<html>
<body>
Wow! What a nice long thread on this important topic. Personally, I
regret that it has veered into the Chavez debate, but I find the general
issue of quid custodiet ipsos custodiae (who watches the watchers?) is a
fascinating one. <br><br>
Any government bears a (non-exclusive) obligation to protect fundamental
human rights. This reasonably includes restraining activities that foment
violations of those rights. This restraint should be stronger, the
greater the risk that such activities will actually lead to murder, etc.
The risk from 'hate speech' depends on the content <i>and</i> the reach
or the medium through which it is disseminated. <br><br>
Of course, governments differ in their willingness to shoulder this
obligation and in the power of their own people to hold them to account.
Their success or failure in meeting this obligation also affects the
wider world. Governments lead by example (for good or ill). Moreover, the
flight of the persecuted produces immediate spillovers ranging from
resource scarcity to social polarisation and transferred political
instability. For a comparatively trivial (though not to those affected)
instance, see the current UK legal and policy debate about the Home
Office decision that it is safe to return failed asylum seekers to
Zimbabwe. <br><br>
So, who can help governments to bear this responsibility on behalf of
their people and all of us? That question seems to me to raise a neat
paradox, because the media (generally) are a key 'governor of
governments.' Like (e-) democracy, there is a strong argument that
some aspects of media policy should not be within the gift of government.
Governments must/should constrain the media in some respects, and the
media must (should) constrain governments in others - but even the areas
where one or the other should prevail are unclear and shifting. <br><br>
RMC was an interesting example - but tightly focused on the dangers of
violent populism as opposed to the easy caricature of principled press
opposition to a repressive regime vs. self (commercially)-interested
tides of porn and spam. Where the media affect societal discourse, a
further issue occurs to me. <br><br>
I'd be fascinated to read what members of this group think (if anything)
of the question of whether suitable balance and moderation are meant to
be collective or individual attributes of 'responsible' media policy.
<br><br>
Most broadcast media are subject to content controls as to accuracy,
accessibility by those with different views, etc. Internet content is
(generally) free of such restraints. In the EU, the nascent Audiovisual
Media Services Directive would extend broadcast-type content regulation
to 'linear' (basically, non-interactive) content made available over the
Internet. <br><br>
The practical issue is whether a regulatory distinction based on user
interaction with content delivery makes any sense, or simply encourages
the migration of content (and possibly the fragmentation of audiences)
into whatever unregulated zone the rules create.<br><br>
The issue of principle is whether:
<ul>
<li>everything should be neutral and balanced in itself (with clear
separation of 'editorial' and other tendentious content)
<li>all channels should be open to (or required to include) the whole
range of societal opinion on key issues, or
<li>the very variety of channels available is an argument for dropping
any balance or neutrality regulation.
</ul>This isn't just theory: in the last US Presidential election, the
chairman of Fox News defended his organisation against charges of bias by
saying (in effect) that the left-wing 'blogosphere' would put the other
side of the story. This ignores the fact that those addressed by either
channel typically ignore the other and thus that this 'diversity'
reinforces rather than moderates societal 'discourse.'<br><br>
What I'm asking is which of the three options is 'best' and second, who
or what should have the choice?<br><br>
Thanks for any thoughts - and thanks for a continually fascinating
ongoing discourse. Sorry for the academic language...<br><br>
Cheers,<br><br>
J.<br><br>
<br><br>
At 15:25 04/10/2007, Rui Correia wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I would urge that those who get
their worldview from the likes of CNN look deeper before pointing fingers
at "third world countries" when clarion calls of trampled
democracy start blaring. People would better serve democracy (and in this
case, media freedom, freedom of information) if they paid more attention
at what the FCC in the US is allowing the networks to get away with.
Because like it or not (barring now a EU with muscle to set its own
course) whatever gets done in the US tends to ripple out across the
world. The problem is that it hapens in small doses, but continuously,
never enough to cause the alarm bells to go off. At any rate, civil
society's stake is being chiselled away at, and the arbiter is not doing
its job.<br>
<br>
The real dangers to democracy is whether or not Venezuela renews a TV
licence, but when the government that claims to be the superpower and
world policeman tramples on Geneva conventions and tortues men and women
in Guantanamo, miles away from the government they have for decades
called a tyranny, while in Iraq they outdid Saddam's brutality at Abu
Graib.<br><br>
[]s<br><br>
Rui<br><br>
*PS lack of time a while back prevented me form finishing a log piece I
was penning together on CNN as nothing but an extension of the US vision
of the world. It no longer has the same agenda as the CNN that we saw
reporting from the Baghdad Hotel when the first Bush went after Saddam.
But there are people on this list far better informed then me on the
issue, so who know they might want to post something on it. Otherwise,
subscibe to the likes of Kevin Tagland's BENTON'S COMMUNICATIONS-RELATED
HEADLINES, <a href="http://www.benton.org/">http://www.benton.org </a>and
Timothy Karr's FreePress.org (I think Timothy has hust left, but
<a href="http://www.FreePress.org">www.FreePress.org</a> is still there.
Alternatively, you might want to amuse yourself with google looking up
things like "CIA interference in Latin Ameria"/ Brazil/
Venezuela/ you name it. "Council on Foreign Relations" etc etc.
<br><br>
On 04/10/2007, <b>Carlos Afonso</b> <<a href="mailto:ca@rits.org.br">
ca@rits.org.br</a> > wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Dr Müller's remark misses the point regarding Chavez on two counts:
the <br>
<dd>first is rightly pointed out by David -- the elites (with the
near<br>
<dd>exclusive privilege of disseminating their views through the big
media)<br>
<dd>do not like that others keep telling them they are in power for<br>
<dd>centuries and have been making sure that there continues to be just a
<br>
<dd>few well-off and a smashing majority of very poor in Latin America.
If<br>
<dd>there is a success story of the elites in LA, this is it.<br><br>
<dd>The second is that Chavez did not take away the licence. It expired
and<br>
<dd>the government has the prerrogative to renew it or not. Terms of the
<br>
<dd>contract say explicitly the incumbent network will not engage in<br>
<dd>demoralizing a constitutionally elected government (this and
similar<br>
<dd>restrictions were not created by Chavez, they are part of nearly
all<br>
<dd>radio and TV concessions in democratic countries). The renewal
referred <br>
<dd>to the open air TV licence only, but the same conservative media
group<br>
<dd>continues to operate through cable TV (which is fine for them, the
ones<br>
<dd>who have cable TV in Venezuela are the ones who generally support the
<br>
<dd>opposition, the upper classes who are mostly opposed to Chavez, so
they<br>
<dd>are happily talking to each other). If Chavez were really bound to
do<br>
<dd>what the Murdoch gang keeps telling us, he would just block the
group's <br>
<dd>access to cable TV as well.<br><br>
<dd>We are here right now in a similar process in Brazil, but the
outcome<br>
<dd>will quite probably be different. The Globo/Slim media group has
several<br>
<dd>radio and TV channel licences expiring or expired (as do most of the
<br>
<dd>other big private networks), and civil society organizations are<br>
<dd>mobilized to open up discussion regarding renewal of hundreds of
these<br>
<dd>public concessions. Frequency spectrum is an asset of the commons
and<br>
<dd>the State is its guardian on behalf of the people, so there is a need
to <br>
<dd>discuss whether the current incumbents deserve renewal --
strictly<br>
<dd>speaking, most do not, as they have violated on many counts the terms
of<br>
<dd>their concession contracts for proper use of an asset of the commons.
A <br>
<dd>lot similar with the private appropriation for profit of the
Internet<br>
<dd>critical resources we will be discussing in Rio.<br><br>
<dd>Another point is that Chavez did not do a coup d'état, American
style<br>
<dd>(meaning Somozas, Pinochets and the sort) -- to the contrary, the USA
<br>
<dd>stimulated a coup d'état against him which failed miserably in a
few<br>
<dd>days. He did all he did (with imperfections, mistakes and
whatever,<br>
<dd>please point us to a regime anywhere in the developing world which is
<br>
<dd>perfect...) within the legal political system of the country. Sorry
for<br>
<dd>the elitist opposition if he won, but he won through elections
and<br>
<dd>plebiscites. The rest is the anti-Chavez political campaigning
through<br>
<dd>Murdoch's networks and their kin. BTW, a similar process is now going
on <br>
<dd>in Ecuador, with the economist Correa at the head, legally elected in
a<br>
<dd>constitutional democracy. I wonder what the big international
media<br>
<dd>corporations will be telling us all about him? Very soon there will
be <br>
<dd>no Correa's government, but "Correa's regime" etc
etc...<br><br>
<dd>[]s fraternos<br><br>
<dd>--c.a.<br><br>
<dd>David Goldstein wrote:<br>
<dd>> Milton said "Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media
licensing rules <br>
<dd>> in Venezuela ."<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> I find this a bit rich. The media in Venezuela has oppressed the
poor<br>
<dd>> for decades, and when someone stands up to the media, who
represent<br>
<dd>> the upper classes, they are branded as being censorious.
Obviously it <br>
<dd>> would be better if Chavez did not take away the licence for the
TV<br>
<dd>> station it would be better. But then, Venezuela has been a tool
of<br>
<dd>> the rich to exploit the poor for a long time.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> I agree with the rest of his points though. <br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> David<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton L Mueller
<<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu </a>><br>
<dd>> To:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org
</a>; <a href="mailto:KovenRonald@aol.com">KovenRonald@aol.com</a>
Cc:<br>
<dd>> <a href="mailto:Embench@aol.com">Embench@aol.com</a> Sent:
Thursday, 4 October, 2007 5:35:04 AM Subject:<br>
<dd>> [governance] Rwanda and media <br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> <!-- _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4
2 4;} /*<br>
<dd>> Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal,
div.MsoNormal<br>
<dd>>
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times<br>
<dd>> New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink<br>
<dd>> {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, <br>
<dd>> span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} p<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>>
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times<br>
<dd>> New Roman";} span.EmailStyle18
{font-family:Arial;color:navy;} <br>
<dd>> _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {}
--><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> I agree with Rony. And I would ask advocates of media
restrictions<br>
<dd>> whether they believe that the existence of government rules
<br>
<dd>> regulating the media in Rwanda would have prevented the
genocide. Who<br>
<dd>> would have promulgated, monitored and enforced those rules in
Rwanda<br>
<dd>> ? Which ethnic faction? Which independent judges? When the state
is <br>
<dd>> nothing but an armed gang, and all disputes are settled by
force, the<br>
<dd>> idea that the media can be regulated to enforce civility is<br>
<dd>> self-evidently nonsensical. In those cases, media regulations
simply <br>
<dd>> become another tool for the dominant party to oppress the
others.<br>
<dd>> Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in
Venezuela .<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> From: <a href="mailto:KovenRonald@aol.com">KovenRonald@aol.com
</a>[<a href="mailto:KovenRonald@aol.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:KovenRonald@aol.com </a>]<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> RMC was in fact a weapon in a civil war, and it would have
been<br>
<dd>> justified to bomb it out of existence if it could have been
found.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> No virus found in this outgoing message.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release
Date:<br>
<dd>> 10/2/2007 11:10 AM<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited
storage. <br>
<dd>>
<a href="http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html">
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html</a><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>><br>
<dd>> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free
Edition.<br>
<dd>> Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release
Date:<br>
<dd>> 4/10/2007 08:59<br><br>
<dd>--<br><br>
<dd>Carlos A. Afonso <br>
<dd>Rio Brasil<br>
<dd>***************************************************************<br>
<dd>Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital<br>
<dd>com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o<br>
<dd>Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações: <br>
<dd><a href="http://www.sacix.org.br">www.sacix.org.br</a>
<a href="http://www.rits.org.br /" eudora="autourl">
www.rits.org.br </a>
<a href="http://www.coletivodigital.org.br">www.coletivodigital.org.br</a>
<br>
<dd>***************************************************************
<br><br>
<dd>____________________________________________________________<br>
<dd>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<dd>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<dd>To be removed from the list, send any message to: <br>
<dd>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br><br>
<dd>For all list information and functions, see: <br>
<dd>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance </a><br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<br>
-- <br>
________________________________________________<br><br>
<br>
Rui Correia<br>
Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant<br>
2 Cutten St<br>
Horison <br>
Roodepoort-Johannesburg, <br>
South Africa<br>
Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336<br>
Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 <br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br><br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a></blockquote></body>
</html>