Problematizing UNESCO’s indicators

1. Problematizing UNESCO’s indicators Guy Berger Rhodes University South Africa

2. 1. Introduction • Problematizing UNESCO view • Alternative concepts • Old media assumptions • Conclusion and challenges

3. 1. Introduction Is MD the same as: • “Communication development”? No, too broad • “Media for development”? No, it’s developing the media as an end in-itself. • “ICT4D”? No, it’s the mass media institutions… • So what is it?

4. 2. Concepts • MD = Not so much organic development of mediascape, or indirect subsidy (eg. US post & dereg), but rather interventions. • MD is therefore seen as an activity/process. • BUT: MD is also seen as an outcome of a process - a destination, to be described as “developed media”.

5. 2.1 UNESCO jumbles them… • UNESCO has 5 categories of MD: • Convivial legal environment • Plural ownership • Democratic performance • Capacity (skill & organisations) • Public access • Items 2, 3, 5 seem to be more ends than means; Items 1,4 are more means!

6. 2.2 Source of the confusion • It’s confusing if we don’t know whether MD refers to means or ends… • Reason for UNESCO jumble: no over-arching definition is given. • Instead, there is a circular logic: • 5 categories = “MD” …and • “MD” = 5 categories. • Akin to equating “vote + rule of law + free press” to “democracy”.

7. 2.3 Pinpointing the solution • Without a definition of what the ingredients add up to, what are we measuring? If MD is an “end” – what? • Eg. of the problem – does cellphone penetration count as a MD end? Do we just bolt it on as “media”? • We need more abstract definition of MD • And we need to rise above the normative side of UNESCO’s approach.

8. 2.4 Also, hold the normative! Ideology @ work in UNESCO scheme: • Implies that a country fall short of MD if it lacks PBS or Community media (UNESCO indicators). Logic of this normative position = • “M Growth sans normative is not MD”! • And: “MD does not need media growth”!

9. 2.5 Avoiding relativism When treating MD as undefined end, it can mean whatever you want - even in regard to a democratic role: • French: state involvement NB; • British: public broadcasting; • Canadians: mixed model; • US: privately-owned press. - Francis Kasoma

10. 3. Alternative concepts • Rather: find a common currency for minimum aspects,eg. journos per 1000. • Instead of “MD” as normative outcome, rather speak of “media density” outcome, distinct from “media assistance” towards that ideal state. • Infrastructure/occupational density can subsequently be assessed as to private media, public media, etc. character.

11. 4. Old media assumptions • The actual form of assistance, the kind of density and the normative aspects are determined by political, social, health, economic, etc. stances… • The mediascape “end” here is a means to another end – an impact on society. • But the effects of a given “MD” bundle are presumed! Not much evaluation.

12. Old media thinking up-ended The assumed hypodermic model was never accurate – even less so with regard to new media… • Old view also assumed media silos … Now: Convergence vis-a-vis old media. • Media were “professional institutions”. Now: Mediatisation of groups & individuals. (Citizen journos per 1000?)

13. “Media” assistance? “Density”? • Old: Media had a business model. Now: No one really knows… • Old: Media space was seen as a national space. Now: Transnational, global, international • Old: Mass Media were radio, TV, press Coming up for MAssistance & Mdensity: cellphones as mass com vehicles…

14. 5. Conclusion • Avoid conceptual circularity, normativity. • Try: Media Assistance and Media Density. • Problematise old media baggage. • Examine new potentials… Could the focus better be on Journalism devt, more than Media devt? • And… does “journalism” itself get problematised? Quo vadis MD?

15. Thank you G.Berger@ru.ac.za