citizen media, freedom of speech) as an end in itself, and freedom of the press as a means for

Transcription

1 Brendan Cooper Graduate Student in Applied Economics University of Minnesota There is an inevitable conflict between freedom of the press (and consequently with citizen media, freedom of speech) as an end in itself, and freedom of the press as a means for procuring the truth or the right outcome. The subjectivity of the latter is problematic, particularly when considering the influence of foreign organizations on a country s domestic media. However, in the former, the lack of some sense of moral absolutism can create trouble when suboptimal results occur. If Nazism is the product of a truly free press that was originally created with foreign help, can we, the outsiders, stand by that? Alternatively, we can choose to intervene in another s domestic media when it aligns with our viewpoints (or what we deem as right or the truth ). In turn, there must be both, and thus a balance between freedom of access and production of media by all citizens, and a more formal and traditional media sector that has a goal of reporting unbiased and truthful information. Therefore, foreign intervention is justified when one of these two conditions does not exist. It can either take the form of encouraging legal, regulatory and/or financial measures to help all citizens contribute and gain access to the media, or by training and promoting professional media outlets to be more accurate and accountable in their productions. In this system, the professional media is checked by the citizenry (who watch and create their own media) and vice versa. Some justify media intervention as a means for aiding economic development, democracy, anti-corruption efforts, etc. These are important collateral effects, but the way to achieve them is through free citizen access and an established, accountable media, not by targeting them specifically. Take the example of Burma during the 2007 anti-government protests. In this case, some local users (probably well-off, considering their use of video-enabled 1

2 equipment) uploaded media illustrating the abuses by the military against citizens, and more distressingly against monks. This effort succeeded in raising international condemnation and profiling the iron-fisted regime during the time of the protests. It did not succeed in overthrowing the regime or making significant progress toward democracy because of two reasons. First, most Burmese citizens did not have access to media creation, and more notably could not even view the content because of strict censorship and lack of Internet access in most of the country. Instead of becoming more empowered by exposing the brutal military junta, the protest momentum eventually died down; threats by the junta against protesters won out over antigovernment fervor, which in a different society could have been spurred by media access increasing the passion and numbers of protesters. Second, the lack of a free press and formal media sector in Burma ensured that the movement would not persist after the protests were over. Foreigners and locals react to shocking disclosures of current atrocities and policies. Citizen media can reveal these in the forms of images, videos or reports, but their influence ends when the "event" is over. In 2010, a blog or other form of media circulated by a normal Burmese citizen would get little notice, whereas during the protests it warranted attention. In Haiti, years of starvation and abject poverty went relatively unnoticed until the January 2010 earthquake yielded stories and images that led to international action. In short, citizen media has a short lifespan that is mostly useful for specific and easily perceptible events. Traditional media can fall into the same trap, but it has more tools and infrastructure to be able to keep a more complex story afloat for longer periods of time. Documentaries, investigative reports, expert blogs and historical narratives are some of these tools. A film like Food, Inc. sparked outrage toward food conglomerates, and even transformed some people into vegetarians (I know some). A person capturing one image or video of, say, a 2

3 cow being inhumanely slaughtered would not have the same kind of power as the narrative put together by professionals. For this reason, although now more people are aware of the evil regime in Burma, the emotion and ardor that is necessary to prompt action is not being provoked by media, because there is no domestic institution that can do as such. With an understanding of what qualities a country's media space should have, the question becomes when foreign bodies should intervene. International relations is based on the manufactured notion of sovereignty. To infringe on Burma's sovereignty by involving ourselves in the country's domestic media affairs is unlawful, some would say. However, when comparing the human aspect of letting the junta's abuses continue against the right of a regime to have control of its own country, it is morally right to intervene. They are called human rights because they apply to all humans, not to be conditional on borders and sovereignty. Opponents of this view would also say that this is a type of cultural imperialism. This belief is valid if intervention is used with the primary goal of generating a certain political or social outcome. If America believes that socialism is causing poverty in Cuba, intervention is unjustified. Nevertheless, freedom to create and access information should be a universal right because people need information to make appropriate decisions in their lives, hence creating a media space to allow this human right is not an outcome. Rather, it is a moral imperative. Not teaching a child to read is no more of an offence than censoring the Internet -- they both concern a person's ability to receive and produce information. To achieve this human right, all countries should strive to give its citizens free access to media and encourage a formal media sector. Part of this is cautiously being open to assistance from foreigners. For these reasons, intervention in a country's media space is always justified when citizen and traditional media consumption and production is not free and accessible, including cases when the country's government is unreceptive to foreign 3

4 assistance. The only exception would be when the consequences to human rights of intervening (e.g. war and the right to live) are worse than the consequences of doing nothing. The methods of media intervention are much less straightforward than the conditions when some form of intervention is justified. There are different strategies and methods for assisting countries open to foreign media development aid and those not open to it. For countries that are open to aid, foreign bodies should mainly provide financial help for communications infrastructure. Increasingly, media is consumed and produced via the Internet. Through education and computer literacy programs such as One Laptop per Child, the population becomes Internet-savvy and inevitably exposed to online media. In time, the problem with citizen media, even in developed countries, often becomes that there is too much information with too many conflicting stories and opinions. Sites like Digg or Reddit address this by allowing users to rate and thereby filter news stories, and are easily transferable to any country. For the traditional media sector, foreign bodies should support legal development that is necessary for media and their sources to operate freely, such as libel and source protection laws. Scholarships and training for local journalists can be given as professional development aid, although to balance any potential bias from studying, say, an "all-american" framework, they should be sent to different countries to learn from different populations. Media development can also be hampered by oligopoly news organizations, which essentially serve as financial censors to small media development. Foreign bodies should give financial aid to smaller organizations to safeguard against a dominant point of view in the formal sector. In closed societies or countries unreceptive to foreign intervention, the main focus should be on training for expats of the country in question. In lieu of forcefully entering the country or covertly trying to influence internal actors, expats are the strongest link to the closed society due 4

5 to them often having family and friends still residing there. NGOs in neighboring countries are geographically optimal and often contain the most expats. For example, the Best Friend Library in Chiang Mai, Thailand, supports libraries, schools, advocacy and other services for Burmese refugees in Thailand. Foreign aid can fund and create more NGOs similar to this. Education is power, and the more educated expats are, the more power they will hold relative to their former government. This idea applies to influencing in-country media development as well. Even if societies are unwilling to accept foreign media aid, they may be amenable to education and technology aid. By training citizens in the use of technology, or just improving literacy, the demand for information becomes greater, and it is more likely that media will be created organically, permitted or not by the government. In conclusion, all humans have a right to media because they have a right to information to inform their life decisions. Because accurate and accountable information can only be produced by a balance of citizen and traditional media outlets, both need to be developed in any given country. If they are not, then foreign intervention is justified. The methods of intervening mainly concern improving infrastructure and access to Internet and technology for all citizens through financial endeavors and training, although they differ depending on whether a country is receptive to foreign aid. Media creation and consumption are moral obligations for all countries to assure that all humans have the rights of freedom of speech and the freedom to information. 5