups helped enlarging the information space in the region. “The MENA region is leading in digital activism, it has the fastest growth rate of internet users and the number of bloggers is increasing daily”, said Gamal Eid, Executive Director of the Arab Network for Human Rights based in Egypt. “We need to engage with this community to work together towards better access to information.” In her address, prominent Lebanese journalist May Chidiac, who had been injured in an assassination attempt in September 2008, called on participants to promote high standards of ethics in their work. “In a region blighted by conflict, journalists have a special responsibility to keep to standards of balanced reporting,” she said. Nabil Khatib, Executive Director of Al Arabya, echoed her calls for high standards. “Media development in this region is not a question of money,” he said. “There are 400 satellite channels operating in the region, that are worth at least 4 billion US Dollars, but we have to ask ourselves whether we

really respond to the information needs of our viewers.” He highlighted the problem of access to information, which often means that journalists cannot find out key information on, for instance, the division of their own country’s national budget and called on civil society organisations to be more active in the campaign for freedom of information. The meeting, hosted by the Beirut Press Club and organised with financial support from USAID, adopted a range of recommendations that were further discussed at the regional session during the GFMD World Conference in Athens on December 7-10, 2008. They agreed the following priorities for action that have shaped the GFMD’s work since the World Conference: • To carry out joint campaigns for access to information should be one priority for media development and other civil society groups in MENA. • Advocating for safety policies of media practitioners and offering assistance and support to victims of violence and their families should remain a top priority, especially in collaboration with other organizations already devoted to fulfilling this mission. • Media development organisations should develop guidelines for transparency and good governance inside media companies and organisations, including clear information on ownership and structures safeguarding editorial independence. • GFMD should assist in providing capacity building initiatives for media development organisations, in the area of advocacy, training, promotion of social responsibility, etc., as well as coordination between capacity-building ef-

forts and identifying those agents most prepared to adopt and incorporate change. â&#x20AC;˘ GFMD should work towards increasing support for independent media, including preparing an advocacy strategy for social responsibility for MENA business aiming for them to provide support to independent media. â&#x20AC;˘ GFMD should identify ways to increase cooperation with different international and donor organisations in the region in order to increase recognition of the important of the role that free, independent, pluralistic media play in promoting democracy, good governance, human and economic development in the MENA region. GFMD members from the MENA region elected Shibli Haitham Atoom of Radio Farhanas in Jordan and Ali Djerri of Al Khabar newspaper in Algeria to the GFMD Steering Committee. Nadir Hassan of Chada FM radio in Morocco serves as a reserve. The next MENA Regional Forum for Media Development will be held in 2011.

Making the Case for Media Development

M AK I N G T H E CA S E F O R M E D IA D EVE LO P M E N T

Media and Development: Finding the Most Effective Pathway by MAR K N E LSON

Over the past two decades, major international development institutions like the World Bank have increasingly recognized the critical role that the news media play in achieving positive developmental outcomes. This recognition is based not only on observations of the reform process in countries that have managed to launch successful economic and social development, but also on a growing body of empirical evidence and research that points to the importance of a vibrant news media and information flow to building strong economic activity and improved governance.

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

The knowledge we have gathered so far not only shows how important the media is to the whole field of international development, it also reveals just how much we don’t know. What is the most effective way to support media development as part of an overall economic reform process? What should be the sequencing of the policy reforms that create an effective media? What is the business model for a sustainable media in developing countries? At a time when the media landscape across the globe is changing in dramatic and poorly understood ways, the case for further work on the role of media in development has never been stronger. What we know: Why media development matters Media is a critical institution that cuts across most of the broad categories under which societies organize themselves: • A market institution: Information flow is key to an efficient economic system. The functioning of markets requires decision-makers who have good understanding not only of the business at hand, but also of the broader environment and what is happening in the outside world. This means that economic decision makers must stay on top of politics, other business sectors and even seemingly mundane topics like the weather. • A governance institution: Also important to the economic system is the quality of governance, and it is clear that an independent, sure-footed media can play a major role in ensuring accountability and oversight over public and private transactions that affect citizens, and exposing vice or incompetence in other critical institutions. . • A social and cultural institution: The media may strengthen bonds and common understandings among people

and help resolve conflict and forge consensus. While the media has in recent years been more associated with the opposite—for example, in stoking the fires of ethic conflict in the Balkans—it has also been critical to resolving those conflicts and providing a forum for debate about major policy changes in developing countries. • A promising business sector: As an area of investment and growth, the media is one of the sectors of the economy that is experiencing rapid, evolutionary change. While it remains unclear whether the traditional media will come out ahead or even survive these changes, it is clear that the global population is spending more and more time with various forms of media such as television, the internet and radio. Recent surveys in the United States, for example, suggest that people spend more than a third of their time connected to some form of media. As the media markets of the developed world become more and more saturated, the prospects for growth will shift increasingly to developing countries.

Data cited by Media Management Center at www.MediaInfoCenter.org.

Where all of this matters most, of course, is in the less developed countries, particularly Africa. At a time when some African countries have shown signs of sustaining a prolon-

M AK I N G T H E CA S E F O R M E D IA D EVE LO P M E N T

ged period of economic growth and development, we may have a rare opportunity to examine the role that the media play in this story and hopefully contribute to improving the quality of the outcomes1. What we don’t know We have a long way to go in understanding just how the media affect economic change and development, particularly in the developing countries. To start, we have only a limited amount of data about the basic facts of the media environments in developing countries, and our lack of data makes it very difficult to chart the progress, or lack thereof, of those countries. In most African countries, for example, media development professionals often have no data at all about the basic contours of the media market—the size of the audience for the various media, the advertising markets, the ownership of the media and other pertinent data. While global organizations like Freedom House and IREX produce useful indices that track media freedom (Freedom of the Press Index) and the overall media system (The Media Sustainability Index), these datasets do not give investors or policy makers a detailed empirical picture of the media environment or how it is developing. We also don’t know exactly how well donor interventions in the media systems are working. While donors are spending tens of millions of dollars a year on various media projects, we have very little comprehensive data about which interventions are most effective and which lead most quickly to the desired outcomes for countries that are trying to reform their media sectors. The Media Map Project Creating a better understanding of the impact of media development on broader development is the focus of the Media Map project, a two-year multi-partner collaboration financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and through a cooperative effort led by Internews, the World Bank Institute, and the Brookings Institution. The Media Map Project is composed of three phases. In the first phase, it will collect and examine existing data on media and on global development, such as: the World Bank’s World Governance Indicators and their disaggregated source data, other global development indicators such as the UN Human Development indicators, media indices such as the Media Sustainability Index, sector-level data like that collected by the World Association of Newspapers, global opinion polls, audience research, and other relevant data sources. This phase will result in a publicly available database that pulls together a number of these data sources so that media development stakeholders have a resource for further analysis. It 1

will also result in a report analyzing one or more key aspects of the correlations between media and development, and outlining other critical topics for further analysis. The second phase, running simultaneously with the first phase, focuses on understanding the evolution of media development spending over the past decade. It will also look at the way these investments have been evaluated by donors, participants, and independent sources. The research from this phase consists of a review of available studies that track funding flows for media development, plus a series of interviews with donors, implementers, and other partners. This phase will result in a better understanding of how much investment is made in media assistance and what stakeholders consider to be the most effective investments. The third phase uses five country-level case studies to bring the first and second phases together, analyzing the most effective investments in media development and their outcomes. This phase will result in a brief report giving an overview of the findings, to include an assessment of which tools and approaches should be applied to various development conditions. The report will also outline an agenda for action and next steps. The aim of this work is to build a stronger understanding of media and development for news organizations, policymakers and donors. As the global media struggles to adjust to rapidly changing technologies and platforms, the hope is that developing countries can find a pathway that gives them access to the critical contributions that an effective and independent media can provide.

More information: HTTP://WBI.WORLDBANK.ORG/WBI/

Mark Nelson is Lead Specialist at the World Bank Institute in Washington, DC, where he works on capacity development and governance issues. A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal, he covered international economic and diplomatic affairs from Brussels, Berlin and Paris.

Over the past decade, sub-Saharan Africa’s growth has remained relatively strong, with a large group of countries growing at between 5% and 10% per year, outpacing the increases in population. The International Monetary Fund expects sub-Saharan Africa’s growth to rebound this year and next after a setback in 2009.

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

Donors, Governance and Media Aid: Asking the Right Questions by W I LLIAM OR M E

We’ve heard others say it many times, and have probably said it ourselves. If there is a point of general consensus in the meetings, blogs and other forums devoted to media development, it is that we self-proclaimed ‘communicators’ have failed to make the case to donors that media matters – and this is why support remains woefully underfunded. This then leads to calls for further research, with new country surveys and case histories that will prove the merits of media assistance to funders obsessed with ‘metrics’ and to development pros skeptical about the very notion of foreign aid for local journalism. But is this really the problem? Could it be that we are asking the donors (and ourselves) the wrong questions?

M AK I N G T H E CA S E F O R M E D IA D EVE LO P M E N T

That media is taken seriously by governments is hardly headline news. Politicians and development professionals in the industrial democracies are hyper-aware of media’s impact, including on their own careers and budgets. The ‘public diplomacy’ professionals in donor nations court local news organizations with press briefings as well as junkets, fellowships and other favors. The five permanent members of the Security Council have all long sponsored radio broadcasts from their state information services to almost every country on the planet. And is telling that when the United Nations embarks on a peacekeeping mission, one of its first priorities is often to set up its own local radio service, entire transmission networks and news departments from scratch.

ses that can and do survive even in poor countries without public subvention. The major exceptions are state media, usually rightly dismissed as propaganda organs, and religious broadcasters, which have their own patrons and agenda. You may see ‘communications for development’ as a defensible investment – using media to get out the word on safe sex or bed nets or sending your daughters to school – but not support for media as an end in itself. Especially as the media appears already to exist without such help. The challenge, then, is not just to show that media matters in development, but to show that media require global taxpayer support, as an integral part of that 0.7 percent ODA bill, just like schools and hospitals and other essential

That media is taken seriously by governments is hardly headline news. Politicians and development professionals in the industrial democracies are hyper-aware of media’s impact, including on their own careers and budgets. Aid-recipient governments are little different. Most are intensely aware of the importance of the media, domestic and local, as attested by their news-management apparatus of information ministries, state broadcasters, public advertising budgets, direct and indirect payments to reporters and their employers, and myriad other instruments of coercion, persuasion and co-optation. The purpose of all this official media activity is rarely what we would consider ‘media development.’ But it is also clear that it is the rare politician or foreign-policy-maker who considers media to be unimportant in the greater geopolitical scheme of things. That is also the case with most development professionals. The question I have been confronted with by colleagues in UN agencies is not whether media is an important factor in development or governance. They get that; most would readily endorse the need for independent, pluralistic, professional news media, in their home countries and in the countries where they work. The question they pose is different: What does this have to do with us? If your focus is basic health care, say, or primary school education, the ‘media’ is not necessarily seen as an equally logical beneficiary of development aid. Newspapers, radio and television are, after all, mostly private for-profit busines-

public services, even if press freedom and access to information don’t show up anywhere in the MDGs. This first requires assessing the news media in terms of its public function and impact – does it inform the citizenry accurately, does it hold authorities accountable, does it reach all regions and ethnic groups? – rather than with quantitative measures – newspaper circulation, radio listenership, numbers of media outlets, and so on. This means delving into actual content, and making subjective but well-founded and persuasive judgments. Secondly, it demands an economic analysis of the news business. Though it may appear increasingly obvious that the free-market model alone cannot provide independent professional news services even in the wealthiest countries, the case must be rigorously made why the costs of serious newsgathering and news dissemination cannot be met by ad revenue alone, especially in economies dependent on donor support for a third or more of basic government budgets. If you clear that tall hurdle, the second tier of questions is about how: What sort of media support is most appropriate – and most effective -- for a multilateral or bilateral agency? How do donors pick local media stars and shun bad actors –

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

or should they? How do you ensure and verify that this support will benefit the general public? And aren’t there other more urgent governance priorities, like fighting corruption? A journalists’ workshop here and there is fine, but is news a necessity like primary schooling or potable water? A useful framework for addressing and alleviating these reasonable concerns is to point to the tens of millions of dollars donors are putting into new independent democratic institutions such as autonomous electoral boards and anticorruption commissions. These are now seen as essential long-term investments in sound governance. It wasn’t as if elections weren’t held before or that embezzlement wasn’t always illegal, but there was a widely recognized need for

These long-term funding decisions emerge by consensus from long and often tedious consultation processes among bilateral and multilateral aid providers, national governments and political parties and civil society groups and other ‘stakeholders.’ The result is often a multi-donor, multi-year commitment to these institutions, as reflected in their inclusion in ‘basket funds’ and ‘PRSPs’ and other development instruments. Wouldn’t we like to see media included in that process? It’s hard, because the press is always messy, and should be, with multiple outlets with diverse agendas and audiences, while – ideally - maintaining a critical distance from government. Yet support for this desirable pluralism too often manifests itself

Media development should be put on the same policy plane, with specific proposals for broad institutional support, untainted by perceptions that donors are playing media favorites. a much higher order of professionalism in these oversight bodies, as well as more arms-length detachment from the government of the day. Media development should be put on the same policy plane, with specific proposals for broad institutional support, untainted by perceptions that donors are playing media favorites: Examples would include aid to journalism schools, public broadcasters, semiautonomous regulatory bodies, national professional associations, and groups of women journalists, business writers, or environmental specialists. These proposals should be framed as complements to existing donor and host-country commitments to democratic institutions, which (we would argue) require independent news media.

in parallel or overlapping training programs for individual journalists and news organizations, which may be fine initiatives in themselves but rarely promote sustainable, transformational change. This syndrome is exacerbated by donors’ tendency to support media through publicdiplomacy budgets, where spotlighting the donor’s flag is a bigger priority than aid effectiveness.Yet much could be done that would foster greater donor collaboration and bring new money to the table. As in health or education or any other development field, it is immensely helpful if there is a consensus about priorities in Country X among media development professionals and the local journalism establishment. It is more helpful still if those identified priorities include aid to institutions serving the entire population, at least in principle. Reassuringly to

M AK I N G T H E CA S E F O R M E D IA D EVE LO P M E N T

aid professionals, there are recognized international norms and obligations in the management and monitoring of elections, as there also are in the anti-corruption field and in human rights. In the media realm, though, there is often an erroneous assumption that there are no analogous universal verities, much less codified international principles, but rather a hodgepodge of varying media cultures and practices. That’s wrong, of course: From Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the more detailed principles adopted by such regional bodies as the AU and the OAS and the OSCE, there is no lack of clear, governmentally endorsed guidelines. Yet journalists and other media aid advocates – reflecting an otherwise healthy distrust of most things governmental – too rarely cite these intergovernmental instruments in making their case to bilateral and multilateral donors. The next crucial step is for the media development specialists to actually collaborate, by communicating with one another on the ground and shaping project proposals in a complementary rather than competitive manner. Given existing niche specializations in broadcasting training, media law, investigative reporting and many other areas, this kind of cooperation shouldn’t be hard. But it remains rare.

criminal libel laws, the strength and independence of national news organizations, and the caliber of local journalism training. Similarly, there could be more effective partnerships between civil-society proponents of right-to-information statutes – a half dozen such bills now sit stalled in draft form in parliaments across Africa, for example – and the journalists’ groups who could push harder and more publicly for these laws. They should also jointly seek support for training reporters and civic activists alike to use those legal tools when they become available, and for governments to acquire the technical capacity needed to comply. These strategic partnerships requiring crossing some customarily adversarial lines. They also demand better understanding of the donor and aid-technocrat world view – and a willingness to attend repetitious planning meetings and wade through the even more mind-numbing documents that they will eventually produce. But the key is getting inside the room, and there are many doors in the development world waiting to be opened.

And finally, seek alliances with movements already embedded in the global governance-and-aid matrix. An obvious example are the anti-corruption campaigners who have become a force in donor institutions and domestic reform groups alike. Aside from ritual nods to the role of journalists as ‘watchdogs,’ they have not made common cause with the media development community, or vice-versa. William Orme works currently as a freelance

Yet the first national reports to emerge from the intensive donor-supported African Peer Review Mechanism all identified a need for better local investigative reporting to reinforce anti-corruption and accountability efforts – and the authors of those recommendations were primarily finance technocrats, not the usual democratic-reform crowd. This should be seen as an invitation to media aid advocates to, first, strongly agree, and then to underline the linkages between investigative reporting and (for example) the elimination of

consultant on media development for several organisations including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and UNDP. Until 2009 he was the Policy Advisor for Independent Media Development at the UNDP Bureau for Development Policy. Before he worked as a correspondent fort he New York Times and as director of the Commity to Protect Journalists.

News Media as Public Sentinel Communication for Governance and Accountability Program (CommGAP) by TH E WOR LD BAN K 1

The problem: Good Governance in Recession Today the world faces multiple challenges in governance, transparency, accountability, and inclusivity of development. The spread of accountability and transparency has been extraordinary, with more countries scoring higher on international aggregate indicators of governance, press freedom, and transparency. Nevertheless, these indicators also suggest that in many countries the advance of good governance has stagnated or even reversed. Reforms urgently need to improve the responsiveness, transparency, effectiveness, and accountability of governance institutions so that public services work for the poor as well as the rich. A diverse and independent media sector can be an effective way to increase government accountability and to benefit the poor by enhancing their participation and dialogue. The linkages between news media and governance can be approached with three broad questions. First, a normative approach asks: What ideal roles should media systems play to strengthen democratic governance and thus bolster human development? Second, an empirical approach considers independent evidence derived from cross-national comparisons and from selected case studies, asking: Under what condi1 2

tions do media systems actually succeed or fail to fulfill these objectives? Third, a strategic approach asks: What policy interventions work most effectively to close the substantial gap that exists between the democratic promise and performance of the news media as an institution? Public Sentinel: News Media and Governance Reform2, edited by Pippa Norris, responds to these questions, bringing to bear some of the best empirical evidence from around the world. In reply to the first question, the book offers three ideal roles of the news media: watchdog, agenda setter, and gatekeeper in the public forum. As regards the second, chapters in the book examine how the news media function as an institution against these ideal benchmarks, using systematic cross-national empirical analysis, detailed selected case studies derived from a wide range of low- and medium-income societies, as well as different types of regimes found in all regions around the globe. The policy recommendations offered in the bookâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s final chapter, by Sina Odugbemi and Pippa Norris, are summarized below. The solution: Policy recommendations A substantial gap exists between the ideals that are widely articulated in liberal democratic theory and the practices that are commonly found in states around the world. This gap

This piece was prepared by Anne-Katrin Arnold and Antonio G. Lambino II, CommGAP, The World Bank Public Sentinel can be accessed here: http://go.worldbank.org/ZMCO1WV7Z0

M AK I N G T H E CA S E F O R M E D IA D EVE LO P M E N T

to media reform. Apply systematic media audits and indicators that are sensitive to regional contexts prior to any policy intervention or the implementation of any program.

needs to be addressed, and the book presents a wide range of effective policy interventions and programs that can be implemented by national stakeholders and the international community.

Reform the Role of the State Strengthening the framework of civil liberties, reforming state broadcasting, and establishing effective and independent broadcasting regulatory agencies can provide bases for reforming the state.

• Expand the framework of civil liberties and remove legal curbs on the media: Reform any overarching constitutional principles, laws, or administrative procedures that inhibit the independence of the press (especially fundamental freedoms of expression and publication). Efforts should be directed toward respecting the rights of journalists and revoking punitive legislation against independent media (including punitive taxing, control of official advertising, control of printing presses, and licenses for the importation of newsprint). • Turn state broadcasters into public service broadcasters: State control of the media inhibits the capacity of the news media to be watchdogs, agenda-setters, and gate-keepers. Convert state-controlled broadcasters into genuine public service broadcasters (PSB), which are editorially independent of government and protected against political and commercial interference. They should provide a wide range of programming to educate, inform, and entertain the public, while taking into account ethnic, cultural, religious, and regional diversity. Public service broadcasting should be governed by an independent governing board, and should be financed with public funding through specific mechanisms that protect their independence. • Ensure the independence of broadcasting regulatory bodies: Because broadcasting regulation is unavoidable, it is crucial that bodies overseeing this process be truly independent. The powers and duties of oversight bodies should be determined by law. The oversight body should operate transparently and in the interest only of the public. The regulatory body should be required to include public participation, be subject to judicial oversight, and be formally accountable to the public. Finally, a regulatory body should be required to publish an annual report. • Use Needs Diagnostics and Media Performance Indicators: Strong monitoring and evaluation frameworks promote a holistic, consistent, and efficient approach

• Incorporate media indicators and audits into governance diagnostics and needs analysis: Incorporate diagnostics for assessing the state of the media system at the country level prior to any strategic interventions. This diagnostic work can be informed by a set of disaggregated indicators, such as country profiles, or quality of governance assessment frameworks.

Address Problems of Market Failure Be aware of the ambiguity of liberal markets and competition. They can be an asset to watchdog reporting because state influence can be curbed, but they can also be an obstacle because commercial pressures often make the media reluctant to hold the powerful to account.

• Make a pluralistic and diverse media system your overarching policy objective.- Diversity should be achieved through a regulatory environment encouraging a wide range of media ownership, outlets, contents, interests, and political perspectives. It is advisable for donors to support small independent media to offset the potentially negative effects of political and economic pressures on the mainstream media. • Good practice suggestions on the regulation of private broadcasting include: positive content obligations; special content rules during elections; no restrictions on broadcast content beyond those that apply to all forms of expression; codes of conduct and self-regulation; sanctions for breaches of content rules that are proportionate to the harm done; equitable frequency distribution between public service, commercial, and community broadcasters; “must carry” rules for cable and satellite networks; public access channels. • Strengthen media markets and media industries, and support media infrastructure: The media sector needs to be regarded as an important development sector because it can be a massive creator of jobs and a generator of wealth, especially in developing countries. The kind of economic development initiatives directed toward other economic and social development sectors need to be directed to the media sector as well. • Commission sector studies and develop plans of action for sector development and to support institutions that

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

the active support of groups in civil society in order to strengthen the commitment of each political community to free, diverse, and independent media. NGOs, community-based organizations, and social movements cannot be effective without the active support of free, diverse, and independent news media. Media watch groups or observatories are a good way of holding the news media themselves accountable and encourage them to focus on the public interest.

will strengthen the entire sector. Further suggestions to strengthen sustainable media markets include: tailor funds and bridge finance gaps that may exist due to late returns of donor investments; use existing finance schemes by increasing awareness of existing funding opportunities among the media sector; facilitate the funding of equipment; create mechanisms for media outlets to share technical facilities; identify opportunities to collectively purchase equipment; support equipment and skill upgrades.

Build the Institutional Capacity of the Journalism Profession The ideal roles of the news media as watchdogs, agendasetters, and gate-keepers have implications for the values, norms, and professional practices of journalists. These roles also have implications for media standards of training, accreditation, organizational routines, and professional associations.

• Prioritize institutional, not individual, capacity building: Regard the media system in each country as one of the core institutions affecting governance. Ask: what kind of media systems will help to deliver democratic governance? An institutional view of the media requires a holistic approach to media development, not piecemeal work concentrating mainly on short-term efforts. Change will happen faster if professional development, economic sustainability, legal-enabling environment, and media literacy are addressed simultaneously. • Support sustainable professional development programs and expand institutional capacity: Journalists need support with regard to professional skills, journalism ethics, and management skills. Professional development programs are most effective when they are sustained, especially through existing platforms of learning. Lasting solutions arise from building the institutional capacity of journalism, supporting professional associations, and supporting independent press councils for self-regulation.

Expand Civil Society Organizations The capacity of the news media to be effective watchdogs, agenda-setters, and gatekeepers depends crucially on the vibrancy of associational life in a particular society. Organized groups help to inform and mobilize the news media on specific issues.

Expand Public Access and Build Media Literacy Widespread public access is an essential condition for an effective media. The capacity of the government to have the means to communicate with all parts of the territory it governs is fundamentally important to both state effectiveness and nation building. The news media play a crucial role in creating that sense of community. Moreover, access to the news media is integral to competent citizenship. Formal media freedoms have little meaning if citizens cannot make use of the media.

• Expand public access to new media and rights to information: Close gaps in access to media (including the digital divide in information and communication technologies, as well as the skills and resources that are necessary to give widespread access to traditional broadcast media). Technological innovations can reduce some of the technological hurdles to information access in poorer societies (including availability of wind-up radios, solarpower batteries, wireless connectivity, US$100 rugged laptops, Internet cafés, community telephone and Internet centers, and cell phones with data services, e-mail, and text messaging). • Support media literacy as part of building citizenship skills: Support and scale up efforts to promote media literacy. Teach citizens knowledge and provide them with tools so that they can use the media as autonomous and rational citizens.

More information: blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere www.twitter.com/commgap1 www.worldbank.org/commgap

• Encourage links between news media and the rest of civil society: Better cooperation between the news media and the rest of civil society is crucial. The news media need

M AK I N G T H E CA S E F O R M E D IA D EVE LO P M E N T

The Pain of Change and the Need for a New Mindset over Journalism and Development by AI DAN W H ITE

The age of the Internet has brought us marvelous benefits. These days, people can say what they want, when they want, and how they want. The voices of those who were previously silent are now heard in a kaleidoscope of language, culture, and opinion. The information revolution has opened the door to free expression, and millions are joining the party.

But if social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and countless blogs provide evidence that free speech is on the march, they also represent a challenge to people who care about democracy and development. In democracies, people need to be properly informed. They need to know about government, about policy and about changes taking place in their environment. They need information that is credible, relevant, and truthful, and they need

to know where it comes from. The opportunities that cyberspace give us to rant, to boo, to cheer, or, more likely, to be irredeemably dull are not enough to make democracy work. The people expected to provide us with information we can rely on are journalists who, in theory at least, work according to codes and ethics that bind them to notions of decency, accountability, and respect for the rights of others. But journalism is in trouble. The modern media, in deep crisis as it wrestles with technological change and rapidly

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

changing markets, has plunged journalism into an age of uncertainty. This adds to the long-standing crisis in countries where conflict, social dislocation and poverty are major obstacles to development, and where pressure on journalists and independent media has a devastating impact. Governments are also to blame. Punitive and restrictive laws are used to stifle media and jail journalists. In many regions — Mexico, the Philippines and Russia, for example — journalists avoid contentious reporting or are intimidated into a fearful silence, a process sometimes erroneously called self-censorship. This has a chilling effect because it denies the people’s right to know, it hampers development and it weakens the watchdog role of media in society. In the heartland of press freedom in North America and across Europe, there are fewer direct threats, but the whirlwind of change caused by the Internet is no less damaging. Up to 100,000 media workers and journalists have lost their jobs in the last three years. Traditional media markets have collapsed and investment in journalism has plunged. In the search for new revenues some private media are abandoning longstanding notions of ethical journalism if it helps them make more money. Fox News in the United States, for instance, has developed a business model that thrives on political bias. In Britain a major daily newspaper, the Daily Express, provoked a newsroom revolt when the owner insisted on constant front-page focus on populist, anti-migrant stories to boost circulation. Of course, not all media are in a state of decline and not all media owners have lost their attachment to editorial mission, but across the world of journalism there is growing dismay at the decline of values in newspaper journalism which until recently has been the mainstay of reporting in metropolitan centres.

Studies of newspaper and broadcast journalism repeatedly show that broadcast news follows the agenda set by newspapers, often repeating the same items, albeit with less depth. Online journalism is full of voice and opinion, but researchdriven reporting is scarce and checking of facts or editorial scrutiny is often entirely absent. The capacity for original news reporting is weaker on all fronts. When four years ago Stephen Engelberg, managing editor of The Oregonian, in Portland, United States, got a tip that the head of a charity in El Paso, Texas, was paying himself $1.4 million a year, largely from government cash destined to help disabled workers, he sent three reporters and a photographer to investigate. Some weeks and several visits later they filed a two-part series exposing the scam. This was public interest journalism at its best – detailed and meticulous reporting, thoughtful interviews, fool-proof documentation and lashings of style in the presentation. As a result the government carried out much-needed reform of its public support programmes and the charity boss signed a personal cheque for $10 million to reimburse the charity. But in the sharp focus of today’s newspaper crisis it’s doubtful whether such an expensive story – it cost around $250,000 to put together – would ever see the light of day, simply because the business case for it cannot be made. What is certain, however, is that online media would never initiate or break such a story, not least because of the investment in time and research needed as well as the absence of rigorous fact-checking and editorial scrutiny. Across the world, media people scratch their heads trying to answer a simple question: If private media cannot deliver the information pluralism democracy needs to flourish, who will provide it, and more to the point, who will pay for it? In answering this question some journalists now argue for a new media paradigm – one that encompasses public good and quality content. They see an opportunity for positive

M AK I N G T H E CA S E F O R M E D IA D EVE LO P M E N T

change in the way media work and how journalism is paid for. Much of this is focused around talk of new sources of funding – some of it public – to support public interest journalism and independent media. But public funds, whether generated through special levies or other ways of picking the tax-payers’ pocket, should not be used to bail out commercial enterprise. Public money does have a place in financing of media, but only when it nourishes journalism as a public good and it should only be available through independent structures that keep political influence at bay. Although the notion of public subsidy beyond the well defined territory of public broadcasting is relatively novel in the West it is an established feature of media in the rest of the world. In many regions people simply would not have access to local reporting if government money, local and national, was eliminated. In many of these countries it is taken for granted that “state media” serve their political masters. The notion of “independent media,” where it exists, is associated with private enterprise, but there is often little money to be made in countries where the economy is weak. Often the information vacuum is filled by rich and powerful industries, as in Russia, or political movements, as in Iraq, who buy into media to promote their own interests. The precarious context in which journalism is often practiced also has an impact. In countries like Paraguay and Colombia poverty wages and uncertain employment conditions are common, and many journalists only get their stories published if they first sell advertising to pay for it. In numerous others, from Somalia to Indonesia and China, journalism is carried out through under-the counter deals, brown envelopes and various forms of bribery that render the notion of ‘journalism of values’ laughable to many. Equally damaging is internal corruption and a lack of media transparency. In India recently a leading newspaper refused to send reporters to a World Bank-supported programme to train journalists on covering sanitation and environment issues. If the sanitation department wanted media coverage, said the newspaper, it ought to pay. This view highlights the prevailing influence of „private trea-

ties,“ a money-making ruse developed by the Times of India, the country‘s largest-selling English daily, but practiced by several other media companies. Under these agreements, a company looking for investment enters into a private treaty with the newspaper. The paper takes a stake in the company, provides advertising support and generous editorial coverage. Not only are readers not told of the arrangements, but adverse news about the companies involved is underplayed, or goes unreported. The Times of India also came in for flak in a 2010 study carried out by the Press Council of India which found much of the provincial media encouraging journalists to put bias into their stories for cash handouts. Astonishingly, some newspapers regularly present a rate card to political candidates, outlining how much they have to pay for favourable coverage of themselves and how much to they have pay for publication of critical news about their opponents. None of this makes it easier to report on development issues or to expose corruption in public life. Independent scrutiny of power becomes ever-more difficult when governments, corporations and leaders of cultural movements have their hands on the controls of media. When these people have less reason to fear exposure, corruption is likely to flourish. This is not just a speculative notion. The World Bank’s annual index of political corruption around the world, based on surveys of people who do business in each country provides revealing evidence of how media freedom is linked to levels of corruption. Even so, journalistic resilience offers some hope for change. In Indonesia, the Alliance of Independent Journalists, for instance, has campaigned vigorously to eradicate bribery of reporters and editors. The union has fostered a new culture of unionism within media to combat corruption. Elsewhere the International Federation of Journalists has launched the Ethical Journalism Initiative, a global campaign to rekindle trust in journalism and to encourage action by journalists to improve standards and to challenge corruption both inside and outside the media.

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

But if the future is to be as bright as many optimistic journalists want it to be, all media will have to rethink their role and relationships with sources and their audience and look beyond traditional structures and markets. This fresh thinking needs to resonate in the media policy debates within the development community and international agencies. To address the hatful of challenges in the debate about media development and journalists’ rights we need to refocus on the realities of the new world of information. Although journalists are not the only players in the information field, they are the main providers of information that people need and they need more support. The information crisis in many countries is made worse by journalism that is corrupt, ill-informed and incompetent. Support for independent journalists’ associations, actions to encourage ethical journalism, more training and better social conditions are all essential if we are serious about creating the sort of journalism that will command public trust. Development priorities must focus on ensuring that information policies promote transparency, credibility, relevance and accountability. That may be best achieved by supporting value-based journalism and not by propping up flagging media entities, or by sponsoring new private initiatives without creating an environment that will allow independent media to develop. Media development should invigorate public debate about the role of media and journalism, encourage support for ethical journalism through press councils, and support media literacy and education programmes for all. Perhaps most crucial, and delicate, is the need to revisit relations with the state and to build new partnerships with government not least to resolve problems of official secrecy, the “digital-divide,” and to abolish laws that criminalise acts of journalism.

garner fresh investment in journalism and media. If it is unacceptable for government to act arbitrarily against media it claims are unprofessional, it is equally inappropriate for media support groups to make robust criticism of governments without seeking dialogue with journalists and the authorities in these countries to help media to do a better job. Media development can make a difference to peoples’ lives, not least in giving voice to marginalized communities and providing opportunities for people to have their say. But that will not happen without a new mindset and without a more inclusive vision of the future in which governments, donor agencies, journalists, media, and civil society work together to bring journalism out of the shadows of development policy.

More information: www.ifj.org

Aidan White is the General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists. He joined the IFJ in 1987 from The Guardian in the UK. He has written extensively on the social and professional conditions of journalism. He is an international consultant on press rights and journalistic ethics and has produced reports for UNESCO, the ILO, the UN Human Rights Commission, the Council of Europe,

Government has a role to play, but it does not involve meddling in the content of journalism. Importantly, they are potential partners in creating the environment for strengthening journalism as a public good. To achieve that means looking at new ways of delivering public support – provided at arm’s length from political influence – and seeking new initiatives to

and the European Union. He is the author is a wide range of publications; his most recent book about journalist ethics “To Tell You the Truth” was published in English in 2009 and has been translated into French and Arabic.

M AK I N G T H E CA S E F O R M E D IA D EVE LO P M E N T

Cyber News: Malaysia’s First Decade by S evan D oraisamy

Internet news, growing fast in Malaysia, demonstrates the opportunities and challenges it brings to a society to create balanced reports and an informed populace. We have seen it be quickly appealing to young people, who want more independent reporting and attach some status to being the first to learn of news. On the other hand, our Web media find that they face the same repressive laws the government has been using on traditional media – and often – as the new technology makes the ruling institutions feel insecure.

From the Beginning The Internet first became a real choice for Malaysians and their daily news updates in 1999. The catalyst came the year before, when Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed fired his Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim. The action was controversial and sparked a reform movement in Malaysia. Because it coincided with the broad arrival of the Internet in Malaysia, it led to the launching of many online alternative news sites. The civil society group, Aliran, and others like it had just started putting up their own Web sites, the earliest in 1997. The Internet became the space for news from all kinds of campaigns, including one to free the imprisoned Anwar, led by the now famous blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin; also, the BERSIH rally for free and unbiased elections, in Kuala Lumpur. Many Web-based magazines, such as Saksi.com, also emerged. The first Internet newspaper, Malaysiakini, started in 1999. The first Web-based radio, RadiQradio.com, was launched in 2000. Also that year, Aliran launched an initiative it called Charter 2000, to campaign for a free and fair media.

Many more online media emerged, including: The Nut Graph, Malaysian Insider, FreeMalaysia Today, Malaysian Mirror, Merdeka Review and Rock Malaysia. So did hundreds of blogs – including one by the former Prime Minister, Mahathir (one of the most visited, chedet.com), who used it for a while to complain about mainstream media blocking his criticism of his successor. One setback in media freedom actually fueled more Internet news sites. In 2001, Malaysia’s Chinese Party bought the nation’s two leading Chinese newspapers. After that and in search of independent news, the Chinese community added several Web sites, such as thefreemedia.com and mytianwang.com. The Internet was fast becoming a lifeline for opposition views and balanced news reports. The Impact of Cyber News Malaysia’s March 2008 general elections marked a historic change not just in the nation’s politics but also its media. For only the second time in the country’s history, the Barisan

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

National Alliance lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament. The results stunned the government, which had ignored cyber campaigning, vilified bloggers and threatened them with jail. Jeff Ooi, one of the nation‘s top bloggers who used cyberspace as part of his main campaign strategy, is now an opposition parliamentarian. Mainstream media took a beating too, losing credibility because of blatantly biased coverage in favor of the government. News monitoring by our organization, the Centre for Independent Journalism, for 10 days before the election showed Barisan National used mainstream newspapers as propaganda tools. The election results showed that the general public ignored that mainstream media. What helped discredit traditional media were conflicting reports between them and the blogs and online media. For example, mainstream media reported much lower crowd numbers at the BERSIH rally than the 40,000 reported and photographed by online media. There are signs of more balanced coverage in some mainstream media since the election. On the other hand, expression in cyberspace remains anything but free. Malaysians still remember the police raid in 2003 on Malaysiakini. Also, some fear a crackdown by Malaysia’s current Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak. Malaysia made a pledge in 1996 not to censor the Internet; nevertheless, Web sites and blogs are subject to strict slander and security laws. For example, Raja Petra, arrested last year under the Internal Security Act, now lives in exile. Challenges Posed by Current Laws Fundamentally, expression can be and is criminalized in Malaysia under several laws: The Penal Code (incitement, defamation), Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act, and the newest legislation from the late 1990s – the Communications and Multimedia Act. Web sites and bloggers join a list of others – including traditional media, opposition politicians, artists and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) – for whom there is evidence the government and its agents actively use these laws to stifle expression.

on an official Web site – demonstrating official intolerance of opinions against the monarchy. The Sedition Act has been used against both a media organization – Malaysiakini – and individual bloggers – Raja Petra and Bernard Khoo; also, criminal defamation charges were brought against Raja Petra for a posting that linked the current Prime Minister and his wife to the murder of a Mongolian woman, Altantuya Shaariibuu. Looking Forward Malaysia’s government has a longstanding reputation for curbing media independence, and it won’t hesitate to go on using its old tactics to control new media. The Internet as an alternative source of news is growing like never before, but it needs the backup of greater advocacy for freedom of expression and protection. There should be an initiative to bring together the cyber news people, possibly in a loose coalition or even a formal union, to be a strong voice for grievances – especially in urgent matters such as arrests, crackdowns, or office raids by the authorities. Civil society groups and NGO’s have to do more to promote the cyber news community as important media alternatives. As an organization working for media independence and ethical journalism in Malaysia, my group welcomes any ideas or support from any organization – local or global – for these democratizing goals.

Weitere Informationen: www.cijmalaysia.org

Sevan Doraisamy is the director of the Centre for Independent Journalism, Malaysia. The center, originally RadiQradio.com, is now an NGO fully focused on media independence and protection of journalists, including online media. It works for the repeal of laws restricting freedom of information,

In the last decade, as opportunities for cyber activism grew, so did the government’s hold on expression. Coverage of such topics as religious freedom, equitable distribution of wealth, affirmative action, and government corruption has been censored and writers attacked. In 2009, the government used the Communications and Multimedia Act to charge eight people for placing comments against the Perak Sultan

and to promote the creation of an independent Media Council, run by media professionals and free of government interference. The work of the CIJ gained momentum after the March 2008 elections, when others – including lawyers, State Assembly members, opposition parliamentarians, academics and students – joined in supporting CIJ goals.

M AK I N G T H E CA S E F O R M E D IA D EVE LO P M E N T

Monitoring Impact: The Spheres of Influence Approach by A.S. PAN N E E R S E LVAN

Media as Public Sphere

Having a vibrant media scene is a necessary prerequisite to human development and good governance. But, the time has come for us, media practitioners and support organisations, to accept that this is too complex to bring about on our own. It would be prudent to recognise the limitations of our sector, and create appropriate evaluation and impact assessment tools. The existing tools and methodologies are devised to give a macro picture of the overall environments but fail to clearly demarcate the roles played by various actors: state, judiciary, executive, civil society and media. Media is just one contributing factor, albeit an important one. We must track the spheres of influence wielded by the sector so that support organisations are not misled into tracking and measuring overall environments, while attempting to quantify the impact that media support organisations have in the process of change. German philosopher Jürgen Habermas envisaged the Public Sphere as “a theatre in modern societies in which political

1 2

participation is enacted through the medium of talk”1. The Public Sphere mediates between the ‘Private Sphere’ and the ‘Sphere of Public Authority’ where “ the private sphere comprised civil society in the narrower sense … the realm of commodity exchange and of social labour”. The Sphere of Public Authority on the other hand deals “ with the state ,or realm of the police , and the ruling class”. The Public Sphere criss-crosses both these realms and “through the vehicle of public opinion puts the state in touch with the needs of society” 2 However, this theory fails to recognise multiple public spheres; those which form separated though connected entities based on belief, faith, socio-economic status, issues, language, gender and common experience. These entities operate subtly to form several spheres within. Even Habermas after considerable deliberation, concedes: “The Public Sphere, simultaneously pre-structured and dominated by the

Fraser Nancy, Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy, Duke University Press. Habermas, Jurgen, The Stuctural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeoise society, MIT Press, 1989

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

mass media, developed into an arena infiltrated by power in which, by means of topic selection and topical contributions, a battle is fought not only over influence but also over the control of communication flows that affect behaviour while their strategic intentions are kept hidden as much as possible” 3 It is this spectrum of public spheres, where free wheeling ideas collide and coalesce bringing forth debate and discussion that truly reflect in a vibrant, plural media. While the burden of realising the developmental goals lies mainly with the state apparatus and other deliverable institutions, these multiple spheres influence societal and political change thus bestowing media with the role of an eminent catalyst. We should scale down expectations given the truth that the impact of media related programmes take well beyond

is to be sustainable - must be a process that allows people to be their agents of change, to act individually and collectively using their own ingenuity and accessing ideas and knowledge in the search for ways to fulfil their full potential.” 4 Humbled by the fact that total and direct attributions to change is completely out of scope, we track and document our reach within the media, our ability to bring multiple voices into the open, our ability to work in tandem with civil society actors, our efforts to bring academia to render subjects in depth and media on to common platforms to jointly publish informed narratives. With our spheres of engagement being multiple, Panos South Asia (PSA) is looking to measure our spheres of influence within five categories:

Media development is crucial to building democratic societies, but we have to accept that it is just one, albeit important, factor. project completion to percolate and manifest. No amount of number crunching will lead to direct correlation between cause and effect attribution. The goal post needs to be realigned with media development organisations accepting humbly that 1. they can only be co-contributors to an effect, 2. they can continue working towards creating more space for the multiple spheres, 3. programme completion is the beginning of a transformation process and its impact can be assessed only with the lapse of time. Intrinsic Value Vs Instrumentality In a sector like media, which is in itself of intrinsic value as a development indicator, what we need to track needs to be turned on its head. Given its prime value, the media’s value as an instrument or vehicle is purely coincidental. This change of approach is of vital importance to enable better distribution of support and assistance for the media development sector. We need to change impact assessment from global feel-good indicators like poverty reduction to achievable ones like spreading awareness in a bid to help ordinary men and women make informed choices. “At its heart, development - if it 3 4

Habermas, Jurgen, Further Reflections on the Public Sphere, MIT Press, 1992. The Case for Communication in sustainable development; Panos London; 2007

a) Media b) Communities whose voices are articulated through PSA’s programmes c) Civil society partners d) Academia e) State Actors/Policy makers We learnt from experience that a bottom-down or top-up approach does not yield desired results in opening up more space for debate. However well the journalists put to use the training and empowerment that Panos programmes provide, it will not reach the desired impact of opening up more space for diverse voices on issues until and unless the gatekeepers - the editors and owners are sensitized to the issue and allow it. We look at the impact of our partnerships with five groups as to how they help create more space for the multiple public spheres: • Our engagement and influence on media. • Groups and communities whose voices find space in the public sphere, thanks to PSA’s programmes. • Civil society partners, like minded organisations who

M AK I N G T H E CA S E F O R M E D IA D EVE LO P M E N T

help us plan, develop and implement our vision thereby becoming stake holders. • Academia helping to clarify issues, guide and give more teeth to arguments that gets placed in the public domain. • State actors like the policy makers who finally make the ‘change’.(Though in this process, PSA humbly claims to be one of the contributors to the cause, as it would be pure bombast to claim the change is solely due to our interventions or programmes.) We also gauge efficacy by tracking the advisory panel to participant ratio in each of the programmes to ensure that it does not get spread across thinly and retains programmatic

impact assessment not only negates the imperative need for long term investment; it also defeats the basic purpose. Our approach to monitoring and evaluation has strong roots in existing models and practices that are in use in the media assistance community. However, it is in impact assessment that we differ conceptually from many of the other models in use. The difference is in the scales of measurement, the timelines and the ultimate goals. We believe in the catalytic role of media as opposed to being an agent in eradicating poverty or removing illiteracy. The impact we map is measurable and scaled down; the focus is on media as the beneficiary and we look at impact after a certain period of time has lapsed after project completion. The analytical data available post-evaluation of a programme becomes our baseline to track impact.

It makes little sense to evaluate a project immediately after it finishes, most projects show their impact only after a certain period of time. intensity. When it comes to new technology communication initiatives like radio and new media, the ratio of technical trainer to content trainer to participant is tracked. Monitoring, Evaluation, Impact Assessment While monitoring and evaluation of programmes have life during the project cycle, Panos South Asia strongly believes that impact assessment in the areas we deal in can be fruitful only after the lapse of a certain period of time. Immediate

When assessing impact of media assistance interventions we use the assessment report prepared prior to the start of the project as the baseline. After time has elapsed at the end of the project, we track the pathway of change to which our programmes have been co-contributors by assessing as many of the following indicators depending on what type of programme was organised:

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

1. 2. 3. 4.

promoting access to information and resources; raise public debate on thematic issues; the departure from the dominant narrative; mediaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s efforts to defy any form of censorship thus rendering media a site for democratic dialogue; 5. questions raised in the parliament and state legislature and legislative changes brought about by the outputs of our engagement; 6. policy changes at local/ state / national level which have been effected, i.e. a. where no policy existed and new policies got framed b. where clauses which gives more teeth and relevance to policy have been included c. at the policy implementation level; 7. bringing in multiple voices, especially those often unheard, into the public domain; 8. bridging gaps between the grassroots level and policy makers; 9. building awareness on peoplesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights; 10. encourage and empower initiatives that use media for empowering economically and socially weaker sections of society; 11. career advancement of our fellows and participants, thereby opening up more decisive space for the issues in question; 12. reviews/ letters to the editor/follow-up articles and studies/republished/ reprinted; 13. citations / awards/ recognition for fellows for their work; 14. growing partnerships encouraging linkages between media, academia and civil society fraternities.

Analysis of this data will help arrive at a doable, realistic impact assessment of how the engagements with stakeholders like media, academia, civil society organisations, and activists lead to increased visibility for the organisation and its activities. These Spheres of Influence in turn translate into growing credibility for the organisation to engage in its catalyst mission of empowering media to herald change.

More information: www.panossouthasia.org

A. S. Panneerselvan is executiveÂ director of Panos South Asia. He is based in Chennai but travels regularly throughout the South Asia region. He was formerly the managing editor of Sun TV and bureau chief for Outlook magazine in India.

D ON OR S ´ P E R S P ECT IVE S O N M E D IA D EVE LO P M E NT

Donors´ Perspectives on Media Development

I NTE RVI EW W ITH

Gordana Jankovic, Director, Open Society Institute Media Program London

The Open Society Institute’s Media Program is one of the world’s largest supporters of independent media. Its mission is to assist „media outlets that promote democratic values and demonstrate through their editorial approach a high level of professionalism, independence and openness.” Gordana Jankovic has served as its director since 1995. She spoke to GFMD Director Bettina Peters about OSI’s priorities.

What is the current overall amount of support the OSI media programme provides?

Peters :

The OSI supports media not only via the Media Program but also under other OSI programmes – the Special Initiatives journalism programme, topical programmes (like public health), and regional programmes. The Media Program alone has a budget of 10 million USD per year. And there are also the national OSI foundations; some of them have media programmes as well. Jankovic :

In terms of countries you work in, what are your current and future priorities? Why these countries?

transformation. So, we tend to work in countries in transition or countries with closed media systems. At the moment, we work in close to sixty countries across five continents. We rely a lot on the feedback and ideas of our national foundations. But, we have of course other thematic priorities such as freedom of expression, where we fund on a global level monitoring of violations against press freedom. Q : In terms of different types of media development (training, media law, support to media NGOs, media development linked to general development goals etc) where are OSI’s priorities?

Q :

A : Our mandate is global. In terms of deciding which countries to work in, the main criteria are set by our mandate: Opening societies that are closed and helping societies in

A : Again, our spectrum is broad. We look at media as a sector in its own right, i.e., how producers of news and quality content interact with societies, rather than at media as a communication channel for development messages. We fund initiatives that support networking between media assistance

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

or press freedom groups; we fund programmes providing legal protection for journalists (the Media Legal Defense Initiative was OSI-initiated); we support programmes on media and minorities, investigative journalism, the development of media outlets, etc. Q : When reviewing applications, what kind of programmes are you looking for? A : What we look for are good ideas that make a difference and can have real impact. So, for instance, considering a project application, we ask:

at digital media, new media as a tool, a different form of dissemination, what matters most is the content and the quality of the information. So, we look at new media in terms of whether it is a tool that can increase quality (and if so what support may be needed) or whether it is a tool that can ensure a better or wider spread of quality information. OSI has provided support to its partner MDLF to help with some experimental business models for new media, we are supporting research on digitization and its impact on civil society, if and how it supports values of open societies. Q : What has been your most successful programme?

• • • •

Does the project have clear goals? Are these goals important for improving the media sector/area of media the project addresses? Does the project have long-term effects? Will the project overall help to open up societies?

But we also look at the organisation making the application. It is not enough to have a great idea, if the organisation cannot actually implement the work. So, we ask: • Does the organisation have an appropriate governance structure? • Are they transparent about their work (obviously, we know that organisations working in closed societies often cannot be open about what they do)? • Does the organisation have clear, transparent, financial structures? • Is the organisation rooted in the society it wants to work in? Q : What are the biggest mistakes people make when they apply for a grant? A : The biggest mistake you can make is to present a project

in isolation, solely focusing on the activities you want to carry out;

A : I don’t want to single out one programme among the many great initiatives we supported. We spend quite a bit of time and effort in persuading other donors to provide support to media. Fifteen years ago we suggested that media independence could be preserved via support to non-profit media, this approach has taken root even in developed societies such as the U.S. We also help make the case that even though private media are a business, in developing and transforming societies they should receive donor support because their information is often of public value. The role of the media in creating and supporting open societies is too important to be neglected by those who support democratic development. Q : You have worked in media development for many years. What, do you think, are the main changes in support for media development from the 1990 to today? A : The main change is that the sector is emerging, organisations working in the sector are more ready to work together around some common values, the work is less ad hoc and has become more professional. You can see that, for instance, if you look at the increase of academic study focusing on media development. Q : Do you think that media development support has shifted

We want projects to be presented within context: • What assumptions are being made about the society/media sector? • How does the organisation think about creating change? • Why is the change needed and how is it to be achieved? Q : Digital media, new media…how has that changed your priorities? A : It has and it hasn’t. Within the OSI information programme, there is a lot of focus on new media. But we look

from being tagged as support for building democratic societies to support more linked to the Millennium Development Goals? A : Yes, for many donors the MDGs play a very large role in

determining their policy. It is not enough to use the media as a channel for communicating messages, you need to develop a healthy structural environment for media. There’s value in making the best use of media for information campaigns, you can immediately see that your message is getting across, but social values change slowly, raising awareness is just the first step and you cannot assume that it will translate into a change in behaviour. Transforming societies is a long-term

D ON OR S ´ P E R S P ECT IVE S O N M E D IA D EVE LO P M E NT

engagement, and a healthy media structure that provides relevant information, a watchdog function, and supports open debate, is crucial to creating change. Q : What is the current discussion within OSI and with donors that you work with on future support?

We are all asking ourselves how the financial crisis will affect the voluntary sector. Many foundations etc have lost money and governments may be under pressure to focus more on spending their funds at home. Generally, our discussions with other donors focus on questions of how to better use our resources knowing that most funds are tied to specific policy agendas. So, we want to see how agenda-tied funding can also be used to achieve overall goals – such as building a healthy media structure.

Q : Do you think that media development can make a difference in democracy building, good governance, fighting poverty etc?

A : Yes, absolutely. Media are a key – but unrecognized – mechanism of adult/permanent education in terms of providing information on the basis of which people make choices in their lives. Media is a means by which people can participate in society’s response to particular issues. Media provide the platform and information needed to have a debate about change of values in societies. We learn more and more about the key role media play but I think this argument is still not presented clearly and forcefully enough.

Informed citizens re-examine their own values, stay open for diversity of information, and make choices or request more choices if they feel their view is not taken into account. Societies need the media to have this debate. So, media cuts across the board, whether it is democracy or good governance or fighting poverty, media has a critical role to play.

I NTE RVI EW W ITH

Pia Hallonsten, Policy Specialist at the Swedish International Development Agency

The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) has been at the forefront of supporting media development for years. The Swedish government has also put media development on the EU’s agenda. GFMD Director Bettina Peters asked Pia Hallonsten, Policy Specialist at SIDA, about donor trends in media development and SIDA’s plans for the future.

Peters : What is the overall amount of support the Swedish government gives to media development through SIDA?

SIDA provides 130 million Swedish krona (SEK) – about 13 million Euro – per year in media support. Hallonsten :

If we also count broader, freedom of expression support – which includes media, culture, and new information and communication technology (ICT) – the total is SEK 230 million, or about 23 million Euro. In addition, the government recently launched a special, multi-year initiative for demo-

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

cratization and freedom of expression. This initiative is not limited to SIDA’s regular 33 focus countries, many of which are in Africa, and SEK 100 million, or about 10 million Euro, is at SIDA’s disposal this year. What are SIDA’s main priorities when it comes to media support?

A : They center on civil and political rights, which are seen as especially relevant to strengthening democracy. There is more ambitious support for the growth of a free, independent media – vital to strengthening transparency and accountability – as well as freedom of expression – seen as both central in its own right and in securing other rights. SIDA is striving to develop a broad based and systematic approach to media support, with three vital components:

• Creating legal environments that are built on principles of freedom of expression and access to information. • Capacity building, journalism training, professionalism, and ethics. • Financial viability and sustainability, which includes private sector engagement, media development loan funds, management and advertising matters, and questions related to corporate social responsibility and social investment. SIDA sees these three as mutually reinforcing, and can also be the basis for discussing division of labor with other donors. In terms of countries, what are your current and future priorities? Why these countries?

A : SIDA’s basic focus is those 33 countries, principally to avoid spreading ourselves too thin. There is also an effort to emphasize work that is results driven, and where Sweden can bring value-added to other donors – a division of labor among donors. Thematically, the three priority areas are: democracy and human rights, gender equality, and the environment.

How are you embracing digital media, including mobile technology, in your initiatives?

A : SIDA supports the strategic use of information and communication technology (ICT). Hybrid media – combinations of radio, Web sites, podcasts and mobile telephones – offer an opportunity to expand and enlarge the voice of people living in poverty. They also increase social development and the possibility of exposing human rights violations on mainstream media platforms.

Do you see a need to cultivate responsible citizen journalists? If so, how and where?

SIDA prefers the phrase “public interest” to “responsible,” because “responsible” raises the question, responsible to whom? SIDA sees public interest journalism, bloggers and citizen journalists as complementary to mainstream media. Individual bloggers cannot replace the accountable editor in chief and the transparency of a professional media. A:

When reviewing applications, what kind of programs are you looking for?

A : SIDA looks on single-organization projects with multiple goals less favorably than those of a consortium of expert organizations that all bring added value. SIDA also sees the importance of engaging profession organizations (organizations existing and functioning on their own merit and supported by their members, such as the South East Asian Press Alliance or the Federation of African Journalists) where our funding will be a contribution to existing programs. Such organizations are vital for peer discussions and for long-term contact and support.

What are the biggest mistakes people make when they apply for a grant?

Too much focus on activities, and too little on measuring a project’s results, or impact. Very often they lack baseline reference points – the “before project” measure to compare against the “after-project” measure. Territorial thinking is another problem. There is also a lack of understanding for the actual bread and butter of media outlets – the economic viability and sustainability of the media sector. For media outlets to continue after donor support is phased out, project organizers have to grasp the economic conditions of the media market. A:

Over the past few years, what has been your most successful program?

A : One of SIDA’s long-term media contributions is to Vietnam. Training for live broadcasts started at 30 radio stations in1994, and has since spread into TV, newspapers and Internet publications. Live broadcasting completely changed interviewing there, because officials have to answer questions and not just read from prepared statements. The program is moving into a new phase focusing on media economics, advertising and new technology. Despite some backlashes, progress continues.

D ON OR S ´ P E R S P ECT IVE S O N M E D IA D EVE LO P M E NT

SIDA also supports media development loan funds, such as Samdef in southern Africa. Samdef was instrumental in the launch of a locally printed daily opposition paper in Mozambique – O Pais – by giving a loan for a printing press. The Swedish Presidency of the EU is putting some focus on media. For instance, there will be a panel on media at the European Development Days. Do you think the EU should pay more attention to media development? If yes, how could that be achieved?

A : A central issue for the EU’s Swedish Presidency is demo-

cracy building, and Sweden sees the EU as a potential global development actor. Q : What are your views on the proposal for a pan-African media

observatory that recently came out of the EU and the African Union?

SIDA does not see democracy building and the Millennium Development Goals as mutually exclusive. Defending human rights and an independent media are both elements of democracies that are vital to strong development. Also, fighting poverty can be a question of political choices, not always just a lack of resources. Lack of freedom and lack of security are equally important.

Do international funders do a good job of coordinating their efforts? What could be done better?

The eternal questions. In accordance with the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action, SIDA sees a need to:

• Develop division of labor and increased harmonization. These principles should also apply to civil society support.

In general SIDA is positive about media council/press ombudsman functions, but it’s difficult to comment on this specific case, which is still addressing its partnership structure.

• Develop a set of indicators to assess an area’s needs and a project’s results.

In discussions in your ministry and with other donors, how have the priorities for support changed? Perhaps shifting from support for building democratic societies more toward the Millennium Development Goals?

• Look at media support from many different angles and consider cross-fertilization with other sectors – the private sector, or any organizations addressing issues such as the environment, overall governance, rule of law, and education.

I NTE RVI EW W ITH

Ivar Evensmo, Senior Advisor for Media and Civil Society at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)

Scandinavian nations are among Europe’s biggest supporters of media development. GFMD Director Bettina Peters spoke with Elisabeth Salvesen, Senior Advisor at Norway‘s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ivar Evensmo, Senior Advisor for Media and Civil Society at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD). Later, Evensmo offered his insights on Norway’s support for independent media.

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

Peters: What is the current overall amount of support the Norwegian government provides to media development? Jankovic: The figure for 2008 was close to 110 million Norwe-

gian Kroner (about US$17 million). However, it is difficult to find the exact figure because many media interventions are components of programs with other labels. It is also hard to draw a clear line between support for media development vs. for communication for overall development programs. But generally speaking, Norway attributes much importance to both. Q: What are the main priorities for media support for the Nor-

A: They don’t argue convincingly enough for how their specific interventions contribute to the bigger picture. Project goals are often too ambitious, and monitoring capacity and risk analysis are very weak Q: Digital media, new media…how has that changed your priorities? A: Digital media have so far not made their way very strongly into our policy priorities. But there is of course a growing acknowledgement of their importance, especially among younger people.

wegian Foreign Ministry? Are there specific issues you focus on? A: Our media support has virtually no limitations in terms

of purpose. However, it falls broadly into four classifications: response to violations of free speech; media in areas of conflict or states threatened by unstable and fragile conditions; democratic state building; and communication for development. Norwegian media support can be targeted toward interventions that promote national governance, toward: protecting vulnerable groups, such as social and cultural minorities and opposition politicians; giving legal help to media workers persecuted or imprisoned; and promoting women journalists, to mention a few. For these purposes, Norway uses various channels, such as media enterprises, civil society organizations, state institutions and regional and international/multilateral organizations. Q: In terms of countries you work in, what are your current and future priorities? Why these countries?

Q: In the last few years, what has been your most successful program? A: A hard question! There are many small interventions that have been successful, such as training journalists in safety measures. An example of a larger, regional success is the Media Institute for Southern Africa (MISA), whose branches across all southern African nations have been instrumental in many campaigns for press freedoms. Q: In discussions in your ministry and with other donors, how

have the priorities for support changed? Do you think support has shifted away from building independent media as a key part of democratic societies to support for media that bolsters the Millennium Development Goals aimed at reducing world poverty in half by 2015? A: No, that is not the impression we have in Norway.

A: So far, there have been few geographic limitations. In the

future, we expect that Norwegian media support will concentrate more on countries in conflict or post-conflict situations where Norway is already involved with humanitarian, political or development efforts. Q: How can media assistance organizations apply? When reviewing applications, what kind of program are you looking for? A: The embassies, NORAD and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs have always collaborated to ensure that applications end up at the right institution. We look for a good understanding of the political situation on the ground, clear objectives, and good tools for the specific interventions. Also, there is more emphasis today on both strategic interventions and the ability to document results – including UNESCO’s work on indicators to measure broad, nationwide changes. Q: What are the biggest mistakes people make when applying for

Q: Do you think that media development can make a difference in democracy building, good governance, fighting poverty, etc? A: There are strong indications of

a causal relationship, but it’s a challenge to document and more research on this is crucial. Q: What do you think the media development sector should do better to make its case? A: It should take stock of

the work done by the media it supports, to make sure theirs is serious journalism that lives up to their democratic mandate.

Q: What is the current discussion within the ministry and with donors that you work with on future support? A: We see benefits in more collaboration, including easing administrative burdens on donors and recipient programs.

a grant?

D ON OR S ´ P E R S P ECT IVE S O N M E D IA D EVE LO P M E NT

I NTE RVI EW W ITH

Marguerite Sullivan, Senior Director, Center for International Media Assistance, Washington

The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) based in Washington DC has become a key resource for media development practitioners and policy makers. It was created in 2006 by the National Endowment for Democracy, a private, nonprofit organization with a mission to strengthen democratic institutions around the world. CIMA’s mission is to strengthen the support, raise the visibility, and improve the effectiveness of media assistance programs worldwide. The center holds discussions, commissions research reports, and hosts a HYPERLINK „http://geniehost25. inmagic.com/dbtw-wpd/searchMediaBib.html“ \t „_blank“ bibliographic database of media development topics. GFMD Director Bettina Peters asked CIMA Senior Director Marguerite Sullivan about donor trends and about CIMA’s plans.

Peters: CIMA has undertaken several studies on media deve-

A: Training programs, mostly for journalists and other

lopment support provided by donors both in the United States and abroad. Who are the biggest supporters?

media professionals, receive by far the largest chunk of support both from governmental and from non-governmental sources. A distant second is support for infrastructure and equipment, and much farther down the line is support for media law reform and press freedom advocacy. When you look outside the field, you see that communications for development still receives much more support than media development. Many general development programs have a communications element that is more about using media to disseminate a message than building free and independent media.

Jankovic: We have found in our research that it is very dif-

ficult to get comparable data on support to media development. It often is not clearly categorized. But we still can draw some conclusions: Among the non-governmental donors the Open Society Institute is by far the largest supporter of media development. The Knight Foundation also provides considerable support. In recent years, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has come into the field, although its support is primarily through the media for development perspective. As far as governments are concerned, the United States is the biggest single supporter. But if you add together financing provided by the European Commions and the EU Member States, the Europeans would top the list of government support. And among those countries, the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries are the biggest supporters. Outside of the U.S. and the EU, Japan is a big supporter. In recent years, China also has moved into the field, but it is impossible to get precise figures on the funding it provides. Q: What type of

media development receives the most support?

Q: In your contact with Congress and other officials, do you see a change in media development support since the beginning of the Obama Administration? A: From the perspective of high-level policy, President Obama has mentioned the importance of free media. In a speech this past July in Ghana, the president praised the virtues of democracy and highlighted the important role that independent media play in the development of sustainable democratic governments. He told his audience: “In the 21st century, capable, reliable, and transparent institutions are the

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

key to success—strong parliaments, honest police forces, independent judges, a vibrant private sector, a civil society, and an independent press. Those are the things that give life to democracy, because that is what matters in people‘s everyday lives.” Also, the recent message from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Internet freedom and the importance of freedom of speech could be interpreted as showing support for developing an independent media. At USAID, a major U.S. government funder of media development, the agency’s new Administrator Rajiv Shah just took his post in January 2009 and immediately had to deal with the crisis in Haiti. We will know in a few months if he will take USAID in a new direction. From the State Department, we already are seeing more emphasis on digital programs and some on exchanges. Q: Where are the biggest gaps in support to media develop-

ment? Are there countries or regions being forgotten? Areas of media development that do not receive enough attention? A: I have felt for a long time that two areas of

media development need more attention. The first is the legal environment. You can train journalists all you like but without an enabling legal environment and without rule of law, the impact will remain limited. More support needs to go to media law reform, not just getting the right legislation, but also assistance in getting the laws implemented. There is an enormous need for advocacy, and training lawyers and judges, for example. And second, we need to pay more attention to media literacy. In the age of digital media the public must be not only critical media users, but also informed participants. They need to be able to tell good information from bad. They have to know how to use the new media and apply some of the standards of journalism in their own blogging, such as checking sources or understanding the context in which information is given. We need media literacy in schools, but we must have adult programs as well. Some programs are doing that. One I found quite interesting is a TV show that weekly takes newspaper articles and TV news segments, and brings together members of the public who critique and discuss the stories.

traditional media values. In many parts of the world there still is not much access to the Internet. Citizens may have cell phones but not access to broader services. Program support should couple old and new media. Old media is not dead; new media can augment traditional news. It can foster twoway communication and encourage citizen journalism, but we should not give up on traditional media. Citizen journalists, for example, need to know the importance of sourcing, fact checking, and putting information in context. Q: In the past few years, what has been your most successful activity? A: CIMA has only been around for a few years, so our biggest success is that we got the center off the ground and are providing important services to implementers and policy makers. For example, Empowering Independent Media, our comprehensive report on U.S. support to independent media was the first that brought together all the threads of support and the issues involved in them. We gave an overview of where the money was coming from and how it was being spent. CIMA is a neutral platform with the goal of bringing together academics, implementers and donors around supporting the role of independent media in building strong democracies, economies and societies. While it is a neverending job to bring our message to the attention of Congress and other policy makers, CIMA is increasingly called upon to give suggestions and advice in media development policy discussions. We want to do much more and welcome suggestions on research to do and issues to address. Q: We have just attended a meeting of media development researchers. What are the biggest shortcomings in this field? A: I think lack of coordination is a big problem. There may be some coordination on the ground in one country and then nothing in the country next door. Additionally, it difficult to coordinate media development research globally, and it’s important to do this. Q: In discussions with Congress and with other donors, how have the priorities for support changed? Do you think that media development support has shifted from building democratic societies to pursuing the Millennium Development Goals?

Q: Digital media, new media…how has all that changed priorities? A: I think that strengthening democracy is the focus. BuilA: I think more support will go to digital media initiatives. One concern I have is that there may be too much emphasis on new media to the detriment of traditional media and

ding strong societies with citizen participation and strong economies is what a lot of the U.S. support is about, and there is recognition that media have an important role to

D ON OR S ´ P E R S P ECT IVE S O N M E D IA D EVE LO P M E NT

play. At the same time, one should remember that a lot of decisions on actual projects are made at local level with the embassy or the USAID office, so that focus will vary from country to country. Q: What are the new trends in media development? What type

A: There is no question about it. You cannot have good governance and effective democracy without free media, as numerous studies have demonstrated. Q: What do you think the media development sector should do better to put its case across?

of programs do you think will get support in the future? A: We need to speak more with one voice and make a comA: I think digital media will become a focus in the future: training on how to do Internet research, how to pass more information by cell phones, and how to get around Internet censorship, just to name a few. There also may be more public – private partnerships. One example is International Senior Lawyers’ Project (ISLP) in which lawyers donated their time to work with the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX), a GFMD member that provides media development assistance various countries. The IREX project was funded by the State Department’s Middle East Partnership Initiative to work on legal reform in the Middle East. Q: Do you think that media development can make a difference in democracy building, good governance, fighting poverty, and similar goals?

mon case to donors and policy makers. If a variety of people are making the same case for the importance of media development to a variety of policy makers the impact of our arguments should increase. We have to join forces as much as we can, share information, get the word out, increase coordination and focus on places where we can really make a difference. We need to keep working at getting media on the international development agenda, not as an afterthought but as a key topic.

JOI N T H E G F M D

Join the GFMD Join our efforts to promote better recognition of the role free, independent and pluralistic media play in strengthening democracy, human and economic development. GFMD members are part of a community of practice to exchange information on media development trends, new programme ideas and new partnerships. Members receive the quarterly information briefing GFMD Insider; they can attend the GFMD Regional Forums for Media Development and the GFMD World Conference and they receive tips and advice on running media support NGOs and developing projects.

C ONTACT I N FOR MATION

G lobal Forum for M edia Development I P C, RĂŠsidence Palace, B loc C, 2/21 5 1 5 5 rue de la loi, 1 0 4 0 B russels, B elgium Te l:

+32 2 235 23 3 4

Fax:

+32 2 235 22 21

Mai l: as s i stant@m e d iag fm d.o r g

Join the GFMD by going to our web-site:

B ettina P eters, Director

www.gfmd.info

GS M: +32 478 235 263

and filling out the application form

Mai l: d i r e cto r@m e d iag fm d.o r g s kyp e: b etti nag fm d

G F M D S T E E R I NG C OM M IT TE E

GFMD Steering Committee

Joyce Barnathan International Center for Journalists, USA / Vice-Chair Manana Aslamazyan Internews Europe, France / Chairman Emeritus David Hoffman Internews Network, USA / Director Bettina Peters

Chair

Roby Alampay South-East Asia Press Alliance, Thailand / A.S. Panneerselvan Panos South Asia, India / Ying Chan Journalism and Media Studies Centre, Hong Kong and Shantou universities, China Asia

Africa Gabriel Baglo IFJ Africa Office, Senegal / Jeanette Minnie Zambezi FoX, South Africa / David Makali Kenya Media Institute, Kenya

Remzi Lani South East European Network for Professionalisation of Media, Albania / Katerina Myasnykova Independent Association of Broadcasters, Ukraine sharing with Ognian Zlatev Media Development Center, Bulgaria

Eurasia

Latin America and the Caribbean Jaime Abello Banfi Fundaci贸n Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano, Colombia / Veet Vivarta Agencia de Noticias dos Direitos de Infancia, Brazil / Wesley Gibbings Association of Carribean Media Workers, Trinidad and Tobago Middle East/North Africa Ali Djerri Al Khabar, Algeria / Haitham Shibli Radio Farahalnas, Hashemite Fund for Human Development, Jordan / Hassan Nadir Chada FM, Morocco

James Deane BBC World Service Trust, UK / Jesper Hojberg International Media Support, Denmark / Leon Willems Press Now, the Netherlands / Mark Wilson Panos London, UK

International Caucus

C ON S T I T U T I ON

Constitution Global Forum for Media Development

TITLE AND HEADQUARTERS

The name of the organisation is the Global Forum for Media Development. Its secretariat is based in Residence Palace, International Press Center, Block C, Rue de la Loi 155, 1040 Brussels, (Belgium). I. DEFINITION AND GOALS 1.1.

The Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) is a voluntary affiliation of media development organisations set up at world and at regional level to highlight the importance to human and economic development of free, ndependent, pluralistic and viable media. It aims to bring greater linkages and sustainable impact to the work of the media development sector.

II. FUNCTIONS 2.1.

To provide an international forum for the discussion of ideas, information and strategies in the field of media development and to facilitate communication between and among GFMD members, through the support of the GFMD international secretariat. 2.2. To create a platform for media development practitioners to interact with donors, governments, opinion leaders and the wider public making the case for media development as a primary pillar for advancing social, economic, and political development.Â 2.3 To promote and disseminate research and analysis on the impact of media development assistance on governance, civic participation, poverty alleviation, emergent crises, and markets worldwide. 2.4 To promote the establishment of common standards and ethics for media development work that encourage cross-sector cooperation. 2.5 To advance best practice methods in the media development sector through shared learning, training and evaluation. 2.6 To educate members, policymakers and the general public on the importance of free, independent, pluralistic and viable media to human and economic development 2.7 To support the activities of the Regional Forums for Media Development in promoting joint advocacy and cooperation between media development practitioners in the regions and to ensure the GFMDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s functions are performed in accordance with local needs. III. OPERATING PRINCIPLES 3.1.

GFMD does not substitute for, or replace, existing organisations nor does it detract from the autonomy or initiatives of its members, but exists to support them. 3.2. GFMD shall facilitate co-operation by: a) circulating proposals amongst members; b) bringing people together to coordinate actions; c) preparing and disseminating information in line with the functions of GFMD; d) providing organisational support if available; e) promoting the case for the importance of media development to human, social and economic development; and f) advocating increased support to media development in line with the functions outlined in Article 2.

C ON S T I T U T I ON

3.3. Annual dues must be paid by May 1st each year. GFMD members that have not paid their GFMD membership dues for

more than one year will no longer have access to GFMD services, the GFMD World Conference or GFMD regional forums for media development. IV. MEMBERSHIP 4.1

Membership: There are two categories of membership in GFMD, General and Associate. 4.2 General membership in GFMD will be open to independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisations whose work focuses significantly on media development. 4.2.2 Independence implies independence from government, from any political party and from any singular vested political, economic or religious interest. Independence includes independence in governing structure, in funding and in other ways. 4.2.3 Although membership is restricted to non-governmental organisations, GFMD accepts, according to circumstances, organisations as NGOs based on their independence, their non-profit status and their mandates rather than on official registration. 4.2.5 General membership is restricted to groups whose work includes a significant focus on media development. 4.2.5.1 Media development includes actions in support of A system of media regulation and control conducive to freedom of expression, pluralism and diversity; Building media capacity to inform people on issues that shape their lives; Plurality and diversity of media, transparent and equal market conditions and full transparency of ownership; Media as a platform for democratic discourse within a prevailing climate of respect for journalism that represents professional independence and diversity of views and interests in society. Professional capacity building and supporting institutions that underpin media freedom, independence, pluralism and diversity: media workers have access to professional training and development and the media sector as a whole is both monitored and supported by professional associations and civil society organisations. Infrastructural capacity that is sufficient to support independent and pluralistic media: the media sector is characterised by high or rising levels of public access and efficient use of technology to gather and distribute news and information. 4.3. Associate membership in GFMD will be open to individuals (academics, researchers, media consultants, experts) whose work focuses primarily on media development. Associate membership is also open to institutions and enterprises, whose main function is to make financial grants to media development organisations or who provide considerable assistance to media development. 4.3.1 Associate members can participate fully in all GFMD work, including attendance of the regional and global forum meetings. In order to enjoy these rights, Associate members have to pay the membership fee. 4.4 Membership Rights 4.4.1 All members have the right to attend the GFMD World Conference and any other general GFMD activities and join in discussions. 4.4.2 All members have the right to submit information for distribution to the GFMD platform. 4.4.3 General members have the right to be members of the GFMD Steering Committee, and to vote on matters brought before the general membership. Associate members do not enjoy these rights. 4.4.4 To enjoy the rights described above, a member must pay the membership fee. 4.5 Membership Application Process 4.5.1 All organisations that attend the GFMD 2008 World Conference and sign the GFMD founding document shall be deemed to have applied for membership of GFMD. The register of founding members will be confirmed by the Steering Committee at its first meeting. 4.5.2 Other organisations may apply for GFMD membership at any time by submitting a completed application form to the GFMD secretariat. The form shall include information about an organisationâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s aims and objectives, its finances, governing structure, non-profit status, media development work and category of membership being applied for. 4.5.3 An application for membership will be referred to the Steering Committee, which may seek further information from the applicant or GFMD members if needed. Membership will be decided by the Steering Committee and will be confirmed at the GFMD World Conference. There is no limit to the number of members per country. The Steering Committee shall reject an application outright where the organisation does not meet the membership criteria set out in Article 4.2. Steering Committee decisions can be appealed at the World Conference.

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

An applicant shall be accepted into membership upon the decision of the Steering Committee, when receiving a two-thirds affirmative vote. The member enjoys rights of membership upon payment of the membership fee. 4.6 Membership Expulsion and Resignation 4.6.1 A decision to suspend or expel a General or Associate member under this Article shall be made when one or both of the following conditions are met: a) The General or Associate member no longer meets the conditions of membership as set out in Article 4.2; or b) The General or Associate member has not paid membership fees for more than two years. 4.6.2 A decision to suspend a General or Associate member shall require a vote in favour of two-thirds of the voting members of the Steering Committee after consideration of whether or not the conditions for suspension, as set out in Article 4.6.1, have been met. A member who has been suspended shall no longer have rights associated with membership and shall have the right to appeal to the GFMD World Conference. 4.6.3 Any General or Associate member in good financial standing may resign from GFMD by giving notice in writing to the GFMD Steering Committee. 4.5.4

V. STEERING COMMITTEE: 5.1

The Steering Committee shall manage the affairs of the GFMD, dealing with all strategic, policy and administrative matters facing GFMD between world conferences. 5.2 The Steering Committee is comprised of two individuals nominated from each of the GFMD regions (Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eurasia, Middle East/North Africa) and four individuals representing groups with an international focus and working on media development in a wide range of countries. 5.3 The term of office of Steering Committee members is limited to two consecutive terms. 5.4 The Steering Committee members elected in the regional forum meetings and the four international members will be elected and confirmed at the founding assembly, the GFMD World Conference 2008 in Athens. 5.5 The Steering Committee remains in office until the next GFMD World Conference. 5.6 The election of Steering Committee members shall be by general members of GFMD. Steering Committee members from the five regions will be nominated by the regional forum meetings. The four members coming from groups with an international focus will be nominated at a caucus of these groups during the World Conference. The Steering Committee is confirmed by the World Conference. The World Conference appoints one reserve per region and one reserve for the groups with an international focus. The Steering Committee may appoint additional non-voting advisers to take part in meetings in order to provide specific expertise or to provide gender balance. 5.7 Members of the GFMD Steering Committee shall attend duly constituted Steering Committee meetings. 5.8 All members of the GFMD Steering Committee shall be entitled to one vote. 5.9 Proxy voting shall be permitted in the case of absence. 5.10 Members of the GFMD Steering Committee shall meet their own costs of participation in the work of the Steering Committee. The GFMD secretariat may assist Steering Committee members from low-income countries to obtain travel bursaries. 5.11 The GFMD Steering Committee shall elect with a vote of at least two-thirds majority one member from among its number to be the Chairperson until the next World Conference. 5.12 Unless otherwise decided by the Steering Committee, there shall be a general meeting of the GFMD Steering Committee once a year. Policy decisions can be taken at the meeting or in between meetings via conference call or email, after consultation with all members. In addition, there will be a conference call meeting of the Steering Committee held at least once per year. Any issues relating to GFMD and to the Steering Committee may be brought to the Steering Committee teleconference meetings by any member of GFMD. The GFMD secretariat will submit a summary report of GFMD activities to the teleconference Steering Committee meeting. 5.12.1 A quorum for decision-making shall be two-thirds of the Steering Committee, including proxy votes. Proxy votes shall be allowed in matters of membership, funding proposals and changes in governance. A failure by any Steering Committee member to attend a general meeting, or to send a proxy vote, shall be interpreted as an abstention. 5.12.2. Wherever possible, the GFMD Steering Committee will take decisions by consensus. Where votes are required, they shall be on the basis of a two-thirds vote unless otherwise specified. 5.12.3 The Steering Committee will develop its own working rules at the first meeting.

C ON S T I T U T I ON

VI. WORLD CONFERENCE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; REGIONAL FORUMS 6.1 6.2

6.3 6.4 6.5

The GFMD World Conference will take place every three years. Regional forum meetings (Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eurasia, Middle East/North Africa) will take place once between World Conference meetings. The World Conference is the sovereign body of the GFMD and brings together all general and associate members. The programme of the world conference will be prepared by the Steering Committee in consultation with the GFMD membership. The World Conference receives a report from the steering committee, confirms decisions taken by the Steering Committee, deals with appeals on decision of the Steering Committee, deals with matters related to the amendment of the constitution, decides on policy and confirms the election of the steering committee. The Regional forum meetings shall be organised by the two Steering Committee members from the respective region in consultation with GFMD members from that region. Any amendment to the constitution of the GFMD shall require a voting majority of at least two-thirds. Amendments shall be proposed and circulated not less than 45 days before the World Conference. Each GFMD General member organization shall have one vote at the World Conference.

VII. THE GFMD SECRETARIAT 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

7.5 7.6

7.7

The GFMD secretariat is established to carry out activities as agreed by the World Conference and the Steering Committee. The GFMD secretariat shall promote the GFMD and seek to expand the influence of the GFMD and its membership by entering into partnerships with other relevant organisations under the guidance of the Steering Committee. The GFMD secretariat is run under these Governance Articles. The GFMD secretariat implements the working programme of the GFMD in line with Article 2. The GFMD World Conference sets the priorities for work of the secretariat. Between World Conferences the Steering Committee oversees the work of the secretariat. The GFMD secretariat is responsible for organising and fundraising for the GFMD World Conference in cooperation with the Steering Committee. The Director is the chief executive officer of GFMD. The director is appointed by and reports to the Steering Committee. The Director is a non-voting member of the Steering Committee. Other GFMD staff in the secretariat or in the regions report to the Director. Additional staff at the secretariat or in the regions and other administrative support to the secretariat can be decided by the Steering Committee depending on the availability of funds. The secretariat shall prepare an annual finance and activity report to the Steering Committee and a tri-annual finance and activity report to the World Conference.

VIII. DISSOLUTION 8.

The dissolution of the GFMD may take place at a World Conference or a special world conference called for that purpose upon the tabling of a motion to that effect and its adoption by at least two thirds of the voting membership present. In the event that the World Conference decides upon dissolution all liabilities of the Forum shall be discharged and remaining assets shall be divided among member organisations equivalent to the proportion of their contributions to the Forum during the current year.

IX. MISCELLANEOUS 9.1 9.2

9.3

Matters not provided for in this Constitution shall be decided by the World Conference or, if they arise between World Conference meetings, by the Steering Committee. This Constitution, which is framed and interpreted according to the conditions and circumstances set out in the Belgian law of October 25th 1919, shall at all times be interpreted and applied in a manner which avoids undue technicality and which best maintains and promotes the character and objects of the GFMD. Modifications to the Constitution shall be submitted for Royal Assent and published in annexes to the Moniteur Belge in accordance with Belgian law.

G F M D C OD E OF P R ACT ICE

GFMD Code of Practice Code of Practice for Media Development Organisations

PREFACE

The Global Forum for Media Development is a non-governmental and not-for-profit membership network with its headquarters registered in Brussels, Belgium. The Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) is a voluntary affiliation of media development organisations set up at global and regional level to highlight the importance to human and economic development of free, independent, pluralistic and sustainable media. It aims to improve networking and learning and increase the impact of the media development sector. The GFMD‘s core value is to support the creation and strengthening of free, independent, sustainable and pluralistic media, as defined by the declarations of UNESCO at conferences in Windhoek, Almaty, Santiago de Chile, Sana’a and Sofia. In line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we believe free, independent, sustainable and inclusive media are prerequisites for creating and strengthening democratic society and human development. This code of conduct, developed by and for its members, is designed to provide a robust ethical framework to which GFMD members commit themselves. GFMD has the following aims: To provide an international forum for the discussion of ideas, information and strategies in the field of media development and to facilitate communication between and among GFMD members, through the support of the GFMD international secretariat. To create a platform for media development practitioners to interact with donors, governments, opinion leaders and the wider public making the case for media development as a primary pillar for advancing social, economic and political development. To promote and disseminate research and analysis on the impact of media development assistance on governance, civic participation, poverty alleviation, emergent crises and markets worldwide. To promote the establishment of common standards and ethics for media development work that encourages cross-sector cooperation. To advance best practice methods in the media development sector through shared learning, training and evaluation. To educate members, policymakers and the general public on the importance of free, independent, pluralistic and sustainable media to human and economic development To support the activities of the Regional Forums for Media Development in promoting joint advocacy and cooperation between media development practitioners in the regions and to ensure the GFMD’s functions are performed in accordance with local needs. This is achieved through: Circulating proposals amongst members; Bringing people together to coordinate actions;

G F M D C OD E OF P R ACT ICE

Preparing and disseminating information in line with the functions of the GFMD; Providing organisational support to members if available; Promoting the importance of media development to advance human, social and economic development; and Advocating for increased support to media development. PURPOSE

This Code of Practice serves as a statement that GFMD members are committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity, governance, financial transparency and accountability while furthering the GFMD’s mission. Adopting and adhering to this Code of Practice serves as an ethical charter for the activities and operations of GFMD members, as well as an internal guideline for the application of GFMD values and mission. The GFMD member’s Code of Practice takes inspiration from the Code of Ethics as adopted by the World Association of Non-Governmental Organisations. I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

GFMD members shall not, in the course of their work, violate any person’s fundamental human rights, with which each person is endowed. GFMD members fundamentally respect religious, ethnic, gender, political and cultural diversity, but also work to transcend and enable dialogue across divisions sometimes resulting from such diversity. GFMD members shall serve the greater good of freedom of expression and respect of human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. GFMD members shall seek to develop good relationships and fair partnerships with sister organisations operating in the media sector. II. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

GFMD members shall be accountable towards the general public; those beneficiaries whom they serve; those partners they work with; and those who support them. Information provided about GFMD members to those stakeholders shall be accurate, timely and balanced. GFMD members shall seek to be transparent in all their dealings with the public, donors, partners and beneficiaries. GFMD members shall protect and consider any information confidential in case it may endanger (the work of) any of its staff, partners or beneficiaries. III. ANTI-CORRUPTION, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND LEGALITY

GFMD members shall not engage in, and avoid being a willing partner of, any form of corruption, bribery, or other financial improprieties or illegalities. GFMD members shall never misuse funds and their staff and partners will behave honestly and never accept or pay bribes. GFMD members shall take prompt corrective action whenever wrongdoing is discovered among its staff, contractors, and partners. GFMD members shall be honest and truthful in its dealings with its donors, project beneficiaries, staff, partner organisations and the public in general. GFMD members shall avoid any potential or actual conflict of interest, including institutional affiliations, which might possibly involve a conflict of interest. IV. NON-PROFIT, NON-GOVERNMENTAL AND INDEPENDENT

GFMD General members are not-for-profit organisations. Any surplus that is generated through the operations of GFMD members is to be utilized solely to help the organisation fulfil its mission and objectives. GFMD General members are non-governmental organisations. GFMD members are not to be part of, or controlled by, government or an intergovernmental agency. GFMD General members shall maintain their independence. Their vision, policies and activities shall not be determined by others (e.g. for-profit corporations, donors, governments, government officials, political parties) but shall be decided upon solely by the governance structure as laid down in their statutes.

GFMD members shall not be rigidly aligned to or affiliated with any political party and shall not seek to implement the policy of any government. V. GOVERNANCE AND STAFF

GFMD members shall have an effective governance structure, which reflects the core values, mission and cultural standards of their organisations. GFMD members shall have an independent board that can ultimately be held responsible for all activities and (human and financial) resources of the organisation.Â The functioning of the board (structure, term, duration, nomination process, grounds for cancellation, responsibilities, frequency and mode of conduct) shall be laid down in the statutes and relevant by-laws of each organisation. GFMD members shall seek to employ capable and responsible staff. GFMD members shall expect from their staff to maintain the highest standards of professional and personal conduct. VI. FINANCES AND USE OF FUNDS

GFMD members shall work according to good practice to ensure that financial and legal procedures and safeguards are followed and that fiscal integrity is maintained. GFMD members shall have their financial records audited regularly by a qualified and recognised auditing firm to certify that the organisation is operating in full compliance with the law and in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices. Exceptions will only be permissible in rare circumstances accompanied by full and acceptable information and explanations. GMFD members shall only seek and accept funding which is consistent with their mission.

PART N E R S

Donors

Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs

Main Partners, Sponsors, Supporters of GFMD World Conference, Athens 2008

Published in Belgium by the Global Forum for Media Development Editor: Bettina Peters Production Co-ordinator: Sylvia Henze Design: www.formatdesign.net GFMD, International Press Centre Résidence Palace, Block C, 2/215 155 rue de la loi B-1040 Brussels No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the Editor. The contents of this publication are covered by authors‘ rights and the right to use of contributions rests with the Editor and the authors themselves. Printed by Druk. Hoeilaart, Belgium

P H OTO CR E DI TS

The GFMD: © GFMD The GFMD in the regions: © International Labour Organisation / Deloche P., © Thomas Sennett / World Bank, © Internews Network, © UN photo / Albert Gonzalez Farran, © Ray Witlin / World Bank, © Tran Thi Hoa / World Bank, © Eric Miller / World Bank, © Anrar Ilyasou / World Bank, © GFMD Making the Case for Media Development: © Eric Miller / World Bank, © Bill Lyons / World Bank, © Scott Wallace / World Bank, © Curt Carnemark / World Bank, © Alejandro Lipszyc / World Bank, © Trevor Samson / World Bank Mark Nelson: © Shezad Noorani / World Bank, © Eric Miller / World Bank, © International Labour Organisation / ILO/MFA Wiliam Orme: © Ami Vitale / World Bank, © Alan Gignoux / World Bank, © International Labour Organisation / Kutty V., © Eric Miller / World Bank World bank: © International Labour Organisation / ILO/MFA Aidan White: © Gennadiy Ratushenko / World Bank, © Internews Network, © Ray Witlin / World Bank, © UN photo / Rick Bajornas, © World Bank, © UN photo / Fardin Waez Sevan Doraisamy: © UN photo / Christopher Hewig A.S. Panerselvan: © Curt Carnemark / World Bank, © UN photo / Fardin Waez, © World Bank, © UN photo / Martine Perret, © UN photo / Eskinder Debeke Donors´ Perspectives on Media Development: © GFMD Steering Comitee: © GFMD