| Introduction
It
is quite tempting to just give a bookish list of what the
role of the media in development and international trade is
or ought to be. Anyone who cares to read may say one or two
things about that. However the difficult thing is to give
a context to issues, views and perspectives. I am saying this
not only because the concern about what role the media should
play in development is not new, but also because at the end
of the day, it is only contextualised information that can
help us in making informed policies, especially on trade and
development. Our reality is that we are in Africa. We are Africans and most of us are black. In the era of the so-called
global village, any discussion about how the media must handle
development and trade issues must not be alienated from our
own condition and experiences as Africans. We must think from
the Afrocentric perspective with no apologies because what
it means in essence is putting our experiences and history
first, without, however, being foolishly radical and fundamentalist
about them. Globalisation as a process is not neutral or value
free.
The
concerns about the media agenda in development, and development
initiatives themselves are not new things in Africa. The fact
that there have been previous development initiatives where
the media also played a role raises two very critical questions:
1.
What were those development initiatives; what was their
content and form; who were the authors?
2.
What role did the media play and how best could those
roles have been performed?
A
quick commentary on the previous development initiatives and
the role of the media could be instructive:
Colonialism
Colonialism
was hailed by the colonisers as an advance of civilisation,
progress and indeed development. But how could Africa be developed
through the plunder and loot of her wealth to develop the
West? The colonial media failed to promote development because
they were racist media. They marginalised
the majority of the people i.e. blacks from the development
agenda, and when a lot of people do not participate in any
development process it is bound to fail. In instances where
colonial media sought to interpolate blacks as subjects of
Western development through mobile cinema and radio, communication was still non-participatory, it remained essential
top-down and authoritarian.
Decade
of development (1950-60s)
In 1949, the US government and multilateral institutions
like the IMF and the World Bank devised a Point Four programme
that was meant to harness Africa into modernisation and develop
it in the same manner Europe had been developed in the Marshall
Plan after World War Two. The media became part of this agenda
and they were tasked with changing people’s cultures and habits.
Why did this model fail?
Both the development model and the media undermined the
role of a people’s culture as an essential conduit for cultural
domination. Modernisation did not only become another form
of cultural imperialism, but also led to the ideological disempowerment
and the concomitant underdevelopment of African countries
through development. Westernisation was confused with civilisation
and development. The media was guilty of undermining local
development initiatives. The denigration of African cultures,
values and the African being by the media of the modernisation
era, erroneously projected development as being only possible
outside African cultures that were seen as stumbling block.
Dealing with development and trade
Globalisation
has given the media and everybody yet another challenge to
distinguish between rhetoric and reality as far as the so-
called global village and free market trade policies are concerned.
Generally, through the Breton Woods institutions (IMF, WB)
and the WTO, we are told that we are now a single family co-existing
peacefully in the so-called global village. The global village
is a world where communities (business communities included)
can interact with speed in space and time through the Information
Communication Technologies and the global media, nations can
interact without risking their cultural, economic, and even
political spaces; food, shelter and clothing are a human right
and human life and dignity take precedence in any decisions
by the state or market. This is how far as the promises go
but one wonders whether that is exactly what happens. The
major policy dictates which are generally seen as a panacea
for all our development and trade problems are as follows:
Opening up
Countries are urged to open up their economies. This
is so that multiple players can enter the market. Many players
lead to competition and competition leads to development.
Bretton Woods institutions always forget to tell us about
the growth of cartels, monopolies and even oligopolies that
squash the local initiatives.
Privatisation of public institutions
Privatisation means that the state’s form, autonomy,
and legitimacy are compromised because of domination by transnational
corporations. This makes the majority of the poor people,
mostly peasants and lowly paid workers to suffer. They can
no longer afford health services, education and food due to
the collapse of the welfare state. Yet the state, must always
have social responsibility towards its citizens.
Rich getting richer
The global economy can only develop and benefit
all of us if the international political economy, world economic
order, and the accompanying trade policies are just. Currently,
the development and trade policies weigh far too heavily in
favour of the North at the expense of the South. Only the
business elite of TNCs in the metropolitan and the petty bourgeoise
in the periphery are enjoying the fruits from IMF, WB, and
WTO policies.
Consider these facts:
Of the largest economies in the world, 52
are TNCs, and only 48 are countries. Mitsubishi is 22nd
largest economy in the world. General Motors is the 26th,
Ford is the 31st. All are larger than most Third
World economies (Institute of Policy Studies, Top 200:the
Rise of Corporate Global Power, 2000).
The sales of the Top 200 companies in the
world are growing at a faster rate than the overall global
economic activity. In 1999 the sales of the Top five corporations;
General Motors, Exxon Mobil, Ford Motors, Wal Mart and Daimler
Chrysler, were bigger than the GDPs of 182 countries (Top
200:the Rise of Corporate Global Power, 2000).
Surely these are issues that are crying out
for media attention. The concentration of wealth in a few
hands constitutes a threat to global peace. Above all it is
a threat to the dignity and integrity of human life. Our media,
private and public, need to criticise such primitive policies
in the same manner they criticise the politicians. The journalistic
ethics are clear- Thou shall not jump into bed with the State
or the Market.
Development and democracy
The media must ensure the development of democracy and
democratic institutions intra-nationally as well as internationally.
Democratisation and development are one and the same thing,
you cannot think of development outside democracy and democracy
outside development. The media must hold multilateral institutions
like the WTO, IMF and the World Bank accountable in the same
manner we want our parliament, judiciary, and executive to
be accountable. The injustice of the unipolar world where
the powerful countries are using these institutions to foster
their economic and political interests must be condemned by
all media. In other words the media are supposed to be watchdogs
on behalf of us all.
Human rights
The media must promote and brandish human rights concepts
because these are universal and not discriminatory. All races,
classes and cultures are deserving of their enjoyment. All
well meaning journalists know that when the media force the
state to observe the rule of law and respect human rights,
they are actually broadening the political public sphere and
its concomitant freedoms. It is when people freely express
themselves through the media of their choice that those who
govern the nation-states and even the world can design better
and relevant policies for national and global development.
So in essence, the point is that the media must promote and
not be antagonistic to human rights discourses.
Development and trade can only thrive in a peaceful environment.
Africa and the Middle East continue to be projected by the
media in stereotypical ways of suicidal belligerency, volatility,
ethnic and religious intolerances. Oftentimes, as journalists
we have failed to address the real causes of these wars and
merely discuss the symptoms. Some of these wars are a product
of the unjust global policies that leave governments and citizens
of weaker nations scrambling for crumbs. The media must know
that lasting solutions to the conflicts that plague Africa
can only be found if they, together with institutions like
the African Union, discuss national and global development
issues honestly. While we have a right to freedom of expression
as the media that right is not absolute, as it must always
be balanced with obligations and the need to respect other
people’s rights.
Issue oriented reporting
Three challenges face our media in reporting not only
trade and development issues, but also just many other issues.
Without limiting the impact of ownership, editorial policies,
agenda and indeed other macro-societal factors like policy,
the challenges can be summarised as depth, breadth and angling.
Depth
How analytical are we on development and trade issues?
Do we discuss the real issues or we grapple with symptoms?
Breadth
How many sources are we using for a story on global trade?
Have we considered other voices from civil society, government,
private sector, labour, gender, race, class? How accommodating
are we about critical, oppositional and alternative views
on globalisation and international trade policies?
Angling
What do we consider as news in a story on development
and trade? Do we inform, educate or sensationalise? Do we
focus on personalities or issues?
Conclusion
The
role of the media in changing the status quo of unjust trade
policies and ushering in people-driven development must not
be viewed in isolation from other institutional contributions.
African governments particularly, have a responsibility to
create conducive media policies that allow the media to excel
in these stated obligations. The private sector must not sit
and watch either as they also have an obligation to expand
other communications media so that national as well as international
development is achieved.
This is an abridged version of the paper presented by
Last Moyo, at a workshop ( Kadoma Conference Centre 24-27
February 2003) organised by SEATINI for the media in southern
Africa. Moyo is a lecturer in Journalism and Media Studies
at the National University of Science and Technology in Bulawayo,
Zimbabwe. |
