Problematizing UNESCO’s indicators Guy Berger Rhodes University South Africa

1. Introduction 1.Problematizing UNESCO view 2.Alternative concepts 3.Old media assumptions 4.Conclusion and challenges

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?

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”.

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

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”.

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.

2.4 Also, hold the normative! 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”!

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

3. Alternative concepts  Rather: find a common currency for minimum aspects,eg. journos per  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.

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.

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?)

“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…

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?

Thank you