[Media Caucus] Speaker nomination concern from Victor

[Victor van Oeyen]

Dear Ronald, 

Thank you very much for your kind and clear answer referring my observation
about the nomination of Mr. Marinho as a speaker on behalf of civil society. 

Although we disagree on various things (I don't think at all that civil
society is being represented by marginal actors for example),  I do agree
with you that our media caucus did a good job. Amongst other reasons, I
think that this is due to the participation of different kind of
stakeholders and the willingness of all participants to advance and achieve
results. 

I did not question, at all, this way of working together within our caucus.
On the contrary, I think this process should be known by others.

The question that I do raise is if it is logical that representatives of
the private sector use the time-slots reserved for Civil Society.  I don't
think you would agree either if that happened. Just imagine the other way
around, that the time slots of private sector would be used by Civil Society
.

Another, more fundamental, question that should be raised is about the
participation of stakeholders in the overall summit process. I definitely
would agree that it would be more logical to organize this process in two
sectors: governments and civil society, including private sector. 

Looking forward seeing you in December, 

Kind Regards! 

Victor 

At 13:42 16-11-2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Victor --
>
>This kind of blackballing of mainstream press figures is hard to take. I
>don't know the gentleman in question. He was nominated by Jacques
>Briquemont, on behalf of EBU, which is interesting to note since the EBU is
>made up of public and state TV systems. Jacques' other suggestions were all
>from other public systems, and I presume he included O Globo in an effort
>to be balanced by nominating someone from private TV. 
>
>I also presume he included the O Globo man because he is also scheduled to
>be at the World Electronic Media Forum in Geneva.
>
>If "civil society" is only about people who come from the margins, rather
>than the mainstream, that is a gross distortion  of world reality. I for
>one have tried as much as possible to be accomodating of what are, in the
>final analysis, relatively marginal concerns. This is because I strongly
>believe in freedom of expression -- the right of everyone to get their say.
>
>But too many people seem to think that "civil society" is nothing but
>advocates and militants of groups opposed to anything and everything that
>they perceive as being related to the Establishment. There is much more to
>world civil society than the advocacy groups that have worked so hard to
>take control of the WSIS process. Wanting to exclude a major voice like O
>Globo is not a display of an inclusive or democratic spirit. Quite the
>opposite.
>
>The community media movement wants respect and support from the mainstream.
>Fine. Why not? But when it then turns around and tries to suggest that it
>is the end-all and be-all of the world of media, is it surprising that
>there should be resistance to such displays of militant exclusiveness ?
>
>The Media Caucus can only have legitimacy if it makes an honest effort to
>reflect world media as a whole. If it means only to reflect a movement that
>at this point barely exists, relative to the whole, then very serious
>questions are raised.
>
>Despite of, or maybe even because of, the tensions within the Caucus, it
>was very different from the other caucuses -- most of which have been under
>the thumb of a very partisan, politicized world vision. But if there is no
>place at all in the WSIS civil society process for the vast majority of
>journalists and journalistic enterprises in the press world, then the Media
>Caucus is reduced to being just another marginal interest trying to lobby
>itself into disproportionate power that does not reflect its real weight in
>the world.
>
>The whole summit risks becoming marginal and of limited interest if it is
>so little reflective of the real world. If we can't maintain a small corner
>of the process that does reflect realities, then why bother? If there is
>nobody in the Caucus left to voice mainstream concerns, then its entire
>legitimacy as a spokesman for the media will quickly be tarnished.
>
>I know, Victor, that you most probably won't appreciate what I've said
>above. But it seems to me that a reality check is salutary. Because a press
>enterprise is successful is no reason to try to silence it in the summit
>process. If you were to succeed in that, you would only have succeeded in
>delegitimizing the whole process in the eyes of the world press. Surely,
>you can't believe that's in your ultimate interest. Democracy can't be a
>one-way street open to just one set of sensitivities.
>
>Best regards, Rony Koven
>_______________________________________________
>Media mailing list
>Media at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/media
>
Victor van Oeyen
Coordinación Departamento de Investigación ERBOL-ALER

Telefono (trabajo/work - ERBOL)  591+  2 - 2203650 - 2204011
Fax:                             		 591+  2 - 2203888
OJO: NUEVO (domicilio/home-La Paz)  591+  2 - 2790873
G.S.M. (Bolivia)	 	 591+  7 - 2001198
G.S.M. (Europa)		   31 - 6 - 20239666