Global Human Rights As A Media Justice Issue

While attending the recent National Media Reform Conference in Minneapolis, I attended a panel called, Promoting Global Human Rights Through Progressive Communications Policies. One of the participants on the panel was Rosemary Okello-Orlale, the Executive Director of the African Woman and Child Feature Service. She made some excellent points about women’s human rights in her very thoughtful presentation and has graciously allowed me to reprint the transcript of her remarks here:

Global human rights and progressive communication policies

By Rosemary Okello-Orlale

“We invented drums and the ‘bush telegraph’, so why is it so difficult and expensive for African Communities to communicate long distances?” Zane Ibrahim- Bush Radio- Cape Town.

Every community needs to speak to itself and in its own language, tell its own stories and celebrate its own culture and identity.

Access to information for social change is critical to all communities irrespective of their status. As the cutting edge technology is slowly making it easier for many to access information, the media is becoming a powerful tool not only in influencing the government’s and private sector agenda, but more importantly, changing attitudes and opinions of people all over the world.

In other parts of the world, convergence between radio and the internet has boosted the capacity of community radio and increased networking opportunities for community based organisations and individuals.

Similarly, in other parts of the world, community radio is both an outlet for information generated locally and an avenue for re-casting information downloaded from internet.

As the debate on information and the role of the media in social change takes a new dimension, participation of the communities which cannot access mass media is extremely critical.

All over the world, small initiatives by various organisations geared towards enabling marginalised groups access information have been happening for quite sometime.
The word public interest has been used over the years to justify the role of the media in our society. And perhaps, even as we question the human rights aspect of the media, the reason we have failed to hold the media accountable lies in the fact that we use the criteria designed for one purpose, commercial entertainment, to make the media become an instrument for progressive communication where human rights issues can be questioned or upheld.

We have failed to ask if the modes of address, formal strategies, viewing habits and media environments developed by a given socio-economic system might be ineffective and even counter-productive for trying to alter that system, especially in Africa where such system existed in the traditional nature and we have to use the parameters of the mainstream media of 5 Ws and I (H) to answer the social issues from a human rights point of view.

Cultural diversity constitutes a force that can get journalists to open up their minds. The pride and status of nationals across borders is another force that this paper recognizes for achieving the same. Out of the box, sovereignty becomes relative in a way that prevails on media houses not to stereotype and take things for granted. Yet, the media environment is nor favourable for such exploration of various ideas, in terms of access, reach ability as well as policies.

On the other hand, there is comprehensive media policy or laws that is broadened enough to acknowledge the linkages between the traditional media and the new media, the role of citizen journalism and the role of each and every community in terms of communication and content.

Technology is also another factor, just like the media was treated as the preserve of the political elite, so is the technology and when it comes to mediums of communication, more often than not the states seems to license them making it hard for ordinary people to access the information.

Yet in the words of the former Prime Minister of Malaysia; there is no country that is rich which is information poor and there is no country that is information poor which is rich. The accessibility of information through affordable technology e empowers people’s ability to be economically viable.

Freedom of expression means communicating in a free environment through any means and also being able to access fundamental information which is your human right, yet over the years, the media have operated under a certain box, within the 4th estate spectrum.

The other issue is the commercialization of the media, where they operate on the media reach and the target audience.

The fact that the media and communication channels within our context is patriarchal in nature, makes the media at times loose sight of the vital voice—the woman’s perspective to any issue.

And unless they start thinking outside the box of the fourth estate and start interrogating the factor of the 5th estate where ordinary voices are found, what makes the community tick and their views of how things are, start going beyond the real story and asking relevant questions, then the media will have failed in achieving the fundamental rights of everyone—the freedom of expression.

The human rights factor outside the box becomes a vital yardstick for covering diverse realities. All these factors can prevail on media to shed stereotyping; to get beyond the narrow confines of national interests; and to open up to emerging regional and global concerns regarding human rights.

There has to be another way of engaging media in meaningful gender related discourse. The concept of a “fifth estate”. Phenomenon is outward looking because outside the box, one sees alternatives to the narrow, although necessary, adversarial relationships between institutions that govern states. Outside the box there are diverse regional and global realities that can force private media houses to build relevance. It is in this scenario that opportunities emerge for promoting a more meaningful gender related discourse and giving women a voice through channels of communication.

Having said that, this paper acknowledges the Western media blew the “fifth” estate notion when it went global and proceeded to see diverse realities through only one narrow lens – theirs. With one global power, pressure is being brought to bear in the rest of the world to think Western. Structural adjustment, liberalization, good governance, transparency and accountability have become code words under this new global configuration.

Without a home grown media policy, they seem to dance to the tune of the western media on how they communicate their news. So one finds, the term gender does not feature in that new and improved dictionary. The term human right does but only to the extent that it complements the ideals of free enterprise as they see it. They have prevailed upon Third world countries to liberalize their airwaves. They have then proceeded to inundate public space with that same version of reality through image and sound twenty four hours a day. Historically, those ideals have militated against Third world interests. More specifically, they have militated against the interests of women who have never had equal access to opportunity and resources.

Despite such anomalies, this paper argues that outside the box, a “fifth estate” reality can work. It is one that offers opportunities for “kick starting” the discourse on the public interest from a human rights point of view. If one exploits it well, it could even become instrumental in forging global opinion. To engage, media shift from low choice to high choice environments which carry not only cultural, but political implications.

High-tech governments face a future in which multiple, conflicting, custom tailored commercial, cultural and political messages are bombarding their people, rather than a single message repeated in unison by a few giant media outlets. The old politics of “mass mobilization” and the “engineering of consent” both become far more difficult in the new media environment.

Expanded media choice, itself inherently democratic, is in the offering. It is making life difficult for politicians who created for their followers a choiceless environment. New media lords are building the ideology of globalism. Globalism or at least supranational, is a natural expression of the new economy which must operate across national boundaries. It is in the self interest of new media moguls to spread this ideology.

This self interest, however, is colliding with another. Indeed if their television and radio stations, their newspaper and magazines are to succeed financially, they will have to demassify – which means they will have to search for niches, carry specialized material, and appeal to very local audience interests. The familiar slogan “Think global, act local” perfectly describes this “fifth estate” imperative.

Just as in the past century national leaders were compelled to justify their actions before the court of national “public opinion,” tomorrow’s national leaders will confront a much enhanced “global opinion”. The activities of today’s media lords bring new millions into the global decision making process.

As the “fifth estate” picture grows, one has to assume that Governments will no doubt invent more sophisticated lies in which to rationalize their self serving actions. They will manipulate the increasingly systemic media. They will also step up propaganda efforts to improve their global image. But if such efforts fail, they could suffer significant economic penalties for behavior frowned on by the rest of the world.

There is a spin off to this emerging reality that cannot be ignored. Indeed, it must be contended with. The underground empire today has more power, wealth and status than many nations. It flies no flag on the terrace of the United Nations, but it has larger armies, more capable intelligence agencies, more influential diplomatic services than many countries do. The power of ordinary citizen through the progressive communication.

Using the social change media, it can direct its audiences back to their own world; it addresses them not as passive viewers but potentially active participants in civic society. It accordingly recognizes that its true subject is always the audience itself, specifically, how that audience is constructing social reality in their minds and daily lives. It locates itself not in the narrative space of the television or movie screen but as an intervention in society’s continuing self-narrating around and beyond those screens. Like a skilled conversationalist, social change media can integrate itself into this discourse, raising questions, reframing arguments, suggesting new directions or additional resources, in short, providing a structuring frame for these larger civic sector conversations where human rights issues can be questioned and answers sought.