[governance] Rwanda and media
Jonathan Cave
j.a.k.cave at warwick.ac.uk
Fri Oct 5 06:38:44 EDT 2007
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.
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 and the reach or the medium through which it is disseminated.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The issue of principle is whether:
* everything should be neutral and balanced
in itself (with clear separation of 'editorial' and other tendentious content)
* all channels should be open to (or required
to include) the whole range of societal opinion on key issues, or
* the very variety of channels available is
an argument for dropping any balance or neutrality regulation.
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.'
What I'm asking is which of the three options is
'best' and second, who or what should have the choice?
Thanks for any thoughts - and thanks for a
continually fascinating ongoing discourse. Sorry for the academic language...
Cheers,
J.
At 15:25 04/10/2007, Rui Correia wrote:
>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.
>
>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.
>
>[]s
>
>Rui
>
>*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,
><http://www.benton.org/>http://www.benton.org
>and Timothy Karr's FreePress.org (I think
>Timothy has hust left, but
><http://www.FreePress.org>www.FreePress.org 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.
>
>On 04/10/2007, Carlos Afonso <<mailto:ca at rits.org.br> ca at rits.org.br > wrote:
>Dr Müller's remark misses the point regarding Chavez on two counts: the
>first is rightly pointed out by David -- the elites (with the near
>exclusive privilege of disseminating their views through the big media)
>do not like that others keep telling them they are in power for
>centuries and have been making sure that there continues to be just a
>few well-off and a smashing majority of very poor in Latin America. If
>there is a success story of the elites in LA, this is it.
>
>The second is that Chavez did not take away the licence. It expired and
>the government has the prerrogative to renew it or not. Terms of the
>contract say explicitly the incumbent network will not engage in
>demoralizing a constitutionally elected government (this and similar
>restrictions were not created by Chavez, they are part of nearly all
>radio and TV concessions in democratic countries). The renewal referred
>to the open air TV licence only, but the same conservative media group
>continues to operate through cable TV (which is fine for them, the ones
>who have cable TV in Venezuela are the ones who generally support the
>opposition, the upper classes who are mostly opposed to Chavez, so they
>are happily talking to each other). If Chavez were really bound to do
>what the Murdoch gang keeps telling us, he would just block the group's
>access to cable TV as well.
>
>We are here right now in a similar process in Brazil, but the outcome
>will quite probably be different. The Globo/Slim media group has several
>radio and TV channel licences expiring or expired (as do most of the
>other big private networks), and civil society organizations are
>mobilized to open up discussion regarding renewal of hundreds of these
>public concessions. Frequency spectrum is an asset of the commons and
>the State is its guardian on behalf of the people, so there is a need to
>discuss whether the current incumbents deserve renewal -- strictly
>speaking, most do not, as they have violated on many counts the terms of
>their concession contracts for proper use of an asset of the commons. A
>lot similar with the private appropriation for profit of the Internet
>critical resources we will be discussing in Rio.
>
>Another point is that Chavez did not do a coup d'état, American style
>(meaning Somozas, Pinochets and the sort) -- to the contrary, the USA
>stimulated a coup d'état against him which failed miserably in a few
>days. He did all he did (with imperfections, mistakes and whatever,
>please point us to a regime anywhere in the developing world which is
>perfect...) within the legal political system of the country. Sorry for
>the elitist opposition if he won, but he won through elections and
>plebiscites. The rest is the anti-Chavez political campaigning through
>Murdoch's networks and their kin. BTW, a similar process is now going on
>in Ecuador, with the economist Correa at the head, legally elected in a
>constitutional democracy. I wonder what the big international media
>corporations will be telling us all about him? Very soon there will be
>no Correa's government, but "Correa's regime" etc etc...
>
>[]s fraternos
>
>--c.a.
>
>David Goldstein wrote:
> > Milton said "Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules
> > in Venezuela ."
> >
> > I find this a bit rich. The media in Venezuela has oppressed the poor
> > for decades, and when someone stands up to the media, who represent
> > the upper classes, they are branded as being censorious. Obviously it
> > would be better if Chavez did not take away the licence for the TV
> > station it would be better. But then, Venezuela has been a tool of
> > the rich to exploit the poor for a long time.
> >
> > I agree with the rest of his points though.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ---- From: Milton L
> Mueller <<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>mueller at syr.edu >
> > To:
> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
> ; <mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com>KovenRonald at aol.com Cc:
> > <mailto:Embench at aol.com>Embench at aol.com Sent:
> Thursday, 4 October, 2007 5:35:04 AM Subject:
> > [governance] Rwanda and media
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <!-- _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /*
> > Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
> > {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
> > New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
> > {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} a:visited,
> > span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} p
> >
> > {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
> > New Roman";} span.EmailStyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
> > _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {} -->
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with Rony. And I would ask advocates of media restrictions
> > whether they believe that the existence of government rules
> > regulating the media in Rwanda would have prevented the genocide. Who
> > would have promulgated, monitored and enforced those rules in Rwanda
> > ? Which ethnic faction? Which independent judges? When the state is
> > nothing but an armed gang, and all disputes are settled by force, the
> > idea that the media can be regulated to enforce civility is
> > self-evidently nonsensical. In those cases, media regulations simply
> > become another tool for the dominant party to oppress the others.
> > Look at how Hugo Chavez is using media licensing rules in Venezuela .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> <mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com>KovenRonald at aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald at aol.com ]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > RMC was in fact a weapon in a civil war, and it would have been
> > justified to bomb it out of existence if it could have been found.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> >
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> >
> > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.39/1044 - Release Date:
> > 10/2/2007 11:10 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
> >
> <http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html>http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.0/1049 - Release Date:
> > 4/10/2007 08:59
>
>--
>
>Carlos A. Afonso
>Rio Brasil
>***************************************************************
>Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital
>com software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o
>Coletivo Digital. Para mais informações:
><http://www.sacix.org.br>www.sacix.org.br
>www.rits.org.br <http://www.coletivodigital.org.br>www.coletivodigital.org.br
>***************************************************************
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>
><mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>
><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>________________________________________________
>
>
>Rui Correia
>Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant
>2 Cutten St
>Horison
>Roodepoort-Johannesburg,
>South Africa
>Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336
>Cell (+27) (0) 84-498-6838
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/3477f64c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071005/3477f64c/attachment.txt>
More information about the Governance
mailing list