|
‘REDEFINING PUBLIC INTEREST COMMUNICATION’ TABLE OF CONTENTS
Edmund Marsden Director of the British Council welcomed the participants. William Crawley, Co-Director of the Media Project at IDS Sussex, expressed thanks to Mr Marsden for the hospitality of the British Council in New Delhi and to Akhila Sivadas, Director of CFAR, for her and her colleagues’ work in arranging the conference. He gave a particular welcome to participants coming from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. Kanak Dixit had come for the first day of this workshop, sandwiching his flying visit in between a conference in Texas and a political cliff-hanger in Kathmandu. Dr. Crawley regretted the absence of colleagues from Sri Lanka. Two close associates of the MSA project were keen to come but were committed to being in Costa Rica - an indication of the global networks of which media practitioners from all over the region are a highly active element. He welcomed participants from
Calcutta, Mumbai and Bangalore as well as Delhi itself, at a time when India was
in the middle of the complex and extended election process which determines not
just the government of India, but to a great extent the climate within which
civil society operates and the opportunities which we are discussing over the
next two days.
Dr Crawley said that the Media
South Asia Project had been involved in a number of conferences and workshops in
the past three years in different venues. David Page would be saying something
in a later session, about the outcomes and lessons of these ventures. Some of
them were very positive. A record of these meetings would be posted very soon on http://www.mediasouthasia.org/ or it could be accessed through http://www.thehoot.org/, the website managed
by Sevanti Ninan, media critic and correspondent of the Hindu newspaper, whose
own work was the first to look in an authoritative and accessible way at the
implications of the satellite TV revolution in
The aim of the current workshop
was to focus on the possibility of promoting an alliance between organisations
working in similar areas of media-related activity in different parts of the
region. Even where the core interests and activities of these organisations are
quite dissimilar, it was hoped to focus on the potential value of a dialogue and
sharing of expertise and experience from across
Specific areas for possible
discussion on the second day of the workshop were the Regulatory Environment, in
which there had been big developments in the past three years, not all in the
same direction. Dr Crawley noted the significance of the regulatory environment
in every country, not least in
Dr Crawley said he was privileged
to welcome the first keynote speaker, Dr Kiran Karnik. The key roles that Dr
Karnik had played in the development of the electronic media in
Dr. Kiran Karnik – President of
NASSCOM
‘ The public interest in a
liberalised media world - towards a new definition’
Kiran Karnik said that newer
technologies were very much part of the media scene and we should embrace them
rather than regard them with hostility. The market was a tool that could be used
to advantage. It was wrong for NGOs and others to regard it simply as a tool of
the oppressor.
Surveying the media scene, Dr
Karnik described the growth of thematic programming as a means of integrating
small audiences across a wide area. Many channels were very similar but there
were also specialist channels and niche channels catering for a geographically
widespread area. These trends had tended towards the homogenisation of
audiences. Despite the growing number of regional language channels,
geographical localism or the concept of ‘localisation by language’ in TV
channels had almost disappeared.
In contrast, FM radio channels
were well suited to serving a local purpose. But the networking of FM channels
was the antithesis of this local purpose and spelt the end of localisation. Dr
Karnik said he was in a small minority in opposing FM networking, which he
argued led to a lack of diversity either in content or organisation. The
concentration of ownership did not necessarily mean lack of diversity of
content. The argument continued as to whether diversity of content or of
ownership should be the priority. Organisationally the trend was towards consolidation, and this trend was
being pushed by technology. Costs had dropped both in TV and – hugely - in
Radio. The present Indian policy on cross-media ownership was not clear and this
made
Dr Karnik said ‘there has to be a
very strong public service broadcaster’ but he said the fate of Doordarshan was
comparable to a dowry death. It was ostensibly suicide but actually homicide.
Prasar Bharati was dominated by administrative considerations. It was ‘a
subordinate arm of the Information and Broadcasting ministry’ and its
professionalism was ‘completely diluted’. The ‘must carry’ policy was designed
to promote diversity. But Doordarshan was not even providing an alternative
viewpoint.
Dr Karnik expressed concern at the
growth of bias in the Indian media. He cited a
The Internet was heading in a
similar direction to broadcasting – search engines, gateways and filters were
reducing diversity. When it started everyone was to be a source but now the
Internet is becoming an aggregator. There were few gatekeepers and that had
attendant dangers. In
In conclusion, Dr Karnik said
there needed to be caution over calls for censorship. He personally would rather
err on the side of licence than clamp down on freedom of expression. What could
be done to promote localisation? Radio and especially public service radio, had great possibilities,
particularly now that costs had come down. But the agenda-setting role of the
media was causing increasing concern. Dr Karnik noted the segmentation of
audiences in
In discussion, Ashish Sen asked about the future of
community radio. Dr Karnik advised that since it had been established that the
airwaves were public property, advocates of community radio should go to the
courts to uphold that right. He anticipated two new developments – some
concession on community radio and on news on FM. Asked what sort of
agenda-setting mechanism he recommended, he said that Television and Radio
journalists should be more aggressive in pushing the boundaries of what was
allowed on air. Self-censorship was not the answer. In response to a question
from Gargi Sen, Dr Karnik said Indian participation in the World Summit on
Information Society was focussed on the role of the summit in setting the agenda
at a global level. Information, like water, was no longer a public good but was
becoming an increasingly commercial entity. It was heading for privatisation and
it was important for
Kanak Dixit argued that existing
government channels should be converted into public service broadcasters; he
suggested that the abolition of government news would be a way to assist the
evolution of public service broadcasting. Dr Karnik thought that was not the way
to go; news was central to public service broadcasting.
Mukesh Sharma, Station Director,
Doordarshan Mumbai, said that it was wrong to talk
only of DD’s national services. Dr Karnik acknowledged that some regional
channels were doing well and that the best work done by Doordarshan and All
India Radio was that furthest from
K. Krishnan, CEO of AajTak
‘The view from the corporate media
sector’
K.Krishnan noted that a condition
of a radio licence was that the station should not broadcast news. By contrast,
Aaj Tak was the first news channel in Hindi to broadcast out of
Ambika Srivastava, Media planner
and consultant
Ambika Srivastava looked at the
future of public interest communication and of MSA from the perspective of
someone who had worked for twenty years in advertising and had a sustained
engagement with health issues. How
best to carry the public interest forward? There were a number of options, including censorship, use of law,
collaboration with the public sector. There had been a number of initiatives by
different organisations but they had not been sustained. There was a need to set
five key priorities, to develop a campaign to move them forward and to back
those priorities with a strong research base. She did not believe in an
advertising ban for cigarettes, for example, but research had shown that the ban
had worked. As to the corporate sector, corporations wanted to be associated
with ‘safe’ issues such as education instead of tougher and sometimes more
controversial areas of health advice. But views had started to change. She
argued that partnerships do work, whether with government, or civil society or
with either public or private broadcasters. She pointed to the success over 12
years of
Vinod Pavarala asked Mr Krishnan
whether the growth of news had done anything to empower the poor or provide
greater diversity of coverage. It seemed to him that news had become a form of
entertainment in what he called ‘the ghoulish pursuit of eyeballs’. He also
pointed to the very low levels of coverage of environmental issues as another
sign of the same trend.
Sevanti Ninan enquired about the
amount of advertising on news channels. Was there a limit? Mr Krishnan said that
AajTak operated on a limit of 16-18 minutes per hour and 15 minutes in prime
time. He warned against ‘disincentivising the advertisers’ and pointed out that
there is no legal system in place to limit advertising at the moment
B.P.Sanjay, Director of the Indian
Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC)
Dr.Sanjay focussed on issues of a)
public interest communication and b) agendas for social change. He said it was
important to decide whether the aim was change in the media landscape or change
in the social arena with a media emphasis. Looking at different media sectors,
he questioned whether public interest communication should be regarded as
synonymous with the state, and advocated the concept of strategic partnerships
of the media and civil society, as a means of effecting change. He stressed the
role of training institutions. He said that students aged 19-25 made their
choice of media and career options in the context of current media
practice. The corporate sector
objected that there was too much theory, reflecting an objective of radical
change in society. The corporate sector tended to say: ‘…Give us people with
skills and leave the career path to us’. The question for the IIMC was how it
balanced the social aspirations of the students and the wider needs of society.
Dr Sanjay identified a number of
action points:
1) Media institutions
should network among themselves to develop greater sensitivity to the needs of
society.
2) The state’s
perception of its role as regulator should be tested. Conditional Access left
the broadcaster at the mercy of the cable operator. There was a need to follow
up and develop new technologies.
3) Space should be
provided for public interest communication generated by and for the community.
Dr Sanjay said that recent conferences had focussed on creating an enabling
framework for Community Radio.
4) Civil society should
examine: a) who can legitimately and effectively intervene on matters of media
content in view of people’s rights in different capacities (eg as consumers); b)
how such interventions can be effected ; and c) who monitors the effect of the
interventions. These issues presented problems both of ideology and
mechanism. Eventually the
newspapers may pay the readers. There might also be a case for asking the
corporate sector to sponsor content. But ultimately only a concerned civil
society would be able to protect the rights of the viewer, reader and listener.
There was a need for collaboration between educational institutions on issues of
mass communication.
David Page - Co Director Media
‘Making it tangible ’ – A new phase for
MSA?
David Page outlined the background
to the workshop and some ideas on the potential value of bringing together an
alliance of South Asian organisations with a commitment to public interest
communication.
The idea for the workshop had
arisen from the many different contacts which the Media South Asia project had
developed over the last six years with individuals and organisations involved in
the wider debate about the public interest in broadcasting. In the course of this work, it became
clear that one way forward for the project might be to help to replicate the
skills of particular centres of excellence across the wider region.
It also became apparent that MSA’s
partners share common experiences, interests and preoccupations: experience of
an increasingly commercial and competitive media environment, concern about the
absence of an enabling regulatory environment, as well as an interest in
learning from what was going on elsewhere in
David Page then outlined some of
the possible outcomes from the workshop, which had emerged in discussions so
far.
In examining these common areas of
interest, MSA would argue that a South Asian perspective and approach is both
necessary and brings many advantages because it plays to established and growing
technological and economic trends.
Not only are satellites no
respecters of borders, there are distinct trends towards greater South Asian
trade and economic interdependence – despite historic differences and
hostilities between
In time, markets may correspond
more exactly to the footprints of satellites and the need for South Asian civil
society responses to satellite broadcasters and what they offer the public will
become that much more necessary.
Such an approach may not fit
particularly well into the current perspectives of donors or indeed into the
more strictly national perspectives of South Asian governments. So there is a case to be argued
here. But it seems clear that a
South Asian alliance could bring national as well as wider regional benefits.
Kanak Dixit – Himal Association,
‘The public sphere - issues for a
regional public discourse’
Kanak Dixit declared a
double interest of his own: 1) in journalism 2) in Nepali vernacular journalism.
In defining the public sphere he posed the question: what do people get from the
print or electronic media? There was a danger of forgetting the vernacular
languages and media. Radio FM news had been a success in
Looking at the
Pan-South Asian media sphere, he said that the ‘ 7 capitals’ approach to a
definition of
But the Indian national
media neglected most of the Indian regions, not just
The plan should be ‘to
localise to the power of three’. There needed to be many more magazines and
radio stations playing to local interests and taking account of cross border
localisms. Radio was a cheap medium for achieving this but there were fears in
In the print media, the
so-called ‘language newspapers’ also had a major role. There needed to be a
change in advertising practice in the vernacular newspapers. Vernacular media
should move into the analytical sphere. TV wanted to provide a ‘one size fits
all’ formula for local programming. There was a mismatch between what is given
and the ability to imbibe it. With documentaries, for example, the public is
ready to imbibe something better than is available. Well-crafted documentaries
can fill commercial cinemas. Nepali experience showed that local content
attracts audiences. The challenge was to upgrade local productions to attract
mass public interest. In
Kanak Dixit cited the example of
Radio Sagarmatha, which adopts a flexible format, allowing for a mix of news,
debate and music appropriate to a public radio service. Despite the Maoist insurgency the
government had not clamped down on local radio; there were 45 radio stations in
V Paravala said that the public
sphere often meant a pro-urban, pro-literacy, upper class, upper caste,
masculinist perspective. There was a need for a sphere where communities are
active producers of media content, not just producers, and where communication
resources are seen as a common property resource. Internet linkages and
participatory video projects suggested a possible alternative public sphere. In
response, Kanak Dixit drew a distinction between alternative media and what he
called ‘alternative alternative’ media. Sagarmatha came into the first category,
which was defined by its non-profit character.
Gargi Sen drew attention to the
different perspective of non-literates on radio as a medium. Professionalism was required in
development communication and the term needed to be re-defined. ‘We have used
donors and occasionally they use us’ she said. ‘We need to move outside the
current framework of development communication if we are going to make a
difference’.
Kanak Dixit said that the village
public understood more than film-makers realised. There was an energetic revival
of Nepali music especially on radio, and it was not being swamped by Hindi film
music. He noted that an illegal cross border station on the Nepal-India border,
was broadcasting Maithili music into
Kanak Dixit recalled
that community radio in
B.P.Sanjay asked whether weak or
strong governments were more inclined to encourage democratic media. For many people donor funding was a
problem. Kanak Dixit said that radio stations had taken advantage of ‘anarchy’
where they found it, but were adept at playing the bureaucracy at the same time.
Activists should aim to provide a mix of what people need and what they want.
Donor funding had sometime meant concentration on issues such as AIDs but not
tuberculosis. Broadcasting should be a state subject in
Nupur Basu endorsed K.Krishnan’s
argument that TV had helped to prevent rioting by providing information. Public
interest journalism could be a boring idea, she said; good journalism vs bad
journalism was preferable. But donor funding could be useful to professionalise
journalists.
Eamoinn Taylor said that a donor
funded radio station might be cheaper than a donor funded newsletter. But
sustainability was an issue.
Sanjay Hazarika said that the content
of journalism, and media ignorance, depended crucially on people. Journalists –
with their poor levels of pay and personal insurance - were part of society;
they shared its ignorance and prejudices. There were good and bad journalists.
As Kanak Dixit said, it should be a priority to professionalise the journalists.
Their competence and self-confidence were important in creating the public
sphere.
Akhila Sivadas - Centre for
Advocacy and Research,
‘Is there a domain of the viewer
and listener?
Akhila Sivadas gave a
short history of the engagement of CFAR with media monitoring and advocacy. It
had begun by instituting a simple feedback mechanism but that had felt
parasitic. So they had shifted to a participatory focus, with pro-active
viewers’ forums and collectives and with the aim of shaping and informing public
discourse. Initially CFAR was extremely upbeat about this endeavour. It seemed very purposeful and the whole
business of creating a civil society discourse on media representation,
mediating disagreements and difference of opinion seemed possible and
worthwhile.
However, events like
the
They had used every
opportunity to amplify the views of the people from the bastis. One of the
questions the basti-dwellers ask of commercial channels is: Why don’t you cover
the issues that matter to us? Why do you give so much space to trivia such as
fashion shows? Akhila said that the
‘media representatives, who are partly inured to such criticism and partly
embarrassed by such comments, do not even bother to respond’. Their only defence
is that times have changed and now media functions differently. She stated that
what is frustrating the viewer is the inability of the media to be up-front and
take people’s comments and feedback seriously and it is essential that this
indifferent and evasive attitude of the media gets constantly challenged.
Akhila Sivadas talked about the
danger of co-option by government or corporate interests. She said in
She also spoke about
CFAR’s recent work monitoring the coverage of the Indian general elections. A
focus on a few personalities and the abysmal representation of gender and
development issues had characterised the coverage. The coverage had been
packaged under five broad themes and within this the representation had been
highly concentrated on a few individuals, parties, constituencies etc. Akhila
concluded that monitoring initiatives by independent groups were important
because otherwise interested groups could put out misleading and biased
information.
In this session,
representatives of NGOs pursuing new media opportunities for development-related
purposes reported on their experience.
Afsan
Chowdhury, BRAC, Dhaka
Afsan made the
following points:
Afsan reported that in
Most communication
activities in the development world have been mass
media-driven,
show that this
conventional approach has failed.
The Communication Initiative has
investigated more than 100 projects on AIDs and all of them have failed.
For these reasons BRAC is now
concentrating on live shows. They have put on 3000 performances in 3 districts
and are hoping to grow to scale in
Afsan explained how he had had
tobacco advertisements stopped in
He warned against quick fixes in
achieving behaviour change. It can take up to ten years and this sort of
timescale needs to be built into developing planning.
Mitu Varma, Panos,
Mitu Varma spoke about Panos’s
work in
Ashish Sen, Voices,
Ashish Sen said that Voices was
working to achieve media democratisation and increasing community media
capacity, with a special emphasis on the role of community radio. It was working
with the poor through its community media centre at Budikote in Karnataka and it
was conducting media research to bring the voices of the poor into the media
debate. Voices believes that access
and opportunities need to be centre-stage. It wants to see community driving
communication (rather than the technology) and community ownership, management
and control. The community should be producers not just consumers of
information.
Voices is networking for media
reform. The ministry of Information and Broadcasting had recently held a
consultation with organisations interested in community radio to create an
enabling environment for its introduction. This was a very encouraging
development. Voices seeks
recognition for three types of media: public, private and community. Local
broadcasting was not just a matter of getting a licence. Community radio
stations would be happy to pay a small licence fee, up to 5000 rupees, if it
could be supplemented by
advertising and local sponsorship.
Ashish Sen also spoke about the
work being done by Voices in cable radio. The use of the audio channels provided
through cable TV networks was ‘changing the nature of community’ in a cluster of
35 villages. Local cable operators are active supporters of the experiment,
which had recently moved to two hours per day. There were a number of instances
where cable radio had played a part in exposing local scams. Looking to the
future, he said there was a need to review areas of capacity
building.
Priorities he identified
included:
Sajid Mansoor Qaisrani, Aurat Foundation
Sajid
Qaisrani spoke about the work of the Aurat Foundation, which has 1400
information centres all over
Sajid also spoke about Aurat’s use
of radio to support its aims. Agricultural extension work usually focuses on men
but women do a lot of the agricultural work and Aurat had decided to try to
reach them. It had developed some ideas for a radio soap opera, using Hasina
Moin as the scriptwriter. It took these ideas to Radio
During
question time, D.K.Bose asked Afsan Chowdhury how BRAC intended to scale
up its work with theatre in the districts. Afsan said it would take some time
but the process was drawing rural people into the theatrical groups and this was
itself having a catalytic effect.
Gargi Sen asked
Ashish Sen how he defined the community in ‘community radio’, pointing out that
many Dalits reject existing ideas of community as oppressing them. Ashish Sen spoke of the narrowcasting
work of DDS in Andhra Pradesh, which is run by 7 Dalit women. He also referred to the Lumbini
community radio in
Kanak Dixit queried Afsan Chowdhury’s assertion that the media was not effective in
promoting development. It depended how narrowly one defined development. In the
interest of a thriving civil society, he said, ‘there is a need to provide high
quality, high volume public information’.
Taking
stock:
William Crawley noted that discussion
in the day’s session had focussed on a number of themes,
including:
1)
the importance of the public
sphere – involving a high level of engagement by civil society and the formation
of partnerships. ‘Partnerships
work’ (Ambika Srivastava)
2)
the creation of a third space in
communications – non-government and non-commercial
3)
the value of both commercial and
government media
4)
the role of alternative
media
5)
the concept of ‘alternative
alternative media’
6)
technology creating spaces, rather than closing them
off
7)
homogenisation and fragmentation
of audiences
8)
changing the language and style of
the media to address new audiences
9)
close analysis of issues of
representation
10)
interaction between local and corporate
influences and pressures
11)
need for the media to be less
accommodative and more aggressive
12)
instead of talking of categories of
journalism, learn to distinguish good and bad
13)
avoid top-down messages in favour of
messages borne out by community experience.
14)
multiplying impact of direct
theatre
15)
absurdity of the ‘no news’ rule for local
or community radio
16)
creation of a level playing
field
17)
practical techniques of
advocacy
18)
the importance of research to counteract
the non availability of information
19)
explore different notions of
community
20)
explore different techniques of
interactivity
Day 2 – 9th May
The second day of the workshop was
given up to brainstorming around the themes identified as important for the
future. But it began with a general discussion about the future of MSA and the
need for improved coverage of cross-border developments within the region.
There was agreement that:
The existing and potential
characteristics of MSA identified by the group were that:
Points arising in
discussion:
·
Nupur
Basu said that all political leaders are talking about poverty - e.g. at the recent
SAARC meeting – and she suggested it would be useful to confront media editors
with their own poor performance in this area – ‘to bring the top guys to the
table’.
·
Arun
Chacko, taking up a point Kanak Dixit
had made in his presentation, said that there is a need to ‘redefine SAARC’ and
to think in terms of new boundaries – between UP and Nepal, Assam and
Bangladesh.
·
Akhila
Sivadas said that Indian newspapers were
developing their own line on development. There was a need to monitor what they
are saying and to develop a dialogue with them.
·
B.P.
Sanjay stressed the need to sensitise journalists at the middle level and entry level
to the profession. The Indian
Institute for Mass Communication was already running a course for middle level
journalists on development journalism. He was willing to put on a course every
other year for South Asian journalists, drawing entrants from across the region,
and believed that donors might be willing to fund such a course.
·
Tasneem
Ahmar spoke of some of the monitoring work which UKS has been doing of the Pakistani
press, offering criticism and trying to catalyse change.
·
There was agreement that
thehoot.org – the website run by Sevanti Ninan – could perform a valuable role
in conveying information region-wide – but it would need extra finance and staff
to do so.
·
There was some discussion of other
South Asian media associations and initiatives. It was agreed that the South Asia Press
Union was not very effective. But the ABU – the Asian Broadcasting Union – or
the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association – might offer platforms to argue for a
more effective regional approach.
·
Nupur
Basu pointed to the media opportunities offered by unexpected events. The fate of a
six-year old Pakistani girl who had come to
·
Nayeem ul
Islam pointed up the need to sensitise the reading public across borders on what he
called ‘proximity issues’. The press in Dhaka was not covering West Bengal very
well and the press in
·
Sevanti
Ninan suggested that a start might be made by tracking reporting on cross border
issues and in using the results to
press editors for a change of approach.
·
It was agreed that this should be
a priority for MSA in the future.
KEY
ISSUES:
The workshop then moved on to look
at some of the themes identified as important for the future. Each session
lasted approximately one hour and had its own moderator.
These
key issues were discussed under four headings:
1. COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT – moderated by Ashish
Sen
2. SPACES FOR NETWORKING – moderated by Afsan
Chowdhury
3.
4. REGULATORY ISSUES – moderated by B.P.
Sanjay.
1. COMMUNITY
EMPOWERMENT
·
As moderator for this session, Ashish Sen suggested the subject was
interrogated under four headings: defining the base, policy impediments,
information for an enabling framework and next steps.
·
He said he felt the key definition
of community media should be ‘management for and by the community’ - a crucial consideration when deciding
who gets the licence.
·
Sajid Mansoor
Qaisrani asked whether community TV and
cable TV were also being considered – to which Ashish said that community
empowerment was not medium-specific.
·
Gargi
Sen asked ‘how we ensure that Dalits have access to community structures and how we
operationalise the structures to
make this happen?’
·
Sanjay
Veniyoor, referring to recent discussions
with government over the creation of an enabling environment for Community
Radio, said that there were three radio frequencies which could be used for CR
in each transmission area. But the government was concerned that CR should not
be used for sectarian purposes.
·
Akhila
Sivadas said that they were seeking a
programming shift by the state broadcaster – and monitoring could play a role in
achieving this.
·
Mukesh Sharma of DD
Mumbai said the funding of state radio and TV needed to be looked at. ‘If you can free me from the funding
imperative’ he said, ‘I will be able to do all sorts of public service
programmes.’
·
B.P.
Sanjay drew attention to the community media centres set up by the MS Swaminathan
foundation and said they might be models for others.
·
Akhila
Sivadas said that looking at community
media was not enough. It was important to critique the dominant media and to
make them take notice of the marginalized.
·
Jai Chandi
Ram said it would be useful to assess how far participatory media impacted people’s
consciousness. Such programmes as
the South African TV Soap Opera,
·
Ashish
Sen said that as far as community media centres are concerned, UNESCO has funded an
evaluation of different types of centres operating across
·
Gargi
Sen agreed with Akhila that it was important to look at representation of community
issues in the mainstream media.
·
B.P.Sanjay said that an improved
network would enable everyone to share experience across the region on solutions
to community media.
·
Ashish
Sen said that Voices was planning to upgrade its community media website and to link
it to http://www.thehoot.org/ as a means of achieving this end.
Summary
Defining
the base
Policy
impediments
Information
needed
Next
steps
2.
SPACES FOR NETWORKING
·
Introducing the subject, Afsan Chowdhury said that a network
will only be effective ‘ if it is something from which we all benefit’. MSA also
needs greater visibility – and a sense that somebody is listening.
·
William
Crawley said that one possibility was to
use other platforms - the ABU was one example – to initiate a dialogue on the
role of media and communication in South Asian societies.
·
Ambika
Srivastava thought that one common interest
for such a network would be resource mapping in the different countries -
whether we are talking of media monitoring or training in investigative
reporting. There was also a need to identify different constituencies –
journalists, parliamentarians etc – and to target them with our messages.
Several people made the point that
there are already many media networks across
·
David
Page made the point that the Communication Initiative had found a way of providing
information on media and development issues which went beyond the role of
existing networks. Such a thing might also be possible in
·
Gargi
Sen said that Magic Lantern was going South Asian – distributing documentaries
across the region – but there were money transfer problems, which required
practical solutions.
·
Language was also raised as an
issue for a website – if it wanted to communicate with non-English speakers.
Summary
3.
·
Jai Chandi
Ram introduced this session by saying that there already were a number of players in
the field. For example, Unesco had a project with the Indira Gandhi Open
University on communication training. It was a question of evaluating what
additionally was needed.
·
David
Page said he felt that MSA had established that there was a demand for capacity
building across the region in media monitoring and advocacy and with the help of
CFAR a small start had been made to extend its expertise to other players in
·
There was agreement that we need
to look at different sorts and levels of capacity building. What MSA brought was
‘South Asian sensitisation’ and a strong emphasis on civil society’s
priorities. What had been called
‘Generation next’ should now be added as an important target audience.
·
Another suggestion was to initiate
awards for excellence in particular fields – as a means of giving MSA a higher
profile.
·
There was a warm welcome for
B.P.Sanjay’s offer that IIMC should host a South Asian development journalism
course. It was suggested that P.Sainath might be a good resource person in
planning such a course.
·
Nupur
Basu spoke of her experience of organising a media workshop on the Gujarat riots in
·
Another idea was to generate a
number of short manuals on capacity building in different fields – which could
be used across the region.
Summary
b) special training
opportunities
4. REGULATORY
ISSUES
·
B.P.
Sanjay identified a number of issues of relevance to the theme.
Summary
‘The Donor’s
viewpoint’
Eamoinn Taylor -
|
||||||||||||||
