Part 2

The recent changes in the structure, content and character of the media have had a far more profound effect in information terms than the changes in new technologies. The “other information revolution” is rapid liberalization, particularly of print and radio. Trends are inconsistent and obviously vary from country to country, but perhaps the most important trends shaping the media landscape over the last five years have been threefold:

First, liberalization and commercialization of media over the last decade in many parts of the world has led to a much more democratic, dynamic, crowded and complex media landscape. This opens up new spaces for public dialogue and civic engagement, particularly in radio. Such liberalization has also created more commercial, advertising-driven media where information and power within developing countries create a growing separation between rich and poor, urban and rural.

Second, growing concentration of media ownership—at the global, regional and national levels—is squeezing out independent media players and threatening to replace government controlled concentration of media power with commercially and politically-oriented ownership.

Third, developing countries are increasingly, reliant on powerful northern news providers, such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Reuters and Cable News Network (CNN), for their international news and information, particularly on stories of globalization, trade and international politics. In newly democratic countries in the South, and particularly within civil society, there is a renewed and growing frustration at the Southern media's dependence on what are perceived to be biased, or at least fundamentally Northern-centric, news organizations for international coverage and the setting of news agendas.

This other information revolution, occurring over the past decade, is complex and sometimes contradictory. New freedoms, a blossoming of public dialogue and debate, a resurgent community radio movement, a proliferation of channels and titles across all media, a dynamic interplay between old and new technologies, and the sometimes rapid, sometimes agonizingly slow loosening of government control over information have all characterized this revolution. Despite this, when viewed from the perspective of development, a growing crisis may be emerging; a crisis marked by a collapse—or sometimes stillbirth—of public interest media.

A new competitive market among media has brought innovation, dynamism and often greatly enhanced democratic debate leading to profound social change. But while the proliferation of media in the wake of liberalization in many countries was initially marked by an upsurge of public discourse on a wide range of issues, evidence is growing that, as competition intensifies, content is increasingly being shaped by the demands of advertisers and sponsors who pay for the newly liberalized media. Pressure to remain profitable can result in increasingly urban-biased, consumer-oriented media with diminishing interest in, or concern for, people living in poverty.

Communication for development organizations and practitioners are beginning to adjust to the new environment. DJs are becoming as important as journalists in bringing development issues to public attention. Indeed, journalism as a profession is dramatically changing and concepts such as “development journalism” are under siege in some countries. Journalists who themselves want to explore and investigate development stories—particularly those from outside the capitals—are finding it more and more difficult to get either resources or attention from their editors.

Never a rewarding and always a difficult profession, investigative journalism may become less attractive, particularly when such investigation focuses on the unglamorous poor. There is little incentive and decreasing inclination among many journalists to focus on development issues since this is an unwise career move. With no paying market for poverty-related content, and particularly for politically sensitive reporting, incentives for journalists, editors, publishers and owners to prioritize it are also declining.

Worldwide, journalists continue to risk their lives in the pursuit of truth, in the interests of the public. But in environments that are politically and economically hostile, how long can journalists be expected to operate as crusaders when they have limited support in their newsrooms and face constant danger? Journalism training is also under pressure, particularly with a public interest remit. Journalism schools in some developing countries are finding that graduates are as often snapped up by public relations and advertising companies as they are by news organizations.

The former state monopoly broadcasters and media organizations that retain the greatest capacity to reach rural and marginalized populations face intense competition from commercial organizations as governments reduce budgets. As a consequence, some are in crisis. In addition to shifts to more commercial and consumer-oriented content, there are reports of cutting language services, particularly of minority languages, and of transmitter capacity. In this sense, the digital divide exists in a much broader, deeper and perhaps more fundamental information division between urban and rural, rich and poor.

Many development agencies have responded to the new commercialized media market by actively entering it, and some of the most consistent customers for some radio stations are development organizations and donors. Income from development organizations—in the form of payment for sports or sponsorship of programs—is critical for some stations. Fears are growing that an artificial market is being created and that the public are receiving information determined by whichever organization—development or otherwise—has the most money, rather than based on any news or public interest criteria.

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.