Governance and the Media: the engagement gap
The BBC World Service Trust is publishing today a new research report, Governance and the Media: a survey of policy opinion.
We commissioned this because we wanted to genuinely discover what the view of this issue was in the development policy community. Interviews were carried out with some media and communication specialists, but the main focus was to get perspectives from more mainstream development academics, policymakers, and policy influencers.
People interviewed included John Githongo, the former permanent secretary for ethics and governance in Kenya, Thomas Carothers, leading democracy theorist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Paul Collier, author of the Bottom Billion and Democracy in Dangerous Places, and many senior people from bilateral and multilateral development organisations.
We commissioned an independent consultant, Kathy Lines, to do this research, partly because she is very smart but also because she does not come from either a media or a development background. We chose the interviewees, but made sure that some of these - such as Professor Mushtaq Khan from the School of Oriental and African Studies in London - had views that might be expected to be quite sceptical of the role of media in governance.
In other words, we wanted views that we might disagree with, and we wanted a real insight into where policy perspectives were on this issue. The aim was not to make an argument, it was to understand where the policy argument was.
As it happened, the research did back up our existing assumption.
The main conclusion of the report, based on more than 20 in depth interviews with policymakers and academics, is that there is what the researcher, Kathy Lines, calls an "engagement gap".
She concludes that "the importance of supporting free and pluralistic media in relation to governance - and development outcomes - is thought to be increasingly recognised by a wide range of policy makers, academics and practitioners."
Despite this, "there is an ‘engagement gap' between the value assigned to its role ... and the practical provision made for it in development planning, thinking and spending."
To some extent inspired by this study, the BBC World Service Trust is currently researching a policy briefing on Media and Democracy in Fragile States. If you have any thoughts, comments, or suggestions in relation to this, they would be extremely welcome.
I think this report says some important things and brings some fresh insights on the relationship between media and governance. If you agree, or even if you don’t, please circulate to anyone you think will be interested.
Comments
What is the end game in media development?
James,
I have read the report and find it interesting. But for me, there seem to be various objectives to support for media development. Some organizations want more development content in the media, others see the importance of freedom of expression, while there are those who look at the transparency and accountability angle.
What we are looking for determines whether we think our support us successful or not. A recent study on media and accountability in Uganda supported by one of the bilaterals concluded that because corruption is still a big problem in Uganda, the media has failed. As a person who has been involved in media development in Africa for many years, I found that report very shallow. The media in Uganda has been hugely transformed in Uganda with the help of development agencies. I know not of any other African country where you have a flurry of FM stations that give opportunities to leaders and citizens to engage in vigorous debates. Indeed the President himself and a number of his team regularly participate in the talk shows. Local leaders are kept on the edges of their seats because of what are called "Bimeeza" or roundtables where ordinary folks engage leaders directly. In other words, an opportunity for public debate and dialogue has been enlarged by the media. Has corruption been erased, no way. There is still too much corruption in Uganda, just as it is in the UK and USA especially in the corporate world. Is the media in Uganda where we would want, no way. There are some impediments still, but there is tremendous progress. One recalls the work of the media on HIV and AIDS, the training and mentoring of such outstanding regional journalists like Onyango-Obbo and Andrew Mwenda.
So, as we look at research agendas and support for media development, I think the questions we should focus on our agendas and the questions we ask. Can we agree on key objective outcomes for media support, for us in media development?
Media in development?
The media in development is a crucial issue that is hardly put into consideration in development planning. Sometimes the media is grouped with Behaviour Change Commnication or material development. Developing the media in itself is a task tha needs to be looked at critically as a sector either to be helped from within or by exterbal factors. For example how does the media see itself as a profession, business, watchdog or any other tool as it relates to development? This would determine the pattern and nature of engagement between the media and other sectors and groups. A lot still need to be done to navigate this web of issues for media development and targeted funding to improve the sector.
Akin Jimoh
ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room
. . .
Carefully worded, the BBC report ignores the 800lb gorilla in the room - corporate ownership of political processes in developing and developed countries.
Media have not been a priority in the developing world because independent journalism annoys too many people.
Sure the report delivers an understanding of the gaps between media, governance and development, but only from a developed world perspective. Perhaps this is as far as the BBC dares to go at the moment, having so recently been rededicated towards "entertainment" after the Hutton report.
Given high levels of collusion between public and private spheres - witness the BAE arms bribery inquiry blocked at the highest levels - Iraq - this is hardly surprising.
In failing to address media challenges from a whole-of-world approach, the report is looking for the right answers including with the "usual suspects" but is failing to ask all the right questions.
We cannot begin to address media space in developing countries without, at the same time, debating the developed world sacking journalists in the tens of thousands.
At what stage do we say as a globe that journalism resources are getting dangerously low? At what stage do we factor in further and continued economic losses through lack of resources to expose corruption and maladministration?
There are strong suggestions that this stage has been pased already, with estimates of US$60 trillion in losses over the last 12 months since onset of the global economic crisis. At what stage do we begin to insist on media as central to development, outside of this website?
Without those big pictures, the report is an at best half-sided and wonky effort at gaining some purchase on the hardscrabble of global implosion.
this is so good.
this is so good.
Suport for media
I would agree with the conclusions of this report. I worked for eight years as a foreign reporter in Vietnam and for the last two have been trying to rally the donor community to support media reform here. Vietnam is a one-party state and media freedoms are extremely limited. However, growing corruption that the Communist Party recognises as a threat to its long-term stability has been growing and the government has begun to ask the media to 'help' it uncover corruption - a job very few journalists here are able to do well after decades of state control. The donors see this linkage between media development and anti-corruption as a way in to dialogue with the government about media reform and, on the face of it, appear very keen to become more heavily involved. Yet only the Swedes, who have supported media development here for over a decade, are truly active. So far, no-one else seems willing or able to commit the time and money needed to help Vietnam's journalists develop the skills they need to uncover corruption (move beyond often-sensational reporting based on dubious sources) or build a regulatory and bureaucratic framework able to support them. DfID, to its credit, seems to be moving this way, but others are finding it hard to make that leap from theory to action. Some have advocates on the ground but can't rally financial support from their home base, others have the funds but have dedicated no-one on the ground to pick up the cause and run with it.
I'd welcome any thoughts from people with similar experience or with thoughts/advice. Please feel free to contact me via catherine.mckinley@gmail.com.
- Log in to post comments