To a social agenda in communication
25/01/2002
- Opinión
Focus and Scope
The new spiral of violence and lies that abruptly burst upon the world
following the attacks in the US on September 11, has formed an adverse
scene for democratic struggle. This adversity obliges such struggles to
step up their efforts, not only for peace and justice, but also for truth.
This means challenging "excesses" in the manipulation and distortion of
information, as well as the foundations and conditions that allow this to
happen. Similar concerns are what has motivated the fight for
democratization of the media during recent decades.
The WSF, as an networked social process, appears an ideal and legitimate
space to catalyze energy and foster the emergence of a social movement
under the banner of democratization of communications. With this premise in
mind, we propose that this conference should focus its attention on
outlining a SOCIAL AGENDA IN COMMUNICATION. Being a cross-cutting theme
that concerns all human relations, the important thing is to situate the
central points for definition of strategies and aims, in order to build and
give impetus to this social movement.
The Issues
The democratization of communications is above all a question of
citizenship and social justice. It is framed in the human right to
information and communication. In other words, it is inherent to democratic
life of society itself, whose vitality depends on having a duly informed
and deliberative citizenry, able to participate and assume co-
responsibility in decision- making on public issues.
In recent times, however, this democratic aspiration has been seriously
constrained by neoliberal hegemony, which has put the market at the centre
of social organization, thus attempting to confiscate democracies, and
annulling the meaning of citizenship itself. Moreover, communication has
become a key support for this dynamic; so much so that, with support of the
accelerated development of technologies and techniques, the powers that be
aim to transform it into a paradigm of the future, under the formula of the
"information society" or some similar figure.
It is important to point out that there are two central components at the
basis of the development of information and communication technologies. One
of them is digitization, that allows the conversion of all types of
information -data, text, sound, image, video, codes, computer programs-
into computer language, with a codification system based on a binary digit
sequence. The other is related to the extraordinary progress of electronic
components: semiconductors, integrated circuits, transistors and
microprocessors.
On the basis of that common language, the creation of protocols that allow
for sharing information among computers has been possible, which, when
integrated with the telecommunications systems (that today include powerful
and integrated satellites) and networking technology, allow for the
transmission of any type of message using a single channel, thus forming
the basis of the new communication and information technologies. This
integration of technologies sustains the logic of technological
convergence, that is a fundamental characteristic of ICTs. That is, it is a
multipurpose technology in terms of required infrastructure and channels,
which gives it a flexible character. This is also expressed in the area of
services.
The main expression of such technological developments for the common
person is, without doubt, the Internet, and it is not by chance that it has
become the friendliest face to sell economic globalization.
In practice, communications have not just undergone substantial internal
changes (subordination of the word to the image, live transmissions,
multimedia, etc.), but they have also become one of the most dynamic
sectors with deep repercussions in all realms of societal life.
Communications appear today as one of the cutting-edge sectors of the
economy, both because of their profitability and because they appear to
hold the key to the so-called "new economy". Therefore, in the heat of
economic globalization, it is the sector that has proved the most virulent
in expanding business concentration and transnationalization, a fact which
has resulted in the emergence of veritable "moguls", with ramifications in
all corners of the globe.
These megacorporations have been formed through the fusion of print media,
television chains, cable television, film, software, telecommunications,
entertainment, tourism and others, such that the products and services of
their different branches are able to mutually publicize one another, in the
search for broadening their respective market niches. Today, just seven
corporations dominate the world communications market; if checks on this
oligopolic logic are not established, tomorrow they may be even less.
Since it is a global project, this process has been accompanied by the
imposition, on the one hand, of policies of liberalization and
deregulation, especially in the area of telecommunications, designed to
eliminate any state regulation or arena that might interfere with
transnational expansion, and on the other hand, of norms -such as the novel
interpretation of intellectual property rights- oriented to safeguarding
their interests and to definitively ensuring that information and cultural
production are treated as simple commodities.
Under the cover of neoliberal dogma, a highly concentrated media and
cultural industry has taken shape, that is governed by exclusively
commercial criteria, where what counts is profitability over and above the
public interest, and the consumer paradigm before one of citizens. It is
therefore not surprising that the outlook for the future is one of abundant
information that will be free, but banal, although spectacularized by the
media, while quality information will only be accessible to those who are
in a position to pay.
This thrust is so forceful that in its passage it has practically swept
away media of a public character, privatizing most and forcing the rest to
become commercialized, thus eroding their role as spaces to feed into a
broad and pluralistic debate, open to the different perspectives, ideas and
cultural expressions present in society.
In the midst of these developments, the media have also become a crucial
arena for shaping the public space and the citizenry itself, -crucial, in
the sense that although it is not a new phenomenon, it is an intense and
substantive one- due both to the weight they bring to bear on the
definition of public agendas and their capacity to establish the legitimacy
of certain debates. The predominance of the media is such, with respect to
other venues of social mediation -parties, unions, churches, educational
establishments, etc.-, that these can only prevail by continually recurring
to the media.
In this context, there is a real danger of the "dictatorship of the market"
becoming consolidated through the enormous power it has concentrated, in
the realm of communications, to win people's "minds and hearts".
Indeed, as the monopoly to transmit ideas, information and culture expands,
what we observe is that, in the media, plurality and diversity are
progressively disregarded, due to the systematic narrowing of perspectives
expressed in them. This "comparative advantage" resulting from the
concentration of such resources, has become the strategic pillar for the
ideological advancement of neoliberal globalization.
In spite of the pressure exerted on countries around the world to make them
open their markets (foremost, that of communication), the progress of
globalization in this field has been undoubtedly less than that achieved in
the ideological sphere, where "single thought", to use Ramonet's phrase,
has caused great damage. As a result, the neoliberal premise that the
market is the only entity capable of organizing the distribution of
resources has spread with force, not leaving room for the intervention or
regulation by the State. This implies a world where "freedom" is measured
by the absence of obstacles for participants in the market.
In this framework, the discourse on "free press" converted into "free
enterprise" has recovered space. We should recall that the fathers of
neoliberal thinking associated free press with the preservation of public
life beyond the State, with the hypothesis that freedom of opinion must be
guaranteed, with an independent press as the main means to express the
diversity of points of view and create an informed public opinion watchful
of abuses of state power. In this line of thought, it was taken for granted
that free enterprise was the basis for freedom of expression, considering
that economic laissez-faire was the natural counterpart for individual
freedom of thought and expression.
Its concern with freedom of expression, in a historical context marked by
absolutist governments, referred to the threat of state intervention in the
public sphere. Thus, it is specially dishonest or tricky to use this
premise as a shield to cover up the larger threat to freedom of expression
that we presently face: the establishment of commercial media monopolies.
Commercial media measure their success in terms of the profits they make on
two fronts, those resulting from the sale of products to the audience and
those from the sale of audience to advertisers, which have nothing to do
with the public interest.
In fact, billing advertisers prevails in this double profit-oriented game,
to the point where publicity has become the factor that determines
programming guidelines and the success criteria of communication media as a
whole. Thus, alongside globalization of the media, the dissemination of
messages that promote consumerism dominates the field, subordinating
cultural differences to the predominance of the life style based on
consumption that characterizes Northern urban centers. It is a universe
where there is virtually no room for the public interest, since advertisers
do not like programs of this type because little or nothing is "sold"
through them.
With these developments, one of the injured parties is journalism, as its
profession -with the concentration operating in the sector- has been
displaced by the entertainment logic guided by "light" and frivolous
concerns, to the extent that the current dominating "winning" formula
nowadays is: sex, sensationalism and violence. Under these new parameters,
the search for truth, constantly hailed by the western press, is becoming a
good purpose diluted by market imperatives, in whose perspective, consumers
rather than citizens are those who matter. And in order to reach consumers,
the priority has become to obtain standard products for every audience,
beyond its social strata, country or culture. Since business is business,
this priority has also been extended to the information sphere. Thus, the
amount of commercial data and propaganda the media offers us is gradually
more overwhelming from day to day, while information decreases and
deteriorates.
Even more serious, this trend, that is now supported by the so-called
"entertainment industry" and of "leisure services", appears as a serious
threat to the cultural diversity of the planet. Its transnational expansion
erodes local and traditional cultures, insofar as it promotes basically and
in a subjugating manner the life style and cultural values of economically
and politically dominant powers, particularly of the United States.
Under the lens of the global market, "cultural diversity" is now being
reduced to offering a range of products and services to satisfy consumers'
"tastes" in the broadest possible way, who -additionally- are
systematically monitored (even with resources from espionage itself) by
specialists in establishing "market niches".
As we have gained awareness of the risks of biodiversity degradation, it is
now time to do so on the risk represented by large communication
conglomerates in the field of cultural diversity. That is, we need to take
care of the information and cultural environment, in the same way that
taking care of the environment has become imperative, as a guarantee for
the future.
The course of this tendency can only be restrained and modified through
forceful, sustained and proactive citizen action. Paths have been opened by
a multiplicity of initiatives on different planes. Collectives that
endeavor to guarantee universal access and effective appropriation of new
information and communications technologies; exchange networks that develop
open source software; concertation bodies for advocacy in decision-making
spheres in defense of information and communication rights; entities
dedicated to monitoring and implementing critical action in the face of
sexist, racist or exclusionary media content; education programs designed
to develop a critical reading of the media (media literacy); user
associations that seek to influence media programming; independent,
alternative, community and other media, that are committed to democratizing
communications; community and information exchange networks, interlinked
through the Internet; researchers who contribute to deciphering the keys to
the present system and to pointing out possible alternatives; people's
organizations that join the struggle around communication issues;
journalists' associations that raise the banner of ethics and independence;
women's collectives that build networks for advancing a gender perspective
in communication; cultural movements that refuse to be relegated to
oblivion; popular education networks; observatories in favor of the freedom
of information; those who associate to oppose monopolies; movements in
defense of public service media; and a long etcetera.
All these are the scattered seeds of citizen resistance, that need to
multiply and grow together into a broad movement of social movements joined
by the struggle for the democratization of communications, as a battle
trench where the fight for the future itself of democracy is being fought
out. It is not, therefore, an issue that only regards those who are
directly or indirectly linked to communication: it challenges all social
actors. And the WSF can become this necessary and pressing meeting-space.
Alternative Proposals
From various events held around the democratization of communications and
the media, we have gathered the following points as basic input for
advancing towards the formulation of a common agenda:
? The Right to Communicate is now present as an aspiration that furthers
the historical progression that began with the recognition of rights of
media owners, later those who work under relations of dependence in the
media, and finally of all persons, set out in Article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights as the right to information and the freedom of
expression and opinion. It starts from a more encompassing conception of
all the rights recognized and claimed in the realm of communication,
incorporating in particular new rights related to the changing
communications scene, and a more interactive approach to communication, in
which social actors are information producers and not mere passive
receivers of information. Similarly, it assumes that the recognition of
this right is necessary to the exercise of all other human rights and a
fundamental element of the existence of democracy. The incorporation of
this right into the agendas of social movements and the development of
strategies to bring it into force is a key challenge in the construction of
alternatives.
? The establishment of public policy is considered a priority: policy that
is sustained in mechanisms of democratic social control, to limit the power
of interests embodied in market logic, with norms that permit their
regulation, establishment of standards and supervision, omitting
questionable dispositions such as censorship. This issue covers a broad
range of aspects. These include, on the one hand, the present attempts to
deregulate the sector and to impose legislation concerning intellectual
property, promoted by the WTO, IMF and others, which results in
facilitating the process of transnationalization and monopolization of
communications media and systems; and on the other hand, the need to put
forward policies to guarantee the diversity and independence of sources,
cultural sovereignty and diversity, democratic access to technology, among
others. In this respect, on-going resistance struggles include those for
the democratization of the radio- electric spectrum (in the face of
attempts to privatize it), the defense of Internet users' rights (with
respect to projects of electronic snooping, censorship, etc.) and the
setting up of independent regulatory bodies through which the citizenry can
participate in the definition of policy, among others.
- Linked to public policy, the proposal to retrieve and promote the
creation of public/citizen media stands out. This refers to media in the
public sphere (not necessarily of the state), which are under control of
civil society and funded according to the principle of economic solidarity
(i.e. with public and/or private funds).
- Similarly, actions developed in the different national and international
contexts to restrain the process of monopolization of communications
systems and media, and the commodification of information, take on
particular importance.
- A further priority identified is the development of diverse, plural
information, with a gender perspective. Actions in this respect vary from
criticism and pressure directed at the mass media, to support for the
development and survival of alternative and independent media, that adopt
such criteria as basic principles.
- A priority sector to involve in this movement are journalists,
particularly through their associations. Not only are their professional
interests threatened by the commodification of information, but it is also
crucial to build alliances with this sector around the public service
character of communications.
- Another sector with which it is important to develop alliances are
consumer movements, in view of developing pressure towards communications
systems and media. "Consumers" are treated on an individual, isolated
basis, depriving them of any other power than that of buying or not buying,
switching on or off. Their power could be much greater if it were exercised
collectively.
- To develop an informed citizenry requires a capacity for a critical
appraisal of the media, which is the purpose of media literacy programs, so
that the citizenry can have a better understanding of the socially
constructed nature of the media.
- A fundamental aspect to accompany this process are research activities,
which make it possible to focus on new terrain and forms of action. A
closer link between movements for the democratization of communication and
researchers on these issues is needed, as well as the elaboration of
simplified dissemination texts on research findings and exchange activities
between theory and practice.
- One of the central social proposals on communication put forward in the
framework of the last WSF was the urgency of opening a broad public debate
on the impact and consequences of monopolistic concentration in the
communications sector, and priorities in the development of new information
and communications technologies. Such a debate will make it possible to
open a reflection that is essential, but always postponed, concerning the
relation between media and democracy, the social function of the media, and
the imposition of a model based on strictly commercial considerations.
The struggle for the democratization of communication is not and will not
be easy. The power obtained by megacorporations that dominate the field is
enormous, both in terms of resources and on account of their discretion to
give public visibility according to their convenience, an issue that
becomes crucial for those involved or wanting to be involved in political
decision spheres. It would be naive to expect changes from within this
system: our only resource is to hope for a great citizen mobilization to
modify the course of events.
Whether we like it or not, in the course of the past decades, deep
transformations have been produced, bearing the seal of the reign of
neoliberalism. In view of them, we can only think in terms of the future,
not to try to adapt to them or to beg for benefits, but to give a sense of
humanity to that future. With that perspective, as an initial step, it
becomes fundamental to rescue the sense of public interest, and, thus, to
reinvent enabling spaces and mechanisms. For the issue considered here,
this implies struggling for the establishment of an institutional framework
that guarantees and promotes the existence of a plurality of independent
media.
For this to become a reality, it becomes mandatory to stop the process of
monopolized concentration of the media industry, through legal norms that
not only limit such a possibility (taxes on income, on sales of shares, on
repatriation of capital, on publicity, to name some possibilities), but
that also promote conditions for independent media organizations to
flourish, as well as the creation and strengthening of public interest
protection institutions (such as ombudsmen). This implies demanding
governments and regional blocks to assume their responsibilities, as well
as taking the issue to the international level.
However, this is not enough. It is also important to democratize the new
public dimension that has been established with the development of
communication media in reference to visibility. This pertains to the
capacity of social and citizen movements to contend for this space, rather
than to public relations issues.
This pressure is framed within this perspective, in order to open a serious
public debate on the role of communication and the media in our societies.
It is paradoxical that while the official discourse ceaselessly repeats
that ICTs will deeply transform our lives, no mechanisms and spaces have
been established, as a consequence or parallel to it, for society to have a
voice on the matter. This is not a result of negligence or carelessness,
but of the mandate of the logic of power that, apparently, has found the
friendliest face to sell economic globalization in the Internet and new
communication technologies, since for broad sectors of the global
population, the only link to globalization occurs at a symbolic or
communication media level. Thus, the "mixture of reality and fantasy" that
characterize such discourses.
The World Summit on the Information Society sponsored by the UN, to be held
in Geneva in December 2003, in spite of the limitations of its conception,
offers the occasion and the challenge to open the debate, coordinate
efforts and make the voice of society be heard. The Campaign for the "Right
to Communication in Information Society" is framed in this endeavor, a
Campaign that will be publicly launched precisely in this Forum.
https://www.alainet.org/fr/node/105671
Del mismo autor
- Desafíos para la justicia social en la era digital 19/06/2020
- La CLOC fête ses 25 ans 19/06/2019
- CLOC 25 Años 12/06/2019
- Golpe de Estado en marcha 20/02/2019
- Assembling the Bolsonaro “myth” 15/01/2019
- El montaje del “mito” Bolsonaro 21/12/2018
- Internet, derivaciones y paradojas 01/11/2018
- La mediatización de la corrupción 14/03/2018
- En tiempos de post-verdad 14/08/2017
- Comunicación para la integración 01/06/2017
FSM
- Sergio Ferrari 10/02/2021
- Sergio Ferrari 10/02/2021
- Sergio Ferrari 08/02/2021
- Celeste Serra 02/02/2021
- Sergio Ferrari 01/02/2021