1. Problematizing media development Guy Berger Rhodes University South Africa

2. Covering: 1.Context 2.Concepts 3.What & who 4.Foreign policy 5.Development-democracy assumptions 6.Old media & nation-state assumptions

3. 1. Context  Unesco 2007 “indicators”  GFMD  Center for National Media Assistance  MDLF  African Media Initiative

4. 2. Concepts  Not “media and/for development” (though linked)  Not “ICT4D”  Not so much organic development, or indirect subsidy (eg. US post & dereg) but interventions.  An activity/process AND a destination  “Media assistance” less loaded

5. 2.1 Skirting the issues  UNESCO 5 categories:  Conducive legal environment  Plural ownership  Democratic performance  Capacity (skill & organisations)  Public access  Circular: 5= “MD” and “MD” = 5

6. 2.2 Pinpointing the problem  Need an over-arching logic  Akin to equating vote + rule of law + free press to “democracy”  Eg. of the problem - would cellphone penetration count as MD?  We need more abstract definition of MD  And to rise above the normative of eg.UNESCO approach.

7. 2.3 Pinpointing the problem  Else, do we say a country falls short of MD because it lacks PBS or Community media?  UNESCO: can have MGrowth sans MD  Need a common currency for minimum elements – eg. journalists per 1000.  Normative then comes later  “Media density” is a better concept

8. 2.3 Avoiding relativism Otherwise, MD means 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

9. 3. Interventions: what and who?  Normatively driven  Focus is on Journalism devt, more than Media devt.  Various inputs (money, info, training,kit)  Range of players: govt bodies, foundations, religious groups, universities, consultancies, NGOs, INGOs, local bodies.

10. 4. Foreign policy  Export of media norms, plus..  Assumed means to political end  “Foreign policy of media space”  Cold War and “war on terror”  Marginalising of media role in development ends.  Rising awareness of media and conflict  Fads, fashions, fluctuations…

11. 5. Democracy & devt assumptions  Media effects are presumed, not much evaluation.  Democratic media correllated with reduced corruption, although not necessarily.  Democracy – for elites, or participatory makes a difference re: type of media.  Devt: famine correllation; but HIV?

12. 6. Old media thinking  Media as hypodermic effects.  Media as professional institutions.  Media with a classic business model. But… New Media up-ends this:  Telecoms critical … or are they?  Convergence vis-a-vis old media.  Mediatisation of groups & individuals.  Transnational characteristics...

13. 7. Conclusion  Media Development a growing issue.  Conceptual circularity, normativity.  Media Assistance and Media Density.  Who does what.  “MD industry” and foreign policy  Media effects problematisation.  New media problematisation.  Does “journalism” itself get problematised?

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

15. 1. Context