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

2. 1. Introduction 1.Problematizing UNESCO view 2.Alternative concepts 3.Old media assumptions 4.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: 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!

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