DFID, transparency revolution and independent media

Many thanks for sending me the link James,

I really like the blog and hope that these developments will have a positive effect on the Europe work.

I would be happy if you copy me in on your future blogs.

Best wishes

Ellie

I agree with your observations - DFID's "transparency revolution" is welcome - but supporting independent media is urgent and challenging - and, having read the DFID paper, would only like to point to the apparent omission of education in this strategy, particularly the role of media literacy in fostering greater understanding of the absolute need for independent, critical journalism, but also its role in understanding how the whole gamut of what today is meant by "media" contributes to percetions of governance (good or bad). Witness today's furor around Brexit. One can't help but wonder if media literacy had been a fundamental and compulsory part of the education curriculum for the past fifty years we would have got ourselves embroiled in this catastrophe. My point is: no transparency without the various types of education that undergird it.

I have read the submission, and my view on the importance of this strategy is sacrosant - DFID's "transparency revolution" is welcome - but supporting independent media is urgent and challenging.

But my worries as a devèlopment communication practitioner in Nigeria emanted from the unchecked movement of owners of independent media intò Nigerian politics. Such move  will not enhance investigative journalism where journalists^from îndependent media have their loyalty divided between their politician owner and the ruling govenment.

It is therefore important to develop another 'control strategy'~that wou'l"d enhance investigative reporting where certain independent media a~re involved corruption. Again, weak states like Nigeria still need strong advocacy on citizenshïp journalism. to this effect, investigative journalists~would report corrupt cases with  facts and critical voice dovoid"of any ethnic attachment.

I have read all the comments and theoretical suggestions, but would like to emphasise that the thousands of students I and others train and teach about video and mobile journalism ARE taking on causes, injustices and providing windows onto events that would otherwise remain obscured. The move to oust Jacob Zuma in SA is a good example of how democracy, an independent judiciary and strong media can bring about change. 

What we teach to mainstream, online and specialist journalism students e.g. investigative; is how important reporting stories are and awareness of media ownership, fake news etc. It is a mantle they have to pick up and run with, it is their online and social media world that they need to be content providers for and to help patrol.

DFID may well fund moves to invest in greater transparency but what does that mean in real terms? Who gets the funding, who needs it ? Isn't it as others have commented that education in its widest sense is the key. Projects and courses to emphasise the need for transparency and good governance are all very well-funded of course by DFID amongst others - but are they getting to the next generations not just the educators and those in jobs in  institutions- but to the young, those who go out on the streets and city squares to protest?  Civil society can bring change and journalists/the media are a part of this, but the net needs to spread much wider, to take in citizen journalists to empower those on the streets to post their videos and blogs online to make a noise where everyone watches and reads it. then change can come about and with it a strengthening of the role of good factual journalism in all our societies.

Many thanks for starting this important discussion, James - DFID's "transparency revolution" is welcome - but supporting independent media is urgent and challenging

In the crisis states in which we operate, we see most journalists needing to self-censor and a less and less "free" press not alone able to shield the population from ongoing Hate Speech. In such conditions, the weakness of support policies that solely focus on coaching media institutions is apparent. Only by coupling such support with anti-incitement E&E programming can one still do meaningful media support work in those societies. Moreover, in a world facing the problem of fake news, a growing sense of insecurity and its manipulation by irresponsible leaders,  this is a subject that unites both the developing world and the so-called developed world: -  We all face the same threat in different guises. I feel organisations that produce E&E programming can contribute a great deal to help society deal with this, not only in development work.

Media Literacy education really does not need to be that huge a challenge. In our work we have found that, if the emphasis of ML teaching ceases to be solely technical (learning the detailed modes of how media convey meaning and influence opinion),  but also psychological (learning the reflexes Individuals have to perceived danger and its manipulation in media messaging), - it is much easier to learn. While individuals may have difficulty recognising & withstanding message-targeting Algorythms - they can very easily learn the predictability of their own human reflexes to any polarizing message, and learn how to deal with them constructively.  

Research shows that the recognition of reflexes by followers of populist incitement can be learned like the A-B-C, in long term interventions.   National media audiences can be taught, through E&E methodologies, or even just in school, to first recognise and then resist these reflexes.  This does not have to be complicated. Here is an example of how to formulate them into a sequenced vocabulary. I am sure there are other such "vocabularies" around, and we would be interested in hearing about them. Organisations engaged in violence prevention through the media should best be able to complement each other in both research and implementation, to bring this field further. But most of the policies that show impact are long-term. And most donor country policy makers, elected, as they are, for limited terms, have little interest in long-term interventions.

We would need a means to focus the attention of the donors to the potential of media literacy education for peace building. Until now, the field has often been too divided and competitive to produce unified and vetted best practices. Ideally, we would need to sit together and exchange about the results of our kinds of interventions to come up with vetted recommendations and policy papers together. These in turn could provide research-based foundations for the institution of Media literacy as part of the support of media environments in crisis states. 

If more organisations are interested, could we not start the ball rolling  for a symposium to discuss this kind of thing?  Possibly the upcoming Bali summit could provide an initial forum for deliberations. - at least organisations in this group that are interested could get together on this subject and formulate some common agenda points.  

It's easier to imagine how transparent media could work in disseminating information of such caliber as foreign policy if you're part of the core. This implies to development workers, civil society members, academia, government workers etc.

But what about an ordinary citizen, for example, in an African country? We only see our presidents on foreign missions or foreign leaders on bilateral talk visits in the media. What is reported is exactly what they talk about and sign. In most cases, no one knows the intricate details of the agreements nor how a citizen is supposed to be part; the only thing is being told how much debt is owed to all bilateral partners and others.

So if we're talking about transparency on how governments utilize the funds, how is that possible when all information emanates from them? Civil society for all intents are at an elite level and are part of the funding systems, so expecting divergent views or what could be termed as people's views is a long shot. 

In my view, unless ordinary citizens have inside and adequate information on foreign policies, agreements and other engagements, just a transparent media isn't enough to help them hold governments accountable.