Part One

In 2000, the World Bank carried out the largest-ever survey to determine what people living in poverty said they wanted and needed most. The most common response was that people’s first priority was not money. Instead, what they needed is a voice—a say—in decisions that affect them.

Most debates over the role of the media in development focus on strategies to secure media coverage of poverty-related issues. This is critical, but the extent of coverage is not the only factor. The extent to which the perspectives of those living in poverty are reflected in the media is becoming equally important.

Nearly all current development strategies are rooted in two central assumptions: ownership and accountability PRSPs have been weakened by lack of ownership, and public discourse. Such dialogue cannot happen without an engaged, informed, proactive media.

Analysis of media treatment of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers—the extent to which they have been reported in the media, the extent to which media have provided a forum for public debate, the extent to which those who have most to win or lose from a public debate have their perspectives aired in the media—has repeatedly shown a ludicrously low or poor level of coverage. In general, analysis suggests: 

•  Very low level of awareness of PRSP processes within media of PRSP countries;
•  Disengaged and formulaic reporting—when it occurs at all;
•  Lack of technical skills among journalists to report on economic development and   issues specific to sectors such as health, education and agriculture;
•  Poor relationships between government and journalists hindering investigative and     strong coverage of PRSP related issues;
•  Lack of interaction between NGOs/CSOs and media that, if it did occur, might lead to enhanced media understanding and engagement;
•  Media outlets are increasingly demanding payment in exchange for coverage of development issues;
• Urban bias of media; and
•  Failure to adjust strategies that engage media to new media environments.

Amartya Sen wrote that famines don’t occur in democracies, in large part because the media provide an early-warning system and a mechanism for ensuring pressure for government action. The importance of the media for these and many other reasons is clear.

One of the central conclusions of the report of the Commission for Africa was that, because so many conditions were imposed on development assistance, developing country governments felt more accountable to western donors than they did to their own citizens. The importance of an independent, informed, engaged media in helping inform citizens so that they can hold their governments accountable is central. If media fail to hold government to account, perhaps the last, best hope for making a real change to the lives of three billion people on our planet is lost. If this strategy of the big push for making poverty history fails now, the opportunity is likely to be lost for generations.

A Consortium-sponsored meeting of bilateral and multilateral development agencies held in Bellagio, Italy, in 2004 concluded that media and communication support strategies “remain a low priority on development agendas, undermining achievement of the MDGs.” In general, support to the sector is incoherent, non-strategic and woefully short of the level of priority that the analysis presented in this and other papers implies is needed.

Most donors are simply not well equipped to support independent media and are, arguably, becoming less so. There are many reasons for this.

First, most bilateral, and many multilateral donors, have undergone rapid decentralization.For a sector like media, with little overall institutional support, commitment to media support ends up depending heavily on the individual interests of program officers in donor country desks. Plus, there’s rapid staff turnover within development agencies. For a sector that is so fast moving, complex and desperately requiring strategic consistency and urgency, such turnover is an acute constraint to effective action.

Second, donors are increasingly channeling funds through governments in the form of budget support. It makes no sense to channel support for media that promote public accountability of governments through the same governments who are meant to become more accountable. No government could be trusted with such a task. Yet most donors are less and less equipped to provide substantial media support outside such a government structure. 

Third, even when donors are able to provide funds directly to media-support agencies, either internationally or nationally, they are open to accusations that support to the media sector in any given country is motivated -- not out of a desire to foster greater accountability in that country, or greater participation -- but to further the donor nation’s policy agendas.

Fourth, while most donors work in the name of international cooperation, many of their donor policies are designed to foster competition, sometimes unnecessarily, between like-minded organizations.

Fifth, donors have increasingly moved to evaluation mechanisms like results-based management. These insist that quantitative indicators within short time frames are used to assess impact. Many media support initiatives, particularly those aimed at empowering people living in poverty, take time to show results, and the results—while often compelling—are less amenable to quantitative evaluation. Number crunching does not mix well with much media support.

Sixth, development agendas are notorious for embracing fads and fashions. Even when donors commit themselves to a support policy in an area like media, interest is often lost as some new crisis or issue emerges.

Seventh, most development institutions—governmental and non governmental—are often more preoccupied with using the media to publicize what they do or say, or using the media to  advocate for the issues which most concern them, than with supporting media to increase coverage of poverty-related issues.

Eighth, the funding process itself can be difficult. Media-support organizations seek  to develop strategies according to the stated needs and assessments of their partners, stakeholders, boards and, above all, those they are seeking to support. They then find ways of articulating their strategic priorities so that they resonate with the strategic priorities of donor organizations. Donors, in turn, set priorities for funding, and therefore  develop their own strategic priorities, finding those best suited to implement. Few media-support organizations see themselves mainly as implementers of donor funding, but donors are often forced to see them as such. Such dynamics can cause frustration and incoherence.

Ninth, donors can find media support contentious and difficult. It is one of the most political elements of development, and donor and other agencies retain memories of bitter and difficult debates in the past on supporting media development.

Finally and most obviously, the value and importance of media and communication in underpinning other development strategies remains largely unrecognized and consequently the status of this field is marginal within most development agencies.

Excerpts from James Deane’s speech “Why the Media Matter: Ensuring the World’s Poorest People Have a Say” at the Global Forum for Media Development, which took place in Amman, Jordan, In October 2005, James Deane is the Consortium’s managing director, strategy.