The development of a social agenda in the field of communications is one of the challenges of the World Social Forum (WSF), as part of the on-going process of searching for and constructing alternatives. Since the 2002 WSF, ALAI, together with other groups committed to democratising communication, have been putting forward a proposal to meet this goal, with two core areas of concern. The first concern responds to the fact that communication, being a cutting edge industry and sector of financial speculation, is at the centre of the very economic model that is being questioned here. For this same reason it is an area where social resistance and the proposal of alternatives become strategic. The second concern relates to the need for the process of social coordination itself to establish mechanisms of intercommunication and information flow in order to enable the building of bridges between different sectors and struggles, to raise awareness among new social actors and also to gain opinion spaces that can counterbalance the hegemony of dominant thinking. With digitalisation the different components of communication are increasingly interrelated. Therefore it is hard to understand or define strategies with respect to media without situating them in the broader context of communication, since the dividing lines between media, electronic networks and the cultural entertainment or software industries are becoming more and more blurred. The development of communication has run hand in hand with the processes of globalisation, due to the need to communicate across distance and geographic barriers. From the telegraph to today's modern satellites, the majority of these technological inventions were initially reserved for the purposes of economic, political or military power. Little by little their use was extended till it became generalised. In the last decade, the changes have been so rapid that even interpersonal relationships themselves are increasingly taking place through electronic channels, while news that we receive through the media mix the local with the global or to be more exact, can be from any part of the globe, even when dealing with local issues. As communication is increasingly intermediated through technology, the conditions to institutionalise control over it have been created. In practice this evolution has meant a double tendency, on the one hand there are greater opportunities for participation in communication processes, although this possibility is limited to those who have access to the necessary resources, knowledge and technologies. On the other hand, the control over communication channels and media has become more concentrated. Together with globalisation, given the increasingly strategic character of communication, a powerful transnational industry has emerged in this sector that is going through a process of mergers and quasi monopolisation, making it one of the main sectors of the globalised economy. Media concentration has had a strong impact on the speculative financial realm, meaning that the sense of the industry itself as synonymous with production is being lost. The stock exchange boom at the end of the last century, fuelled by overinvestment, exaggerated expectations and irresponsible business management around the dot com or mobile internet services, was followed by a chain of bankruptcies with World Com in the lead, that left the principle of communication as a public service in a state of oblivion. Moreover this industry is setting itself above and beyond any possibility of control by democratic bodies. This is serious, because this industry not only is owner of the channels through which messages travel, but is also grabbing a growing portion of the production and dissemination of content, undermining plurality of sources and diversity of perspectives. A result of these tendencies is a progressive expropriation of the faculty of peoples to participate in the processes of social communication that give shape to their respective societies, with very serious consequences, since if there is not democracy within communication there cannot be democracy within society. Today if we hold a range of communications options that are much greater than in previous times, these options are increasingly standardised and controlled by an increasingly small number of mega corporations whose interests are essentially convergent both among themselves, and with other large corporate sectors. We could practically speak of an implicit consensus of the media world comparable to the Washington consensus at the economic level. In certain critical situations this becomes manifest even in a grotesque way, as is happening at the moment in Venezuela where the dispute between the different television channels has practically disappeared to project a single discourse whose techniques have nothing to envy brainwashing. The Information Society A new dimension of communications issues is the discourse around the "information society" which is presented to us as the new paradigm of the future society. This discourse assigns a causal role to technology in the social order and situates it as the motor of development, ignoring any consideration of social conflict. The force which changes history would no longer be social struggle, but technology. Next December, a new UN Summit will take place: the World Summit on the Information society. Its theme is not, as in other summits, a specific social issue, but nothing less than the society that is to be developed with the support of new information and communication technologies. The orientation of this summit raises great concerns since what is urgent at present is to debate what kind of technological development is required to respond to social needs, yet the tendency that is being imposed is a focus orientated by technological determinism. How else can one explain that the organisation of the summit has been put in the hands of the International Telecommunications Union, an eminently technical body. Some governments, among them that of the United States, propose that the summit should conjugate two central themes, one is security in electronic networks, for which they are proposing the signature of an international convention. The theme raises concerns, since beyond data security itself, it may have implications for the security of people and free access to information. In the name of the struggle against terrorism the US has already eliminated several civil liberties in their own country, affecting the right to privacy of personal communications, and they are pressing other countries to do the same. While these new technologies have great advantages for socialising and sharing information they can also be lent with equal ease to authoritarian projects of surveillance and control. The other theme is the development of infrastructure in the so called developing countries, that they are seeing more than anything as an opportunity to facilitate the penetration of transnational telecommunications operations in our countries. The agenda of the big corporations with the aim of developing global electronic commerce in goods and services is to ensure an adequate political framework, that among other things contemplates the liberalisation of telecommunications, the protection of intellectual property rights and privacy of business communication. With present tendencies, the future of the internet itself could be at stake. This issue is a challenge to citizen spaces such as this, since we cannot ignore the fact that without the Internet, the World Social Forum and our international networks would not be what they are. We need to remember that the character of an open, public and non commercial space that has so far characterised much of the Internet is mainly due to the fact that it was developed, after its military origins, mainly in the academic realm and that of civil society. Commercialisation came later and although it has generated great expectations for the potential market it implies, so far commercial projects do not easily fit into a medium where information flows and is shared freely. But we cannot take it for granted that the Internet will continue to be this way. It is part of the dispute over meaning and spaces and it is becoming a new area of social struggle. That is what we grasped as women when we organised to facilitate intercommunication via electronic networks in the context of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. From 1993, understanding that beyond the UN event itself, it was an opportunity to build our own networks at a regional and world level, we proposed that appropriating new technologies and developing them for our own needs was a struggle for the empowerment of women. Citizen Responses We are therefore facing a complex panorama, that requires new social responses, but we are not starting from scratch. Different groups concerned by this theme have been for some years affirming that communication is a basic human right that upholds other rights and a strategic aspect for the development of a more just, democratic and egalitarian society. Around these proposals have converged alternative and community media, researchers, developers of free software opposed to the Microsoft monopoly, education and training initiatives, human rights groups, women's organisations defending a gender perspective in communication and many others, who have found spaces of dialogue and joint action. This has made it possible to visualise that communication issues today are so integrated and complex that no isolated citizen response is enough and that the only viable way out is to join forces and complement one another. Following the new logic of social movements, the specific contribution of each organisation, each particular struggle, and each institution takes on importance above all through their linking with others to construct a common agenda. In this framework, the question is not only creating solidarity, but also how these different expressions of resistance can be enriched through the experiences and the strengths of others. The challenge is how to join forces and not subtract from them, how to empower each other mutually, within a framework of respect for diversity. This implies communication and as we understand it, it is what gives its true sense to communication; that is, not just transmitting messages, but producing a communications fabric that articulates networks and builds communities. But looking beyond those of us who work in the communications field, it concerns all those movements and civic groups that aspire to build that Other Possible World, which will not be viable if communication is not democratised. For that reason we are proposing the need for a social agenda in communication linked to other social struggles present in this forum. In this sense, the World Social Forum is a space that can catalyse connections and contribute to creating the necessary synergies. And in turn, for the different social actors such as the farmer movement, indigenous, afro, ecologists, women, youth and other movements, this proposal implies adopting definitions to effectively incorporate this struggle within their platforms and programs. Expressions of Resistance Developing a social agenda in communication implies approaching this issue through its multiple facets, seeking to decipher its logic in order to be able to identify the most strategic aspects. It also implies reinforcing and linking the struggles and initiatives that are already acting at different levels in communication, establishing a common grounding and goals and seeking to generate a force of opinion and pressure capable of modifying the orientation of development of the communication sector. It also means appropriating the resources, tools, knowledge and abilities to be able to produce a different communication. The expressions of the movement of communication resistance are far too diverse and numerous to be able to mention all of them here, but I propose to underline a few, and also to recall certain challenges that, due to the rapid changes taking place in this field, are not always visible. a) Alternative Media Concerning media: in recent decades, a number of initiatives have arisen involving independent, alternative, popular or community media -their self-definition varies- that have given expression to people's creativity, presented different perspectives and voices, and questioned the reigning economic and social model. It is the expression of an emerging movement of resistance to the dominant system of communication, which is vital for the development of independent thought and active social movements. One of the obstacles they face is the tendency, sometimes present even in social movements themselves, to dismiss alternative media as being marginal. This position, based on a quantitative parameter of judgement, ignores that what defines the "alternative" is not quantity, but the sense of process linked to social interest, in contrast to the mercantile logic. Undoubtedly, there exists a considerable difference of size, weight and influence of corporate media with relation to alternative or independent media, and we are not unaware of the importance of struggling for space within the mass media; but it is important to visualise that this difference is due above all to a highly unequal balance of power, and that redressing that balance is one of the central challenges of the struggle against neoliberal globalisation and the dictatorship of the market, and a fundamental condition of democracy, since it implies defending the right to have plural sources of information, independent of the interests of economic and political power. b) Pressure on commercial media Another expression of resistance, with quite a long history, have been pressure groups that have been questioning the way that the media present reality. A significant example comes from the women's movement that early on identified the role of media dissemination in perpetuating discriminatory values and attitudes, as well as their potential for changing mentalities. Beyond the question of sexist language and negative and stereotyped images of women in the media, they have denounced the fact that women have been made invisible as subjects of opinion or actors of social change. Other emerging movements have also appropriated these banners against invisibility and discrimination, such as the indigenous and afro movements, or the gay and lesbian movement. Another level of action is the defence of consumers of media products and content. From the optic of the media market, it is only in our quality as consumers that we might have power of influence over the media, (by touching their weak point -profit- whether it is profit made from sale of products or of publicity). However, due to the isolation of consumers, each one alone in front of their TV screen or magazine, this "power" is only exerted in an individual form, through the option of buying or the remote control. If this power were to begin to be exercised in a collective form, the possibilities for impact would be much greater, as has been seen in some examples of campaigns, chain letters, pressure or boycotts of media. The creation of media watchdogs is another form of pressure on the media, which implicitly involves being more than just consumers, but vigilant citizens, observing whether the media are accomplishing their role of social service and following codes of ethics in tune with these functions. Such watchdogs are going to take on a particular relevance in Latin America and particularly in countries that have recently installed governments identified with the people's concerns and interests. At this level we can also mention the initiatives of media literacy which are fundamental to form a population that is critical towards media content; also those journalistic associations that have taken on the defence of their professional work as a social service, among others. c) Legislative Action and Public Policy Creating one's own media and combating the excesses of distortion and manipulation of information are important actions, but are not sufficient, if we do not also address the conditions and ground rules of how communications function. Indispensable aspects vary from actions in favour of anti-monopoly laws, to pushing for policies of promoting plurality in communications. How can there be democratic communications in countries where it is prohibited to create community radios, or where one single network is allowed to own hundreds of media outlets? On the level of human rights, the defence of the right to communicate is a central banner of the movement for the democratisation of communication. This movement considers that, beyond the rights of information and freedom of expression already internationally recognised, today we need a broader framework which recognises that communication is an interactive process fundamental for the organisation of society and participation in democratic process. The formulation of the content of the right to communicate and its subsequent consecration in legal instruments are aspects still pending. A serious obstacle for the regulation of the communications industry is the fact that commercial media -which have a strong capacity for pressure on political authorities- resist any form of regulation. With the argument of press freedom, they defend the idea that the best regulation of communications is the one that does not exist. These same media nonetheless submit to the so-called "laws" of the market without questioning whether this does not also violate freedom of expression and the right of people to be adequately informed from plural sources. Adopting a legislative and regulatory framework that restricts monopolies in the field of media, or implementing policies that encourage expression of plurality and cultural diversity, does not imply restricting freedom of expression, but rather guaranteeing the conditions for it. We might add that the US government defends its transnationalised communications industry with pressure on other countries so that, in the name of the free flow of information, they will raise any restriction on its operations, such as measures to protect cultural sovereignty or the defence of strategic resources in this area. But beyond the regulatory aspects, state policies could also have a proactive character. For example, if the goal is to broaden and deepen democracy, policies could be put in place to encourage full participation of citizens, plurality, creativity and the expression of cultural diversity and the retrieval of the sense of public space. In this framework, the proposals and initiatives that stand out are those that attempt to articulate and develop a public communications system. That is, one that is not subordinated to the state -much less to the government in power- nor to private commercial initiative; a system orientated to encouraging the broadest possible social participation in its management and activities, in view of strengthening the character of public service of social communication, so as to constitute an expression of general interest and of political, social, cultural and ethnic plurality. d) Training for Communication Democratising communications and the media also has implications for the development of skills and capacities, so that social actors themselves can be subjects of communication. Otherwise, the demand for democratising spaces of expression would be reduced to the response that the mainstream media have given, with the chat shows that abound on television. For social actors to take on communication, it means appropriating the codes, techniques and skills, and above all making it part of their programs, development strategies and action. That implies assuming, as the landless movement in Brazil proposes, that every action has a communications component. e) Campaign for the Right to Communicate In the face of the development of new technologies and the discourse on the information society, the debates around the World Summit on the Information Society have catalysed a process of interaction among citizen groups concerned by these issues that are putting forward an approach based on human rights and human development. It is in this framework that the Campaign for Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS) has emerged at the global level. It was publicly launched at the 2002 World Social Forum, on the initiative of international networks and communication bodies, with the aim of raising awareness among the population on this issue and incorporating a much broader range of social actors concerned by the theme. CRIS presents a vision of the information society based on principles of "transparency, diversity, participation and social and economic justice and inspired by gender equity among different cultural and regional perspectives". This campaign has launched an open invitation particularly to social movements and organisations of the South to join it. To conclude, constructing a social agenda in communication implies involving the different expressions of resistance that I have mentioned -and many others that, due to time limitations, I have not developed on-, in generating a current of opinion and action in this field. It also means that the different movements and groups assume it as an inseparable part of their programs of action. Above all, it is not just the sum of particular struggles, but the challenge is to unleash a process of interconnections and debate, so as to identify the fundamental aspects towards which our different endeavours need to flow jointly. And this is because the democratisation of communication and the media is looking to be one of the main social struggles of this century. * Paper presented by: Sally Burch, ALAI. Conference on Media and Globalisation. World Social Forum in Porto Alegre. 23 – 28 January 2003