[Media Caucus] Media paragraph in CS benchmarks

[Steve Buckley]

Dear Rony

I am ready to accept that you had "no particular intention" to change the 
media caucus position but I would not have raised this matter if it was not 
a serious point. The media caucus agreed position on state-controlled media 
is a call to "transform state-controlled media into editorially independent 
organizations".

I am re-reading your text as requested. Depending on how you interpret 
"and/or" your text presents three options. One resembles the agreed 
position. Two are new. We can compare the options by removing the text in 
square brackets below:

(a) "state-controlled media at the national level should be transformed 
into editorially independent public service media organisations [and/or 
privatised]; or
(b) "state-controlled media at the national level should be [transformed 
into editorially independent public service media organisations and/ or] 
privatised; or.
(c) "state-controlled media at the national level should be transformed 
into editorially independent public service media organisations and [or] 
privatised.

Perhaps I was a little harsh in my portrayal of your position but it seems 
to me that however this is read it is saying that "privatisation" in and of 
itself is equally as desirable a reform as transformation into "independent 
public service media organisations" and from this I interpreted the text to 
mean private ownership is preferable to public ownership, hence my precis 
that it opposes public ownership.

However it is read, it significantly weakens the value attributed to forms 
of public ownership which are either independent of the state (eg community 
media) or at least independent of government editorial interference. The 
media caucus has not promoted private ownership over other forms and it 
should not start now.

Contrary, to what you say about media reform, private broadcasting more 
typically emerges, through the allocation of new spectrum for broadcast, 
rather than from the privatisation of existing services. Where states have 
a monopoly they rarely carry more than two or three channels and so there 
is plenty of spare spectrum for private broadcasting to become established 
once the airwaves are opened up.

So typically there are two reform trajectories. One being to open up the 
airwaves to new broadcasters - private and community. The other to reform 
state broadcast services to ensure editorial independence and public 
service principles.

Specific proposals for "privatisation" of state broadcasting have not been 
a demand in any media caucus text that I have seen from any of the previous 
Prepcoms so I firmly recommend that we do not introduce it now, 
intentionally or unintentionally.

Finally, on a question of procedure, the benchmarks document drafting team 
requested input from all civil society caucus groups. Tracey was asked for 
input on the "non-negotiables" from the media caucus and insisted that 
Article 19 be incorporated in full, consequently it was, in the opening 
section on human rights.

As convenor of the community media group I drafted a text on community 
media that was fully consistent with previous civil society priorities and 
non-negotiables, if somewhat abbreviated. No one has raised any concerns 
with this text apart from some minor friendly drafting improvements which I 
think were incorporated.

Regards

Steve



At 05:08 19/11/03 -0500, Ronald Koven wrote:
>Dear Steve --
>
>It was not a "clever move." There was no particular intention. I didn't
>think I was saying anything particularly original. It flowed logically from
>the established positions, as far as I was concerned. and Tracey and Wolf
>apparently thought so, too.
>
>I was simply trying to write a text that couldn't be refused by
>governments. It also conceded, for example, that governments have the right
>to information services and the means to deliver them. This was in response
>to several governmental objections that Media Caucus positions would have
>banned the Congressional Journal or Hansard's.
>
>As I tried to say, transformation of State media into public service AND
>private ones is absolutely the standard model now in practically all of the
>ex-Communist world.
>
>I think you're the one making the "clever move" by making a mountain out of
>this mole hill, and I don't view it as a great display of intellectual
>honesty. You clearly distorted the meaning of the text, and I asked you to
>reread it, but you then went on instead to ask for square brackets. I have
>half a mind to do the same on your text about community media, which you
>submitted with absolutely no consultation and which had no more standing
>than the one I submitted in all good faith.
>
>I'm not angry with you. I'm sad that honest dialogue has become difficult.
>
>Best, Rony
>_______________________________________________
>Media mailing list
>Media at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/media



------------------------------------------------------------
            steve at commedia.org.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
         http://www.commedia.org.uk
------------------------------------------------------------