[WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments on Civil Society Priorities Document - "Something called community media"

[Victor van Oeyen]

Dear Mr. Koven,

Thank you for your comments on the document presented on behalf of the
Civil Society, endorsed, amongst others, by the organization I represent.
As you suggest, there is a lot to discuss. That's exactly the idea of the
World Summit. 

As for your last observation, concerning "something called community
media", I would like to mention that we are talking about a huge and
massive global fenomenon, that prioritizes the use of communication for
social objectives. Your insinuations in the direction of state
interventioned communication ("mouthpieces for central or local
authorities") are absolutely incorrect. Community media seek to fortify the
democratization of communication by active participation of all actors in
society, privileging the normally absent ones (indigenous, women, youth,
poor etc.). 

Comments were made by our representatives in the Intersessional Meeting in
Paris that "the media family" made observations about the document
presented by Civil Society. As you are acting as coordinator of this
family, and being myself a member of this 'family', representing the Latin
American Association of Eduactional Radio (ALER, with 107 members in Latin
America), I would like to remember you that, as far as I am informed,
there wasn't any kind of consultation organized amongst the members of the
media family. I duely respect your opinion as a member of Civil Society,
but would ask you to respect the diversity of opinions within the media
family whenever you speak publicly on behalf of it. 

Kind Regards, 

Victor van Oeyen

P.D. Could you please be so kind to inform us, the members of the Media
Family, who else are being part of this important organizational body of
the WSIS process? 



Our participants in the intersessional At 09:43 14-7-2003 -0400, you wrote:
>Dear Bill McIver and others:
>
>There are a number of very good points in the Civil Society Priorities
>Document distributed on 12 July. But there are also several very important
>points that the World Press Freedom Committee could not endorse. It is
>highly likely that most major international, mainstream journalistic NGOs
>would have the same or similar difficulties.
>
>I think that posting the document for comment on 10 July for it to be
>turned into final form after just one day was a very ill-considered
>procedure. Considering differences in time zones that undoubtedly left many
>groups with no time at all to react. This is not a formula for reaching
>consensus.
>
>I wholeheartedly agreed with most of the comments made by Meryem Marzouki
>and Wolfgang Kleinwaechter and was glad to see they were incorporated. But
>there were some specific suggestions they made that caused me very deep
>concern indeed, and I regret that those were included. Notably, these were:
>
>  The notion in the governance section that "decision-making bodies should
>respect ... sovereignty."
>That is an idea that is being pressed in particular by China and other
>countries seeking to restrict Internet access by banning non-governmental
>ISPs and by creating Intranets to prevent their nationals from accessing
>the outside world. It is a clear violation of the rights in Article 19 of
>the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to "seek, receive and impart
>information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
>
>I'm truly surprised that my old friend Wolfgang, as the repentant advocate
>of the notion of "national information sovereignty" during the Cold War,
>was not alive to the danger of the "sovereignty" idea -- introduced by
>China into the Tokyo Declaration on WSIS.
>
>  The call in the same governance section for "decisions [to] allow for a
>better-balanced flow of information," as well as the same language in the
>human rights section.
>That language was a core code word expression during the New World
>Information and Communication Order debate to attempt to restrict
>distribution of the world's leading news agencies (e.g. Reuter, Associated
>Press, Agence France-presse, EFE, DPA) on the grounds that they do not
>properly cover development and other positive news -- as defined by
>authoritarian governments -- of the Third World. Even at UNESCO, where that
>idea was introduced as a core demand of NWICO, the expression was amended
>to read, "a free and balanced flow of information, without any obstacles to
>press freedom." "Balanced Information" is almost by definition censored
>information. Extreme situations like war and conflict, massacres and
>atrocities, famine, etc., are by nature "unbalanced" realities that
>authoritarian governments want to have reported only in their own
>"balanced" terms.
>
>Beyond that -- as the debates at PrepCom 2 made it abundantly clear -- the
>revival of the NWICO-era call for a "Right to Communicate," makes it
>certain that the mainstream journalistic NGOs could not endorse this
>document. As we recalled in Geneva, the "right to communicate" is already
>embodied in Article 19 of the UDHR, and any effort to "improve" on that
>wording can only open the door to restrictionism, as is amply shown in
>various recent attempts to define what an "RtC" would include. At best,
>"RtC" is dangerously ambiguous, at worst it is a cover for censorship in
>new guises.
>
>I was nevertheless heartened by the call to reaffirm Article 19 and to
>implement it -- the key demand that was formulated by the Media Caucus at
>PrepCom 2.
>
>There are other very good features in the Civil Societies Priorities
>Document, which only heightens my sadness that we cannot go along with it
>as it stands. Positive elements from a press freedom standpoint include:
>
>  Rejection of the Information Society as a "form of social organization."
>  Opposition to the ill-considered Cybercrime Convention of the Council of
>Europe -- for just the right reasons.
>  Alarm over destruction of civilian communication systems during armed
>conflicts.
>
>I also share the various concerns being expressed over legitimizing
>governmental attempts to take control over ICANN and/or the functions it
>serves.
>
>That said, calls for "appropriate regulation" (sustainable democratic
>development sect.), "protection from discrimination or hate incitement"
>(human rights sect.), hostility to copyright (global knowledge commons
>sect.), assignment to media of good-sounding tasks "in sustaining and
>developing the world's cultures and languages" (cultural and linguistic
>diversity sect.) give serious pause from a libertarian or press freedom
>viewpoint.
>
>Further, there seems to be an attempt to create a distinction between
>something called "community media" (which should receive public subsidies)
>and other media. There are plenty of local media throughout the world doing
>a good job of reporting on their communities. To do that, they must be
>financially independent. When they depend on governmental or other official
>subsidies, they inevitably wind up as mouthpieces for central or local
>authorities. A prime example of this is the subservience to Russia's
>regional governates of the subsidized local media in contemporary Russia.
>Authoritarian and other governments throughout the world are only too glad
>to accede to demands to finance local and other media, so that they can
>call the tune.
>
>I hope we can explore these issues further when we meet over the next few
>days. Meanwhile, I must respectfully decline to endorse the Civil Society
>Priorities Document, as it now stands.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Rony Koven 
>European Representative
>World Press Freedom Committee
>
>PS Compliments to Sally and Bill for the stylistic quality and clarity of
>the text, rare for this kind of statement. One small quibble: the word
>"repartition" is French, not English. An Anglophone would say
>"distribution."
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
Victor van Oeyen
Representante a la Cumbre Mundial de la Sociedad de la Información
Número de registro: al10358bo
ALER - Asociación Latinoamericana de Educación Radiofónica
La Paz - BOLIVIA
Tel.: (591) +2 - 2203650 / 2204011
Fax:  (591) +2 - 2203888