gfmd media matters 2009-2011

Media Matters GFMD 2009-2011

The GFMD 4

GFMD: From Division to Community by David Hoffman 7

Why we need the GFMD by Joyce Barnathan 9

Building a Community of Practice by Bettina Peters 11

The GFMD in the Regions 13

GFMD Regional Conferences 14

Conclusions RFMD Africa 16

Conclusions RFMD Asia 18

Conclusions RFMD Eurasia 20

Conclusions RFMD LAC 21

Conclusions RFMD MENA 22

Making the Case for Media Development 24

Media and Development: Finding the Most Effective Pathway by Mark Nelson 26

Are We Asking the Right Questions by William Orme 29

News Media as Public Sentinel by CommGAP 33

The Pain of Change and the Need for a New Mindset

over Journalism and Development by Aidan White 36

Cyber News: Malaysia’s First Decade by Sevan Doraisamy 40

Monitoring Impact: The Spheres of Influence Approach by A.S. Panneerselvan 42

Donors´ Perspectives on Media Development 46

Gordana Jankovic 46

Pia Hallonsten 48

Ivar Evensmo 50

Marguerite Sullivan 52

About the GFMD 55

Join the GFMD 55

GFMD Steering Committee 56

Constitution 57

GFMD Code of Practice 61

Donors 64

Credits Photos, Publication Credits 65

3

TAB LE OF CONTE NTS

The GFMD

ATH E N S WOR LD CON FE R E NCE

AMARTYA SEN Winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics

MARY ROBINSON Member of The Elders, former President of Ireland,

former UN Human Rights Commissioner

“

“

„

„

No substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent and democratic country with a relatively free press.

Think of a world where everybody is afraid to speak out, then think of a world where no one is afraid

to speak up

Shortly after the end of the civil war in East Timor, I was returning on a plane from Dili with my board Chairman, Peter Pennekamp, feeling frustrated and perplexed. We had just witnessed how vital independent media could be in such a post-conflict situation. It was equally obvious that a host of other global problems--from the envi-ronment to poverty reduction to the establishment of civil society—could hardly be addressed without the engagement of local, independent media.

And yet, media development remained largely a

marginal afterthought in foreign assistance policies.

Although no politician would ever conceive of running a po-

litical campaign without a media strategy, the word “media”

didn’t even appear in the US government’s Foreign Assis-

tance Act and received equally little attention in Europe.

We discussed the many possible explanations for this policy

myopia, but the important question remained what to do

about it. Peter suggested that we try to convene a meeting

of our competitors to work in concert to “raise the level of

the sea.” As a solitary organization, he argued, Internews or

any other media NGO would appear to be self-serving as

an advocate for media development. But if the whole sector

could come together and speak with one voice, it was certain

to have far greater credibility.

The first hurdle was to convince the other major interna-

tional media development NGOs that this effort was not a

ruse by Internews to gain some “market advantage.” Indeed,

we had tried something similar in East Europe the year

before and had the door shut in our face by local NGOs

who thought we were attempting to invade their territory.

This time we went out of our way to assure the founding

organizations that we would stay in the background as much

as possible. At every step along the way we encouraged others

to take the lead. Serendipitously, I ran into someone named

Jerry Hirsch whose small family foundation focused on a

single issue—how to get NGOs to cooperate. He immediate-

ly recognized the opportunities in what we were attempting

to do. His early funding allowed us to bring together the

heads of the leading international media NGOs in Bangkok.

It was a painstakingly slow process to achieve consensus, but

over the course of five meetings the group began to bond

7

TH E G FM D

GFMD: From Division to Communityby DAVI D HOFFMAN N

“

together and soon trust replaced suspicion. In the end we

were all firmly dedicated to creating an umbrella organi-

zation that could lobby on behalf of all its members and

advocate with governments, multinational organizations and

private funders as representatives of the media development

community.

An early issue was what to call the new organization. I

suggested “The Global Forum of Media for Development,”

but Peter posed a question I hadn’t considered. Were we

promoting “media for development” or supporting “media

development.” Although the two sectors often overlapped,

there was a consensus among the founders of GFMD that

the development of media per se, i.e. the strengthening of

the nascent media industry in developing and transitional

countries, had unique and particular needs that had largely

been overlooked. Policymakers were quick to see the benefits

of using media to advocate for specific development goals

but were slow to understand and appreciate the value of

independent media in their own right. It is a measure of

GFMD’s success that this debate has at last largely subsided,

as recognition of the distinct needs of the media develop-

ment field has grown.

What had been a disparate field of ad hoc projects and a

multitude of competitive organizations suddenly crystallized

in Amman in October 2005 into a coherent and substantial

movement. Five hundred representatives from 97 countries

managed to outline a common purpose, establish rules for

governance and define a set of shared value—all through

a completely practitioner-led process, a rare, if not wholly

unprecedented event.

An interim Steering Committee established in Amman ag-

reed to set up a small secretariat to run the GFMD. We laun-

ched the secretariat in July 2007 in Brussels and set about

trying to bring media assistance groups closer together.

Through regional forums for media development taking

place in Africa, Asia, Eurasia, Middle East/North Africa and

Latin America and the Caribbean media support NGOs

starting working together and building closer links. The

process culminated in the second Global Forum for Media

Development in Athens in December 2008 where the GFMD

was launched as a membership organization with agreed sta-

tutes and an elected global Steering Committee representing

media assistance groups from all over the world.

GFMD put media development on the map and we are now

starting to see how the rising sea level has begun to benefit

us all.

More information: WWW.INTERNEWS.ORG

8

DAVID HOFFMANN is the Chairman Emeritus of the

GFMD. He is also the President of Internews Network,

a global non-profit organisation headquartered in Ca-

lifornia that empowers local media worldwide to serve

the information needs of their communities. Internews

has worked in more than 70 countries and has trained

over 750,000 people in media skills. Hoffman has writ-

ten widely about media democracy, the Internet, and

the importance of supporting pluralistic, local media

around the world. His articles have appeared in the

New York Times, the Washington Post, the Internatio-

nal Herald Tribune and Foreign Affairs.

TH E G FM D

G LO B A L F O R U M F O R M E D I A D E V E LO P M E N T

Originally, I was one of the skeptics. Why do we need yet another international media development orga-nization? What’s its purpose? And if I have to pay to join, what am I getting for my hard-earned funds?

Now I have the answers to those questions. After

chairing the Global Forum for Media Development

since the Athens gathering in 2008, I know now how vital

this organization has become for those of us who believe that

independent media play an important role in building civil

society.

First and foremost, all of us in the media-development field

now have a collective voice. That voice is heard at major

meetings and conferences around the globe. GFMD ma-

kes the case for investing in media development in an intel-

ligent and convincing way. We have spoken to policymakers

in the U.S. Congress and to the governments of Denmark,

Sweden and Norway, among others.

GFMD not only supports that media-development goal su-

perbly, but it goes a step further. GFMD argues that to make

any aid program effective, whether it’s a health initiative or

an anti-poverty effort, donors should include a component

to develop independent media. If donors want governments

to be more transparent and officials to be more accountab-

le, then a strong, vibrant media can serve as a watchdog to

ensure responsible behavior.

In 2009 and 2010 our voice was heard loud and clear in Afri-

ca. GFMD Director Bettina Peters lobbied vigorously against

the establishment of a pan-Africa media “observatory,” which

essentially amounted to a press council with government

involvement. The proposal originally had backing from the

African Union and the European Union. GFMD made the

case that this new institution would hinder press freedom

simply by involving governments in the process. On March

24, 2010 the African Union Commission and the European

Commission rejected the proposal—and instead raised

“practical proposals” to support African media. It was a huge

victory – and it will not be our last.

Over the past year, we have brought together an array of

traditional and potential funders who increasingly want to

help GFMD do its part to support good government. Our

efforts across the board are paying dividends. It is difficult to

come up with precise figures on a global basis, but I suspect

that investments in media development are growing—and

that’s in part because of our collective voice at GFMD. We

are helping to organize a meeting that will bring even more

prospects together with our base of supporters in an effort to

increase the flow of investments to this vital area.

We are also offering an array of services to our members.

GFMD provides advice and new tools in the Insider—our

in-house newsletter. Our efforts to provide a real-time map

of media development programs should be a tremendous

benefit to all of us. With it, we can easily find good partners

and projects and avoid duplication and waste.

We are in talks with the Center for International Media

Assistance and others about creating a web site where we can

post news of all the media innovation that is taking place in

the developing world. There is a great deal of experimen-

9

Why We Need the GFMDby JOYCE BAR NATHAN

tation underway—involving digital mapping, cell phones

and data visualization—and we want to make it easy to find

appropriate new tools and use them.

So I am a believer now—and a strong one. We speak with

clarity and purpose about the importance of developing

strong, vibrant media around the world. We are being

heard—and making a difference

More information: WWW.ICFJ.ORG

TH E G FM D

10

JOYCE BARNATHAN is president of the International

Center for Journalists, a non-profit professional or-

ganization dedicated to promoting quality journalism

worldwide in the belief that independent, vigorous

media are crucial in improving the human condition.

Since its founding in 1984, ICFJ has trained more than

60,000 journalists around the world. She also serves

as the Chair of the Global Forum for Media Develop-

ment. Previously, she was Executive Editor - Global

Franchise at BusinessWeek, where she helped create

new editorial extensions and alliances. As Assistant

Managing Editor, she supervised nearly every depart-

ment of the magazine. She worked as Asia Regional

Editor, helping to launch the Asia edition, which won

prestigious awards for coverage of China‘s growth,

Asia‘s financial crisis and the turmoil in Indonesia.

She began her career at BusinessWeek in 1990 as

an editor in the international department. From 1979

until 1988, she held a number of posts at Newsweek,

including Moscow Bureau Chief, Special National

Political Correspondent and State Department Corre-

spondent. For her work, she has been honored with

five Overseas Press Club Awards and one National

Headliner Award, among other honors. She also ser-

ved as a Freedom Forum Fellow in 1989 - 1990. She

has a B.A. in Russian and Chinese area studies and

M.A. in Asian studies from Washington University, and

M.A. in journalism from the University of Missouri. She

speaks conversational Chinese, Russian, and Spanish.

When it comes to history Athens is a good place as any to make your mark and on December 10, 2008 the Global Forum for Media Development did just that at the end of its World Conference.

In the splendid setting of a Greek winter organisations

covering the whole spectrum of media development

joined forces and launched the GFMD as a membership

network. They adopted statutes, elected a global Steering

Committee and agreed priorities for action, setting course on

an unprecedented journey for supporters of free media and

sustainable development.

Today the GFMD has some 200 members from over 80 coun-

tries covering different areas of media development, whether

it is media law reform, helping to set up new media outlets,

training journalists, organising community radio or organis-

ing media literacy programmes.

What seemed very difficult when the process first began in

Amman in October 2005 with the first conference of the

Global Forum for Media Development was achieved in Athens

three years later.

The success of this process owes much to the relentless

support from Chairman Emeritus David Hoffman. Media

development organisations, although they may compete over

funding and donor contacts, have set aside rivalries to form a

community of practice, sharing ideas and promoting better

recognition of media development among donors and policy

makers.

The initiative is timely. The last two decades have seen an

increase in free and independent media in many parts of the

world. By nourishing new publications, television, radio and

Internet sites, media development gives hundreds of millions

of people access to fresh, reliable and relevant information

sources.

Policymakers and donors freely admit that media play a key

role in democratic development, but they have often been slow

to give the media sector its own identity in the development

landscape, which has meant that media programmes have not

achieved their full potential. The failure to identify media as

a development sector in its own right means media assistance


11

Building a Community of Practiceby B ETTI NA PETE RS


programmes are rarely linked strategically to overall democra-

cy building, good governance and development goals. They

are too often relegated to the status of public information

campaigns.

The GFMD addresses this problem by lobbying donors and

governments and arguing for policies and structures that

recognise how free, independent and pluralistic media are

cornerstones in building democracy and advancing human

development.

The GFMD faces the same challenges many non-profit,

non-governmental organisations grapple with: how to raise

funds for regional and global forums and a secretariat while

providing members with key services.

The GFMD is a lean organisation, with a modest secretari-

at, but as it gears up for the next GFMD World Conference

in 2011, it has some achievements to be proud of thanks to

the support of the Steering Committee and the Chair Joyce

Barnathan:

• First Class Advice: GFMD members receive advice and tips

on programmes and running their NGOs, they can share

best practice and ideas through the GFMD community;

• Information and Insight: The GFMD Insider, a quarterly

on-line information briefing, provides members with

insight on new media development trends, donor policies

and new issues facing the media development community;

• Media Development On the Policy Agenda: Since Athens

GFMD has made its presence felt at the Salzburg Global

Seminar Initiative for Supporting Independent Media

aimed at finding new support for media development; at

the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Deve-

lopment which is making media part of their governance

and aid effectiveness policies; and at the Global Reporting

Initiative, a collaborating centre of the UN Environment

Programme that pioneered the world’s most widely used

reporting framework to assess companies’ performance in

sustainability is creating guidelines for media companies.

In all of these initiatives as well as donor brainstorming

sessions and at the African Union’s first ever consultation

on media development, the GFMD voice has been heard.

• Mapping Media Development: The GFMD is developing

a searchable Google map listing all programmes mem-

bers are organising worldwide. It is the first mapping of

the sector that gives a real-time, bottom-up view of what

programmes are being carried out where, by whom and

with which donor support.

• Regional Forums for Media Development organised

by GFMD continue to provide members with unique

opportunities for face-to-face discussion and exchange of

experience.

The results since Athens show that the GFMD has come a long

way and the message of the Athens Conference defines our

work until the next GFMD 2011:

Media development aiming to create and support free, inde-

pendent, pluralistic media is a good in itself; free information

and quality journalism have an intrinsic value. Support for

media development means support for democracy, good

governance and human development.

A start has been made and there is evidence of progress on

all fronts, but the history-making of Athens has to continue

if free journalism and media are to establish their rightful

place in the heart of building democracy and contributing to

human progress.

More information: WWW.GFMD.INFO

12

BETTINA PETERS is the director of the GFMD. She

leads the organisation’s activities and coordinates the

GFMD’s efforts to promote recognition of the key role

media play in strengthening democratic development.

Before joining GFMD in July 2007, Bettina worked as

the director of programmes at the European Jour-

nalism Centre, where she was in charge of EJC’s

programme of media support and journalism training.

From 1990 until 2002 Bettina worked at the Interna-

tional Federation of Journalists, where she set up the

IFJ’s Project Division. She was responsible for the IFJ’s

global programme on media development and capa-

city-building for journalists’ organisations. She holds

a Masters Degree in political science and journalism

from the University of Hamburg and has edited a ran-

ge of publications, including a global survey of women

in journalism for the IFJ and the EJC handbook on

Civic Journalism. Her recent publications include the

conclusions of “European Media Governance – The

Brussels Dimension” and “Future of Journalism and

Challenges for Media Development: Are We Exporting

a Model that No Longer Works At Home?”

The GFMD in the Regions

TH E G FM D I N TH E R EG ION S

Latin America Regional Forum for Media DevelopmentCARTAG E NA MARCH 2008

GFMD Regional Conferences


Eurasia Regional Forum for Media DevelopmentPAR I S APR I L 2008

Asia Regional Forum for Media developmentCOLOM BO J U LY 2008

Asia Regional Forum for Media development JAkARTA APR I L 2010

Africa Regional Forum for Media DevelopmentG RAHAM STOWN S E PTE M B E R 2008

Middle East/North Africa Regional Forum for Media DevelopmentB E I R UT NOVE M B E R 2008

Media support groups from across Africa have added

their voice to global calls for action to put media at

the heart of international development planning.

The first African Forum for Media Development was

organised by the GFMD in Grahamstown, South Africa, on

September 7-8, 2008. The meeting was attended by 65 parti-

cipants from 30 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The conferene issued an an open letter addressed to the

Africa Union, the European Union and the OECD calling for

better recognition of media development as an integral part

of development strategies.

“Governments, donors and policy makers need to recog-

nise that media are intrinsic components of democratic

development, rather than simply channels for advocacy and

promotion of messages in support of development policy,”

the letter states.

The regional forum called on governments and donors to

create financial mechanisms for media development that are

independent of undue political or government influence and

to increase overall support to media in Africa.

In launching the Africa Regional Forum for Media Deve-

lopment media support groups agreed to work more closely

together in lobbying governments and international institu-

tions for targeted and long-term support to strengthen free,

independent and pluralistic media systems in Africa.

“Media support groups in Africa have the expertise and com-

Africa Forum for Media DevelopmentG RAHAM STOWN, SOUTH AFR ICAS E PTE M B E R 7-8, 2008



mitment to improve media freedom and independence. We

have come together in the Africa Regional Forum for Media

Development in order to make sure that our voice is heard

by governments, donors and policy makers”, said Gabriel

Baglo, Director of the Africa office of the International Fede-

ration of Journalists.

The GFMD set up an Internet forum to exchange informa-

tion and materials on best practice in media development in

Africa. The Africa Forum was organised in conjunction with

the Highway Africa Conference, hosted by Rhodes University

and received support from the Open Society Institute Africa

and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

The meeting in Grahamstown and the regional session on

Africa at the GFMD World Conference in December 2008

echoed many of the recommendations made by other regi-

ons. GFMD members in Africa focused on making the case

for media development with donors and policy makers.

Since the GFMD World Conference, they have organised

several campaigns on media development in the region. In

July 2009 GFMD members in Africa lobbied against a cont-

roversial proposal made by the African Union and European

Union to set up a pan-African media observatory, that would

have given governments the right to interfere in media con-

tent. Thanks to the GFMD campaign, the African Union has

withdrawn the proposal and instead listened to the call of

media development practitioners to establish a consultative

group on media development policy.

The first meeting of the consultative group took place in

Addis Ababa in March 2010. It agreed to establish a pan-

African media network bringing together journalists, media

owners, media development practitioners, media councils,

journalism trainers and media researchers. The GFMD’s

Africa Forum for Media Development was asked to organise

the establishment of this network.

GFMD members from Africa elected elected Gabriel Baglo

of the IFJ Africa office in Senegal and Jeanette Minnie of

Zambezi Fox in South Africa to the GFMD Steering Com-

mittee. David Makali of the Kenya Media Institute serves as

the reserve.

The next Africa Forum for Media Development is scheduled

to take place in September 2011.

The Asia region is the first in the GFMD to hold its

second Regional Forum for Media Development.

Some 40 participants from 21 countries attending the second

forum in Jakarta on April 15-16, 2010 highlighted the posi-

tive contribution internet journalism and news blogs have

made to increasing pluralism in the region.

“Even though many sites are blocked in China, there are

countless examples of local news blogs that target corruption

and promote public debate,” said Ying Chan, GFMD Steering

Committee member from Hong Kong.

Internet penetration in China has reached almost 30% and

continues to grow. Even though social networking sites such

as twitter are blocked, there are Chinese internet providers

that offer similar interactive services.

In Malaysia, internet based media such as Malaysiakini are

now setting the news agenda and are providing news and

information that cannot be found in traditional media.

“Internet media in Malaysia is not covered by the existing

press laws and we have shown that we can work to high

ethical standards with our own system of self-regulation,”

said Premesh Chandran of Malaysiakini. “But we need more

training and more established structures to make sure that

we can provide news not only fast but well-sourced and

presented in context.”

Press freedom, freedom of information and opening up

restrictive media systems were at the heart of the debate at the

1st Asia Regional Forum for Media Development, which took

place in Colombo, Sri Lanka on July 4-5, 2008. The 40 partici-

pants from 17 countries of Asia established the Asia regional

network of the Global Forum for Media Development.

Media support groups from Asia recognised that they have

to work more closely together, try to avoid unnecessary

competition between different projects and build expertise

in monitoring the impact of their work. A. S. Panneerselvan

of Panos South Asia presented a new approach to monito-

ring and evaluation to the conference. The Panos South Asia

model focuses on defining spheres of influence to measure

the impact of media development work. Media development

programmes can influence members of the media com-

munity, as a result, issues raised by media and behavior of

media professionals can change; media can act as a catalyst

to address pressing social issues but there are other actors –

government, municipalities, industry etc – that may or may

not make improvements as a result of the media reports.

The first Regional Forum was hosted by Free Media Move-

ment, Sri Lanka and organized in cooperation with GFMD

and the South East Asia Press Alliance. The UNDP and the

Norwegian Foreign Ministry provided financial assistance.

The second Regional Forum, hosted by the Indonesian Press

Council and organised with financial support of the Norwe-

gian Foreign Ministry, agreed a set of detailed recommenda-

tions that will define the work of the GFMD in Asia in the

coming years:

• TheGFMDshouldlinkupmediadevelopmentgroups

and other relevant partners in the region to give infor-

mation and advice on establishing independent media or

press councils.

• TheGFMDshouldaimtoprepareanon-linepublication

that show-cases examples of where assistance to internet

media has proven successful in promoting pluralism and

a wide range of sources of information in the region. The

publication should be distributed widely including to

donors and policy makers.

18

Asia Forums for Media Development

JAkARTA, I N DON E S IAAPR I L 15-16, 2010

2N D 1ST COLOM BO, S R I LAN kAJ U LY 4-5, 2008


• TheGFMDshouldinvestigateformingpartnerships

with human rights and press freedom groups to support

campaign against impunity of attacks against journalists

in the region.

• TheGFMDshouldjoincampaignstobridgethedigital

divide in the Asia-Pacific region. Internet penetration

varies widely from, for instance, 28% in China to just

2% in Afghanistan. Take account of the digital divide

and media development programmes should reflect this

reality.

• TheGFMDshouldconsidercreatinganon-linedatabase

listing all relevant internet sites and news blogs in the

region that make a contribution to increasing pluralism.

• TheGFMDshouldprepareaguideondevelopingfun-

ding proposals for local media development NGOs with

tips and advice on framing proposals, how to deal with

administration issues etc.

• TheGFMDshouldprovidememberswithexamplesof

best practice for organisational models of media develop-

ment NGOs.

• TheGFMDshouldlobbydonorstoprovidemorede-

tailed explanations on their priorities and to explain to

applicants more clearly their reasons when projects are

rejected.

• TheGFMDshouldaimtoorganiseaworkshopforlocal

media NGOs to meet with donors for a more targeted

discussion on priorities, how to frame proposals etc.

• TheGFMDshouldcontinuemappingmediadevelop-

ment and members in Asia committed to providing

information on their programmes.

• GFMDshouldcontinueitsdialoguewithdonorsto

understand the difference between media development

versus media for development.

• GFMDshouldcontinuetolobbyforseparatefunding

arrangement for monitoring and evaluation after a lapse

of time to effectively map the impact.

• GFMDshouldpromoteitstoolkitforassessingmediade-

velopment and the sphere of influence model with donors

and policy makers.

• GFMDshouldcontinuetopromotetheCodeofPractice

for Media Development Organisations especially issues of

accountability to beneficiaries.

• GFMDshouldcollectinformationonnewplayersinthe

sector and what type of media development they support.

In order to carry out this work, the GFMD will establish a

special web-presence in the region to improve communica-

tion between members as well as with other partners. The

new site, hosted by the Southeast Asian Centre for E-Media,

will go on-line in the second half of 2010.

19

More than 150 media development organisations

from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union

gathered at the first Eurasia Regional Forum for Media Deve-

lopment on April 17-19 in Paris to agree recommendations

and strategies for their future work.

Their message to donors was clear: Media development,

ranging from law reform to journalism training, and aimed

at creating free, independent and pluralistic media systems is

a crucial factor in building democratic societies. A lot more

support to media development is needed, especially in the

former Soviet Union, where democratic development has

experienced a backlash in many countries.

Media support groups recognised that they have to work

more closely together, try to avoid unnecessary competition

between different projects and build expertise in monitoring

the impact of their work.

One of the main conclusions of the meeting was that media

development organisations needed to reach out more to

other civil society groups. More coalitions and links must be

built with civil society to withstand undue influence on me-

dia content by governments and powerful business interests.

The event was hosted by Internews Europe with the support

of the Council of Europe, the Maison de l’Europe, the Orga-

nisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Open

Society Institute and UNESCO.

Participants agreed that in order to increase their say in decisi-

ons by donors on what type of media programmes to support,

they have to define common priorities and lobby jointly for

the recognition of media development as a key sector of deve-

lopment work. This has been a key priority for GFMD work

since the World Conference in Athens in December 2008.

The meeting identified priorities for action that were agreed

at the GFMD World Conference and that are shaping GFMD

work until the next World Conference in 2011:

• Mediasupportgroupsintheregionhavetoworkmore

closely with civil society organisations to be better prepa-

red to withstand undue influence on media content.

• GFMDshouldcreateadatabaseofmediadevelopment

organisations (GFMD members).

• GFMDshouldundertakeareviewofmediadevelopment

programmes carried out by GFMD members.

• GFMDshouldcarryoutareviewoffundingprovidedby

donors to media development.

• GFMDshouldcreatemechanismsforinformationsha-

ring (web-site etc) at global and at regional levels.

• GFMDshoulddevelopasetofprinciples(codeofcon-

duct) for media assistance organisations.

GFMD members from Eurasia elected Manana Aslamaziyan

from Russia, Director of Internews Europe and Remzi Lani

from Albania, president of the South East European Network

for Professionalisation of Media to the GFMD Steering

Committee. Ognian Zlatev of the Bulgarian Media Deve-

lopment Center and Katerina Myasnykova of the Ukrainian

Independent Association of Broadcasters are sharing the

position of reserve.

The next Eurasia Forum for Media Development will take

place in Kiev in second half of 2010.

20

Eurasia Forum for Media DevelopmentPAR I S, FRANCEAPR I L 17-19, 2008



The Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region of

the GFMD was the first to hold its regional meeting in

the run up to the GFMD World Conference. The LAC Forum

for Media Development took place in Cartagena on March

13-14, 2008. It was attended by 50 participants from across

the region.

The conference examined the challenges, strategic issues

and possibilities of the media development sector in Latin

America and the Caribbean, and identified strategies to im-

prove recognition of the key role media play in strengthening

democracy and human development.

The event was hosted by the New Journalism Foundation

(FNPI - Fundación Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano) with

the support of United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP), the Andean Development Corporation (CAF), and

the AVINA Foundation.

Participants agreed on three priorities that media develop-

ment programmes should focus on in the region:

• Therighttocommunicationandtoreceiveinformation

• Qualityinjournalism

• CorporateSocialresponsibilityofmediacompanies

“Media can play an important role in promoting democracy

and social justice”, said Jaime Abello Banfi of FNPI, Colom-

bia. “We have many examples of media initiatives supporting

marginalised communities and indigenous populations in

this region, but they need to receive more recognition and

more support. “

With these goals in mind, the meeting decided to create

a virtual network of media development groups in the

region. The network is hosted on the FNPI web site has been

defining the work of the GFMD in Latin America and the

Caribbean.

The Cartagena conference defined key points of the GFMD

work plan that were supported by the other regions at the

GFMD World Conference in Athens in December 2008.

The meeting agreed that the GFMD should establish a data-

base of members, that it should carry out a review of media

development programmes world-wide and that it should

draft a code of practice for media assistance organisations

defining principles of accountability and transparency.

Participants also set out regional priorities, including:

• Topromotegreatereditorialindependence;

• Topromotesocialresponsibilitiesofmediaorganisations;

To create links with media assistance organisations and

community media in the region.

GFMD members from the LAC region elected Jaime Abello

Banfi of FNPI in Colombia and Veet Vivarta of Brazilian

News Agency for Children’s Rights (ANDI) to the GFMD

Steering Committee. Wesley Gibbings of the Association of

Caribbean Media Workers from Trinidad and Tobago serves

as the reserve.

The next Latin America and the Caribbean Forum for Media

Development is scheduled to take place in 2011.

21

Latin America and the Caribbean Forum for Media DevelopmentCARTAG E NA, COLOM B IAMARCH 13-14, 2008

GFMD members from the Middle East and North

Africa (MENA) held the first Regional Forum for

Media Development for the region in Beirut on November

1-2, 2008. The meeting was attended by more than 60 parti-

cipants from 18 countries and succeeded in establishing the

GFMD presence in the MENA region.

As the other GFMD regional gatherings, the MENA region

identified the main challenges facing media development

and agreed on priorities for action.

Participants agreed that the lack of an enabling legal and

institutional environment for media freedom was the biggest

problem blocking media development in the region. But

in spite of the restrictive environment, participants shared

experience of how different media assistance groups helped

enlarging the information space in the region.

“The MENA region is leading in digital activism, it has the

fastest growth rate of internet users and the number of blog-

gers is increasing daily”, said Gamal Eid, Executive Director

of the Arab Network for Human Rights based in Egypt.

“We need to engage with this community to work together

towards better access to information.”

In her address, prominent Lebanese journalist May Chidiac,

who had been injured in an assassination attempt in Septem-

ber 2008, called on participants to promote high standards

of ethics in their work. “In a region blighted by conflict,

journalists have a special responsibility to keep to standards

of balanced reporting,” she said.

Nabil Khatib, Executive Director of Al Arabya, echoed her

calls for high standards. “Media development in this region

is not a question of money,” he said. “There are 400 satellite

channels operating in the region, that are worth at least 4

billion US Dollars, but we have to ask ourselves whether we

really respond to the information needs of our viewers.”

He highlighted the problem of access to information, which

often means that journalists cannot find out key information

on, for instance, the division of their own country’s national

budget and called on civil society organisations to be more

active in the campaign for freedom of information.

The meeting, hosted by the Beirut Press Club and organised

with financial support from USAID, adopted a range of

recommendations that were further discussed at the regional

session during the GFMD World Conference in Athens on

December 7-10, 2008. They agreed the following priorities

for action that have shaped the GFMD’s work since the

World Conference:

• Tocarryoutjointcampaignsforaccesstoinformation

should be one priority for media development and other

civil society groups in MENA.

• Advocatingforsafetypoliciesofmediapractitionersand

offering assistance and support to victims of violence and

their families should remain a top priority, especially in

collaboration with other organizations already devoted to

fulfilling this mission.

• Mediadevelopmentorganisationsshoulddevelopguideli-

nes for transparency and good governance inside media

companies and organisations, including clear information

on ownership and structures safeguarding editorial inde-

pendence.

• GFMDshouldassistinprovidingcapacitybuildingini-

tiatives for media development organisations, in the area

of advocacy, training, promotion of social responsibility,

etc., as well as coordination between capacity-building ef-

22

Middle East/North Africa Forum for Media DevelopmentB E I R UT, LE BANONNOVE M B E R 1-2, 2008


forts and identifying those agents most prepared to adopt

and incorporate change.

• GFMDshouldworktowardsincreasingsupportforinde-

pendent media, including preparing an advocacy strategy

for social responsibility for MENA business aiming for

them to provide support to independent media.

• GFMDshouldidentifywaystoincreasecooperationwith

different international and donor organisations in the

region in order to increase recognition of the important

of the role that free, independent, pluralistic media play

in promoting democracy, good governance, human and

economic development in the MENA region.

GFMD members from the MENA region elected Shibli

Haitham Atoom of Radio Farhanas in Jordan and Ali Djerri

of Al Khabar newspaper in Algeria to the GFMD Steering

Committee. Nadir Hassan of Chada FM radio in Morocco

serves as a reserve.

The next MENA Regional Forum for Media Development

will be held in 2011.

23

Making the Case for Media Development

Over the past two decades, major international development institutions like the World Bank have increasingly recognized the critical role that the news media play in achieving positive developmental outcomes. This recognition is based not only on observations of the reform process in countries that have managed to launch suc-cessful economic and social development, but also on a growing body of empirical evidence and research that points to the importance of a vibrant news media and information flow to building strong economic activity and improved governance.

26

MAkI NG TH E CAS E FOR M E DIA DEVE LOPM E NT

Media and Development: Finding the Most Effective Pathwayby MAR k N E LSON


The knowledge we have gathered so far not only

shows how important the media is to the whole field

of international development, it also reveals just how much

we don’t know. What is the most effective way to support

media development as part of an overall economic reform

process? What should be the sequencing of the policy

reforms that create an effective media? What is the business

model for a sustainable media in developing countries? At a

time when the media landscape across the globe is changing

in dramatic and poorly understood ways, the case for further

work on the role of media in development has never been

stronger.

What we know: Why media development matters

Media is a critical institution that cuts across most of the

broad categories under which societies organize themselves:

• A market institution: Information flow is key to an

efficient economic system. The functioning of markets

requires decision-makers who have good understanding

not only of the business at hand, but also of the broader

environment and what is happening in the outside world.

This means that economic decision makers must stay on

top of politics, other business sectors and even seemingly

mundane topics like the weather.

• A governance institution: Also important to the econo-

mic system is the quality of governance, and it is clear that

an independent, sure-footed media can play a major role

in ensuring accountability and oversight over public and

private transactions that affect citizens, and exposing vice

or incompetence in other critical institutions. .

• A social and cultural institution: The media may streng-

then bonds and common understandings among people

and help resolve conflict and forge consensus. While the

media has in recent years been more associated with the

opposite—for example, in stoking the fires of ethic con-

flict in the Balkans—it has also been critical to resolving

those conflicts and providing a forum for debate about

major policy changes in developing countries.

• A promising business sector: As an area of investment

and growth, the media is one of the sectors of the eco-

nomy that is experiencing rapid, evolutionary change.

While it remains unclear whether the traditional media

will come out ahead or even survive these changes, it is

clear that the global population is spending more and

more time with various forms of media such as televisi-

on, the internet and radio. Recent surveys in the United

States, for example, suggest that people spend more than

a third of their time connected to some form of media. As

the media markets of the developed world become more

and more saturated, the prospects for growth will shift

increasingly to developing countries.

Data cited by Media Management Center at www.MediaInfoCenter.org.

Where all of this matters most, of course, is in the less de-

veloped countries, particularly Africa. At a time when some

African countries have shown signs of sustaining a prolon-

27

ged period of economic growth and development, we may

have a rare opportunity to examine the role that the media

play in this story and hopefully contribute to improving the

quality of the outcomes1.

What we don’t know

We have a long way to go in understanding just how the

media affect economic change and development, particularly

in the developing countries. To start, we have only a limited

amount of data about the basic facts of the media environ-

ments in developing countries, and our lack of data makes it

very difficult to chart the progress, or lack thereof, of those

countries.

In most African countries, for example, media development

professionals often have no data at all about the basic con-

tours of the media market—the size of the audience for the

various media, the advertising markets, the ownership of the

media and other pertinent data. While global organizations

like Freedom House and IREX produce useful indices that

track media freedom (Freedom of the Press Index) and the

overall media system (The Media Sustainability Index), these

datasets do not give investors or policy makers a detailed

empirical picture of the media environment or how it is

developing.

We also don’t know exactly how well donor interventions in

the media systems are working. While donors are spending

tens of millions of dollars a year on various media projects,

we have very little comprehensive data about which inter-

ventions are most effective and which lead most quickly to

the desired outcomes for countries that are trying to reform

their media sectors.

The Media Map Project

Creating a better understanding of the impact of media

development on broader development is the focus of the

Media Map project, a two-year multi-partner collaboration

financed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and

through a cooperative effort led by Internews, the World

Bank Institute, and the Brookings Institution.

The Media Map Project is composed of three phases. In the

first phase, it will collect and examine existing data on media

and on global development, such as: the World Bank’s World

Governance Indicators and their disaggregated source data,

other global development indicators such as the UN Human

Development indicators, media indices such as the Media

Sustainability Index, sector-level data like that collected by

the World Association of Newspapers, global opinion polls,

audience research, and other relevant data sources. This

phase will result in a publicly available database that pulls

together a number of these data sources so that media deve-

lopment stakeholders have a resource for further analysis. It

will also result in a report analyzing one or more key aspects

of the correlations between media and development, and

outlining other critical topics for further analysis.

The second phase, running simultaneously with the first

phase, focuses on understanding the evolution of media

development spending over the past decade. It will also

look at the way these investments have been evaluated by

donors, participants, and independent sources. The research

from this phase consists of a review of available studies that

track funding flows for media development, plus a series of

interviews with donors, implementers, and other partners.

This phase will result in a better understanding of how much

investment is made in media assistance and what stakehol-

ders consider to be the most effective investments.

The third phase uses five country-level case studies to

bring the first and second phases together, analyzing the

most effective investments in media development and their

outcomes. This phase will result in a brief report giving an

overview of the findings, to include an assessment of which

tools and approaches should be applied to various develop-

ment conditions. The report will also outline an agenda for

action and next steps.

The aim of this work is to build a stronger understanding

of media and development for news organizations, policy-

makers and donors. As the global media struggles to adjust

to rapidly changing technologies and platforms, the hope

is that developing countries can find a pathway that gives

them access to the critical contributions that an effective and

independent media can provide.

More information: HTTP://WBI.WORLDBANk.ORG/WBI/

1 Over the past decade, sub-Saharan Africa’s growth has remained relatively strong, with a large group of countries growing at between 5% and 10% per year, outpacing the

increases in population. The International Monetary Fund expects sub-Saharan Africa’s growth to rebound this year and next after a setback in 2009.

MARk NELSON is Lead Specialist at the World

Bank Institute in Washington, DC, where he works

on capacity development and governance issues.

A former reporter for the Wall Street Journal, he co-

vered international economic and diplomatic affairs

from Brussels, Berlin and Paris.



We’ve heard others say it many times, and have probably said it ourselves. If there is a point of general consensus in the meetings, blogs and other forums devoted to media development, it is that we self-proclaimed ‘communicators’ have failed to make the case to donors that media matters – and this is why support remains woefully underfunded. This then leads to calls for further research, with new country surveys and case histories that will prove the merits of media assistance to funders obsessed with ‘metrics’ and to development pros skeptical about the very notion of foreign aid for local journalism. But is this really the problem? Could it be that we are asking the donors (and ourselves) the wrong questions?

29

Donors, Governance and Media Aid: Asking the Right Questionsby WI LLIAM OR M E

That media is taken seriously by governments is

hardly headline news. Politicians and development

professionals in the industrial democracies are hyper-aware

of media’s impact, including on their own careers and bud-

gets. The ‘public diplomacy’ professionals in donor nations

court local news organizations with press briefings as well

as junkets, fellowships and other favors. The five permanent

members of the Security Council have all long sponsored

radio broadcasts from their state information services to

almost every country on the planet. And is telling that when

the United Nations embarks on a peacekeeping mission,

one of its first priorities is often to set up its own local radio

service, entire transmission networks and news departments

from scratch.

Aid-recipient governments are little different. Most are in-

tensely aware of the importance of the media, domestic and

local, as attested by their news-management apparatus of

information ministries, state broadcasters, public adverti-

sing budgets, direct and indirect payments to reporters and

their employers, and myriad other instruments of coercion,

persuasion and co-optation.

The purpose of all this official media activity is rarely what

we would consider ‘media development.’ But it is also clear

that it is the rare politician or foreign-policy-maker who

considers media to be unimportant in the greater geopoliti-

cal scheme of things. That is also the case with most develop-

ment professionals.

The question I have been confronted with by colleagues in

UN agencies is not whether media is an important factor in

development or governance. They get that; most would rea-

dily endorse the need for independent, pluralistic, professio-

nal news media, in their home countries and in the countries

where they work. The question they pose is different: What

does this have to do with us?

If your focus is basic health care, say, or primary school

education, the ‘media’ is not necessarily seen as an equally

logical beneficiary of development aid. Newspapers, radio

and television are, after all, mostly private for-profit busines-

ses that can and do survive even in poor countries without

public subvention. The major exceptions are state media,

usually rightly dismissed as propaganda organs, and religious

broadcasters, which have their own patrons and agenda. You

may see ‘communications for development’ as a defensible

investment – using media to get out the word on safe sex

or bed nets or sending your daughters to school – but not

support for media as an end in itself. Especially as the media

appears already to exist without such help.

The challenge, then, is not just to show that media

matters in development, but to show that media require glo-

bal taxpayer support, as an integral part of that 0.7 percent

ODA bill, just like schools and hospitals and other essential

public services, even if press freedom and access to informa-

tion don’t show up anywhere in the MDGs.

This first requires assessing the news media in terms of its

public function and impact – does it inform the citizenry

accurately, does it hold authorities accountable, does it reach

all regions and ethnic groups? – rather than with quantitative

measures – newspaper circulation, radio listenership, num-

bers of media outlets, and so on. This means delving into

actual content, and making subjective but well-founded and

persuasive judgments.

Secondly, it demands an economic analysis of the news

business. Though it may appear increasingly obvious that

the free-market model alone cannot provide independent

professional news services even in the wealthiest countries,

the case must be rigorously made why the costs of serious

newsgathering and news dissemination cannot be met by ad

revenue alone, especially in economies dependent on donor

support for a third or more of basic government budgets.

If you clear that tall hurdle, the second tier of questions is

about how: What sort of media support is most appropriate

– and most effective -- for a multilateral or bilateral agency?

How do donors pick local media stars and shun bad actors –

That media is taken seriously by governments is hardly head-line news. Politicians and development professionals in the industrial democracies are hyper-aware of media’s impact, including on their own careers and budgets.

30



or should they? How do you ensure and verify that this sup-

port will benefit the general public? And aren’t there other

more urgent governance priorities, like fighting corruption?

A journalists’ workshop here and there is fine, but is news a

necessity like primary schooling or potable water?

A useful framework for addressing and alleviating these

reasonable concerns is to point to the tens of millions of

dollars donors are putting into new independent democratic

institutions such as autonomous electoral boards and anti-

corruption commissions. These are now seen as essential

long-term investments in sound governance. It wasn’t as if

elections weren’t held before or that embezzlement wasn’t

always illegal, but there was a widely recognized need for

a much higher order of professionalism in these oversight

bodies, as well as more arms-length detachment from the

government of the day.

Media development should be put on the same policy plane,

with specific proposals for broad institutional support,

untainted by perceptions that donors are playing media

favorites: Examples would include aid to journalism schools,

public broadcasters, semiautonomous regulatory bodies,

national professional associations, and groups of women

journalists, business writers, or environmental specialists.

These proposals should be framed as complements to exis-

ting donor and host-country commitments to democratic

institutions, which (we would argue) require

independent news media.

These long-term funding decisions emerge by consensus

from long and often tedious consultation processes among

bilateral and multilateral aid providers, national govern-

ments and political parties and civil society groups and other

‘stakeholders.’ The result is often a multi-donor, multi-year

commitment to these institutions, as reflected in their in-

clusion in ‘basket funds’ and ‘PRSPs’ and other development

instruments.

Wouldn’t we like to see media included in that process? It’s

hard, because the press is always messy, and should be, with

multiple outlets with diverse agendas and audiences, while –

ideally - maintaining a critical distance from government. Yet

support for this desirable pluralism too often manifests itself

in parallel or overlapping training programs for individu-

al journalists and news organizations, which may be fine

initiatives in themselves but rarely promote sustainable,

transformational change. This syndrome is exacerbated

by donors’ tendency to support media through public-

diplomacy budgets, where spotlighting the donor’s flag is a

bigger priority than aid effectiveness.Yet much could be done

that would foster greater donor collaboration and bring new

money to the table.

As in health or education or any other development field, it

is immensely helpful if there is a consensus about priorities

in Country X among media development professionals and

the local journalism establishment. It is more helpful still if

those identified priorities include aid to institutions serving

the entire population, at least in principle. Reassuringly to

Media development should be put on the same policy plane, with specific proposals for broad institutional support, untainted by perceptions that donors are playing media favorites.

aid professionals, there are recognized international norms

and obligations in the management and monitoring of

elections, as there also are in the anti-corruption field and in

human rights. In the media realm, though, there is often an

erroneous assumption that there are no analogous univer-

sal verities, much less codified international principles, but

rather a hodgepodge of varying media cultures and practices.

That’s wrong, of course: From Article 19 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights to the more detailed principles

adopted by such regional bodies as the AU and the OAS and

the OSCE, there is no lack of clear, governmentally endorsed

guidelines. Yet journalists and other media aid advocates

– reflecting an otherwise healthy distrust of most things

governmental – too rarely cite these intergovernmental

instruments in making their case to bilateral and multilateral

donors.

The next crucial step is for the media development specialists

to actually collaborate, by communicating with one another

on the ground and shaping project proposals in a comple-

mentary rather than competitive manner. Given existing

niche specializations in broadcasting training, media law,

investigative reporting and many other areas, this kind of

cooperation shouldn’t be hard. But it remains rare.

And finally, seek alliances with movements already embed-

ded in the global governance-and-aid matrix. An obvious

example are the anti-corruption campaigners who have

become a force in donor institutions and domestic reform

groups alike. Aside from ritual nods to the role of journalists

as ‘watchdogs,’ they have not made common cause with the

media development community, or vice-versa.

Yet the first national reports to emerge from the intensive

donor-supported African Peer Review Mechanism all identi-

fied a need for better local investigative reporting to reinforce

anti-corruption and accountability efforts – and the authors

of those recommendations were primarily finance techno-

crats, not the usual democratic-reform crowd. This should

be seen as an invitation to media aid advocates to, first,

strongly agree, and then to underline the linkages between

investigative reporting and (for example) the elimination of

criminal libel laws, the strength and independence of natio-

nal news organizations, and the caliber of local journalism

training.

Similarly, there could be more effective partnerships between

civil-society proponents of right-to-information statu-

tes – a half dozen such bills now sit stalled in draft form in

parliaments across Africa, for example – and the journalists’

groups who could push harder and more publicly for these

laws. They should also jointly seek support for training re-

porters and civic activists alike to use those legal tools when

they become available, and for governments to acquire the

technical capacity needed to comply.

These strategic partnerships requiring crossing some cus-

tomarily adversarial lines. They also demand better under-

standing of the donor and aid-technocrat world view – and

a willingness to attend repetitious planning meetings and

wade through the even more mind-numbing documents that

they will eventually produce. But the key is getting inside the

room, and there are many doors in the development world

waiting to be opened.


WILLIAM ORME works currently as a freelance

consultant on media development for several organisa-

tions including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

and UNDP. Until 2009 he was the Policy Advisor for

Independent Media Development at the UNDP Bureau

for Development Policy. Before he worked as a corres-

pondent fort he New York Times and as director of the

Commity to Protect Journalists.

1 This piece was prepared by Anne-Katrin Arnold and Antonio G. Lambino II, CommGAP, The World Bank2 Public Sentinel can be accessed here: http://go.worldbank.org/ZMCO1WV7Z0

The problem: Good Governance in Recession

Today the world faces multiple challenges in gover-

nance, transparency, accountability, and inclusivity of

development. The spread of accountability and transparency

has been extraordinary, with more countries scoring higher

on international aggregate indicators of governance, press

freedom, and transparency. Nevertheless, these indicators

also suggest that in many countries the advance of good

governance has stagnated or even reversed.

Reforms urgently need to improve the responsiveness,

transparency, effectiveness, and accountability of governance

institutions so that public services work for the poor as well

as the rich. A diverse and independent media sector can be

an effective way to increase government accountability and

to benefit the poor by enhancing their participation and

dialogue.

The linkages between news media and governance can be

approached with three broad questions. First, a normative

approach asks: What ideal roles should media systems play to

strengthen democratic governance and thus bolster human

development? Second, an empirical approach considers inde-

pendent evidence derived from cross-national comparisons

and from selected case studies, asking: Under what condi-

tions do media systems actually succeed or fail to fulfill these

objectives? Third, a strategic approach asks: What policy in-

terventions work most effectively to close the substantial gap

that exists between the democratic promise and performance

of the news media as an institution?

Public Sentinel: News Media and Governance Reform2,

edited by Pippa Norris, responds to these questions, bringing

to bear some of the best empirical evidence from around the

world. In reply to the first question, the book offers three

ideal roles of the news media: watchdog, agenda setter, and

gatekeeper in the public forum. As regards the second, chap-

ters in the book examine how the news media function as an

institution against these ideal benchmarks, using systematic

cross-national empirical analysis, detailed selected case stu-

dies derived from a wide range of low- and medium-income

societies, as well as different types of regimes found in all

regions around the globe. The policy recommendations

offered in the book’s final chapter, by Sina Odugbemi and

Pippa Norris, are summarized below.

The solution: Policy recommendations

A substantial gap exists between the ideals that are widely ar-

ticulated in liberal democratic theory and the practices that

are commonly found in states around the world. This gap

33

News Media as Public Sentinel Communication for Governance and Accountability Program (CommGAP) by TH E WOR LD BAN k1

needs to be addressed, and the book presents a wide range

of effective policy interventions and programs that can be

implemented by national stakeholders and the international

community.

Reform the Role of the State

Strengthening the framework of civil liberties, reforming

state broadcasting, and establishing effective and inde-

pendent broadcasting regulatory agencies can provide

bases for reforming the state.

• Expandtheframeworkofcivillibertiesandremovelegal

curbs on the media: Reform any overarching consti-

tutional principles, laws, or administrative procedures

that inhibit the independence of the press (especially

fundamental freedoms of expression and publication).

Efforts should be directed toward respecting the rights

of journalists and revoking punitive legislation against

independent media (including punitive taxing, control

of official advertising, control of printing presses, and

licenses for the importation of newsprint).

• Turnstatebroadcastersintopublicservicebroadcas-

ters: State control of the media inhibits the capacity of

the news media to be watchdogs, agenda-setters, and

gate-keepers. Convert state-controlled broadcasters into

genuine public service broadcasters (PSB), which are edi-

torially independent of government and protected against

political and commercial interference. They should

provide a wide range of programming to educate, inform,

and entertain the public, while taking into account ethnic,

cultural, religious, and regional diversity. Public service

broadcasting should be governed by an independent

governing board, and should be financed with public

funding through specific mechanisms that protect their

independence.

• Ensuretheindependenceofbroadcastingregulatory

bodies: Because broadcasting regulation is unavoidable,

it is crucial that bodies overseeing this process be truly

independent. The powers and duties of oversight bodies

should be determined by law. The oversight body should

operate transparently and in the interest only of the

public. The regulatory body should be required to include

public participation, be subject to judicial oversight, and

be formally accountable to the public. Finally, a regulato-

ry body should be required to publish an annual report.

• UseNeedsDiagnosticsandMediaPerformanceIndi-

cators: Strong monitoring and evaluation frameworks

promote a holistic, consistent, and efficient approach

to media reform. Apply systematic media audits and

indicators that are sensitive to regional contexts prior to

any policy intervention or the implementation of any

program.

• Incorporatemediaindicatorsandauditsintogovernance

diagnostics and needs analysis: Incorporate diagnostics

for assessing the state of the media system at the country

level prior to any strategic interventions. This diagnostic

work can be informed by a set of disaggregated indica-

tors, such as country profiles, or quality of governance

assessment frameworks.

Address Problems of Market Failure

Be aware of the ambiguity of liberal markets and com-

petition. They can be an asset to watchdog reporting

because state influence can be curbed, but they can also

be an obstacle because commercial pressures often make

the media reluctant to hold the powerful to account.

• Makeapluralisticanddiversemediasystemyourover-

arching policy objective.- Diversity should be achieved

through a regulatory environment encouraging a wide

range of media ownership, outlets, contents, interests,

and political perspectives. It is advisable for donors to

support small independent media to offset the potentially

negative effects of political and economic pressures on the

mainstream media.

• Goodpracticesuggestionsontheregulationofprivate

broadcasting include: positive content obligations; special

content rules during elections; no restrictions on broad-

cast content beyond those that apply to all forms of ex-

pression; codes of conduct and self-regulation; sanctions

for breaches of content rules that are proportionate to

the harm done; equitable frequency distribution between

public service, commercial, and community broadcasters;

“must carry” rules for cable and satellite networks; public

access channels.

• Strengthenmediamarketsandmediaindustries,andsup-

port media infrastructure: The media sector needs to be

regarded as an important development sector because it

can be a massive creator of jobs and a generator of wealth,

especially in developing countries. The kind of economic

development initiatives directed toward other economic

and social development sectors need to be directed to the

media sector as well.

• Commissionsectorstudiesanddevelopplansofaction

for sector development and to support institutions that

34


will strengthen the entire sector. Further suggestions

to strengthen sustainable media markets include: tailor

funds and bridge finance gaps that may exist due to late

returns of donor investments; use existing finance sche-

mes by increasing awareness of existing funding oppor-

tunities among the media sector; facilitate the funding of

equipment; create mechanisms for media outlets to share

technical facilities; identify opportunities to collectively

purchase equipment; support equipment and skill up-

grades.

Build the Institutional Capacity of the Journalism Pro-

fession

The ideal roles of the news media as watchdogs, agenda-

setters, and gate-keepers have implications for the values,

norms, and professional practices of journalists. These ro-

les also have implications for media standards of training,

accreditation, organizational routines, and professional

associations.

• Prioritizeinstitutional,notindividual,capacitybuil-

ding: Regard the media system in each country as one

of the core institutions affecting governance. Ask: what

kind of media systems will help to deliver democratic

governance? An institutional view of the media requires

a holistic approach to media development, not piecemeal

work concentrating mainly on short-term efforts. Change

will happen faster if professional development, economic

sustainability, legal-enabling environment, and media

literacy are addressed simultaneously.

• Supportsustainableprofessionaldevelopmentprograms

and expand institutional capacity: Journalists need

support with regard to professional skills, journalism

ethics, and management skills. Professional development

programs are most effective when they are sustained,

especially through existing platforms of learning. Lasting

solutions arise from building the institutional capacity

of journalism, supporting professional associations, and

supporting independent press councils for self-regulation.

Expand Civil Society Organizations

The capacity of the news media to be effective watchdogs,

agenda-setters, and gatekeepers depends crucially on the

vibrancy of associational life in a particular society. Orga-

nized groups help to inform and mobilize the news media

on specific issues.

• Encouragelinksbetweennewsmediaandtherestofcivil

society: Better cooperation between the news media and

the rest of civil society is crucial. The news media need

the active support of groups in civil society in order to

strengthen the commitment of each political community

to free, diverse, and independent media. NGOs, commu-

nity-based organizations, and social movements cannot

be effective without the active support of free, diverse,

and independent news media. Media watch groups or

observatories are a good way of holding the news media

themselves accountable and encourage them to focus on

the public interest.

Expand Public Access and Build Media Literacy

Widespread public access is an essential condition for an

effective media. The capacity of the government to have

the means to communicate with all parts of the territo-

ry it governs is fundamentally important to both state

effectiveness and nation building. The news media play

a crucial role in creating that sense of community. Mo-

reover, access to the news media is integral to competent

citizenship. Formal media freedoms have little meaning if

citizens cannot make use of the media.

• Expandpublicaccesstonewmediaandrightstoinfor-

mation: Close gaps in access to media (including the

digital divide in information and communication techno-

logies, as well as the skills and resources that are neces-

sary to give widespread access to traditional broadcast

media). Technological innovations can reduce some of

the technological hurdles to information access in poorer

societies (including availability of wind-up radios, solar-

power batteries, wireless connectivity, US$100 rugged lap-

tops, Internet cafés, community telephone and Internet

centers, and cell phones with data services, e-mail, and

text messaging).

• Supportmedialiteracyaspartofbuildingcitizenship

skills: Support and scale up efforts to promote media

literacy. Teach citizens knowledge and provide them with

tools so that they can use the media as autonomous and

rational citizens.

More information:

BLOGS.WORLDBANk.ORG/PUBLICSPHERE

WWW.TWITTER.COM/COMMGAP1

WWW.WORLDBANk.ORG/COMMGAP


35

But if social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and

countless blogs provide evidence that free speech is on

the march, they also represent a challenge to people who care

about democracy and development.

In democracies, people need to be properly informed. They

need to know about government, about policy and about

changes taking place in their environment. They need infor-

mation that is credible, relevant, and truthful, and they need

to know where it comes from. The opportunities that cyber-

space give us to rant, to boo, to cheer, or, more likely, to be

irredeemably dull are not enough to make democracy work.

The people expected to provide us with information we can

rely on are journalists who, in theory at least, work according

to codes and ethics that bind them to notions of decency,

accountability, and respect for the rights of others.

But journalism is in trouble. The modern media, in deep

crisis as it wrestles with technological change and rapidly

The age of the Internet has brought us marvelous benefits. These days, people can say what they want, when they want, and how they want. The voices of those who were previously silent are now heard in a kaleidoscope of language, culture, and opinion. The information revolution has opened the door to free expression, and millions are joining the party.

36


The Pain of Change and the Need for a New Mindset over Journalism and Development by AI DAN WH ITE


changing markets, has plunged journalism into an age of

uncertainty.

This adds to the long-standing crisis in countries where

conflict, social dislocation and poverty are major obstacles

to development, and where pressure on journalists and inde-

pendent media has a devastating impact. Governments are

also to blame. Punitive and restrictive laws are used to stifle

media and jail journalists. In many regions — Mexico, the

Philippines and Russia, for example — journalists avoid con-

tentious reporting or are intimidated into a fearful silence, a

process sometimes erroneously called self-censorship.

This has a chilling effect because it denies the people’s right

to know, it hampers development and it weakens the watch-

dog role of media in society.

In the heartland of press freedom in North America and ac-

ross Europe, there are fewer direct threats, but the whirlwind

of change caused by the Internet is no less damaging. Up to

100,000 media workers and journalists have lost their jobs in

the last three years. Traditional media markets have collapsed

and investment in journalism has plunged. In the search for

new revenues some private media are abandoning long-

standing notions of ethical journalism if it helps them make

more money. Fox News in the United States, for instance, has

developed a business model that thrives on political bias. In

Britain a major daily newspaper, the Daily Express, provoked

a newsroom revolt when the owner insisted on constant

front-page focus on populist, anti-migrant stories to boost

circulation.

Of course, not all media are in a state of decline and not all

media owners have lost their attachment to editorial mission,

but across the world of journalism there is growing dismay

at the decline of values in newspaper journalism which until

recently has been the mainstay of reporting in metropolitan

centres.

Studies of newspaper and broadcast journalism repeatedly

show that broadcast news follows the agenda set by newspa-

pers, often repeating the same items, albeit with less depth.

Online journalism is full of voice and opinion, but research-

driven reporting is scarce and checking of facts or editorial

scrutiny is often entirely absent. The capacity for original

news reporting is weaker on all fronts. When four years ago

Stephen Engelberg, managing editor of The Oregonian, in

Portland, United States, got a tip that the head of a charity in

El Paso, Texas, was paying himself $1.4 million a year, largely

from government cash destined to help disabled workers, he

sent three reporters and a photographer to investigate. Some

weeks and several visits later they filed a two-part series

exposing the scam.

This was public interest journalism at its best – detailed and

meticulous reporting, thoughtful interviews, fool-proof

documentation and lashings of style in the presentation. As

a result the government carried out much-needed reform of

its public support programmes and the charity boss signed a

personal cheque for $10 million to reimburse the charity.

But in the sharp focus of today’s newspaper crisis it’s

doubtful whether such an expensive story – it cost around

$250,000 to put together – would ever see the light of day,

simply because the business case for it cannot be made.

What is certain, however, is that online media would never

initiate or break such a story, not least because of the invest-

ment in time and research needed as well as the absence of

rigorous fact-checking and editorial scrutiny.

Across the world, media people scratch their heads trying to

answer a simple question: If private media cannot deliver the

information pluralism democracy needs to flourish, who will

provide it, and more to the point, who will pay for it?

In answering this question some journalists now argue for

a new media paradigm – one that encompasses public good

and quality content. They see an opportunity for positive

37

change in the way media work and how journalism is paid

for. Much of this is focused around talk of new sources of

funding – some of it public – to support public interest jour-

nalism and independent media. But public funds, whether

generated through special levies or other ways of picking the

tax-payers’ pocket, should not be used to bail out commer-

cial enterprise. Public money does have a place in financing

of media, but only when it nourishes journalism as a public

good and it should only be available through independent

structures that keep political influence at bay.

Although the notion of public subsidy beyond the well defi-

ned territory of public broadcasting is relatively novel in the

West it is an established feature of media in the rest of the

world. In many regions people simply would not have access

to local reporting if government money, local and national,

was eliminated. In many of these countries it is taken for

granted that “state media” serve their political masters. The

notion of “independent media,” where it exists, is associated

with private enterprise, but there is often little money to be

made in countries where the economy is weak. Often the

information vacuum is filled by rich and powerful industries,

as in Russia, or political movements, as in Iraq, who buy

into media to promote their own interests. The precarious

context in which journalism is often practiced also has an

impact. In countries like Paraguay and Colombia poverty

wages and uncertain employment conditions are common,

and many journalists only get their stories published if they

first sell advertising to pay for it.

In numerous others, from Somalia to Indonesia and China,

journalism is carried out through under-the counter deals,

brown envelopes and various forms of bribery that render

the notion of ‘journalism of values’ laughable to many.

Equally damaging is internal corruption and a lack of media

transparency. In India recently a leading newspaper refused

to send reporters to a World Bank-supported programme

to train journalists on covering sanitation and environment

issues. If the sanitation department wanted media coverage,

said the newspaper, it ought to pay.

This view highlights the prevailing influence of „private trea-

ties,“ a money-making ruse developed by the Times of India,

the country‘s largest-selling English daily, but practiced by

several other media companies. Under these agreements, a

company looking for investment enters into a private treaty

with the newspaper. The paper takes a stake in the com-

pany, provides advertising support and generous editorial

coverage. Not only are readers not told of the arrangements,

but adverse news about the companies involved is under-

played, or goes unreported.

The Times of India also came in for flak in a 2010 study

carried out by the Press Council of India which found much

of the provincial media encouraging journalists to put bias

into their stories for cash handouts. Astonishingly, some

newspapers regularly present a rate card to political candi-

dates, outlining how much they have to pay for favourable

coverage of themselves and how much to they have pay for

publication of critical news about their opponents.

None of this makes it easier to report on development issues

or to expose corruption in public life. Independent scrutiny

of power becomes ever-more difficult when governments,

corporations and leaders of cultural movements have their

hands on the controls of media. When these people have less

reason to fear exposure, corruption is likely to flourish.

This is not just a speculative notion. The World Bank’s annu-

al index of political corruption around the world, based on

surveys of people who do business in each country provides

revealing evidence of how media freedom is linked to levels

of corruption. Even so, journalistic resilience offers some

hope for change. In Indonesia, the Alliance of Independent

Journalists, for instance, has campaigned vigorously to

eradicate bribery of reporters and editors. The union has

fostered a new culture of unionism within media to combat

corruption.

Elsewhere the International Federation of Journalists has

launched the Ethical Journalism Initiative, a global campaign

to rekindle trust in journalism and to encourage action by

journalists to improve standards and to challenge corruption

both inside and outside the media.



But if the future is to be as bright as many optimistic jour-

nalists want it to be, all media will have to rethink their role

and relationships with sources and their audience and look

beyond traditional structures and markets. This fresh thin-

king needs to resonate in the media policy debates within

the development community and international agencies. To

address the hatful of challenges in the debate about media

development and journalists’ rights we need to refocus on

the realities of the new world of information.

Although journalists are not the only players in the informa-

tion field, they are the main providers of information that

people need and they need more support.

The information crisis in many countries is made worse by

journalism that is corrupt, ill-informed and incompetent.

Support for independent journalists’ associations, actions to

encourage ethical journalism, more training and better social

conditions are all essential if we are serious about creating

the sort of journalism that will command public trust.

Development priorities must focus on ensuring that infor-

mation policies promote transparency, credibility, relevance

and accountability. That may be best achieved by supporting

value-based journalism and not by propping up flagging me-

dia entities, or by sponsoring new private initiatives without

creating an environment that will allow independent media

to develop.

Media development should invigorate public debate about the

role of media and journalism, encourage support for ethical

journalism through press councils, and support media literacy

and education programmes for all. Perhaps most crucial, and

delicate, is the need to revisit relations with the state and to

build new partnerships with government not least to resolve

problems of official secrecy, the “digital-divide,” and to abolish

laws that criminalise acts of journalism.

Government has a role to play, but it does not involve medd-

ling in the content of journalism. Importantly, they are po-

tential partners in creating the environment for strengthening

journalism as a public good. To achieve that means looking

at new ways of delivering public support – provided at arm’s

length from political influence – and seeking new initiatives to

garner fresh investment in journalism and media.

If it is unacceptable for government to act arbitrarily against

media it claims are unprofessional, it is equally inappropriate

for media support groups to make robust criticism of govern-

ments without seeking dialogue with journalists and the

authorities in these countries to help media to do a better job.

Media development can make a difference to peoples’ lives,

not least in giving voice to marginalized communities and

providing opportunities for people to have their say. But that

will not happen without a new mindset and without a more

inclusive vision of the future in which governments, donor

agencies, journalists, media, and civil society work together

to bring journalism out of the shadows of development

policy.

More information: WWW.IFJ.ORG

AIDAN WHITE is the General Secretary of the

International Federation of Journalists. He joined

the IFJ in 1987 from The Guardian in the Uk. He has

written extensively on the social and professional

conditions of journalism. He is an international con-

sultant on press rights and journalistic ethics and

has produced reports for UNESCO, the ILO, the UN

Human Rights Commission, the Council of Europe,

and the European Union. He is the author is a wide

range of publications; his most recent book about

journalist ethics “To Tell You the Truth” was publis-

hed in English in 2009 and has been translated into

French and Arabic.

From the Beginning

The Internet first became a real choice for Malaysians

and their daily news updates in 1999. The catalyst came the

year before, when Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed fired

his Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim. The action was

controversial and sparked a reform movement in Malaysia.

Because it coincided with the broad arrival of the Internet in

Malaysia, it led to the launching of many online alternative

news sites.

The civil society group, Aliran, and others like it had just

started putting up their own Web sites, the earliest in 1997.

The Internet became the space for news from all kinds of

campaigns, including one to free the imprisoned Anwar, led

by the now famous blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin; also,

the BERSIH rally for free and unbiased elections, in Kuala

Lumpur.

Many Web-based magazines, such as Saksi.com, also emer-

ged. The first Internet newspaper, Malaysiakini, started in

1999.ThefirstWeb-basedradio,RadiQradio.com,waslaun-

ched in 2000. Also that year, Aliran launched an initiative it

called Charter 2000, to campaign for a free and fair media.

Many more online media emerged, including: The Nut

Graph, Malaysian Insider, FreeMalaysia Today, Malaysian

Mirror, Merdeka Review and Rock Malaysia. So did hund-

reds of blogs – including one by the former Prime Minister,

Mahathir (one of the most visited, chedet.com), who used it

for a while to complain about mainstream media blocking

his criticism of his successor.

One setback in media freedom actually fueled more Internet

news sites. In 2001, Malaysia’s Chinese Party bought the

nation’s two leading Chinese newspapers. After that and in

search of independent news, the Chinese community added

several Web sites, such as thefreemedia.com and mytian-

wang.com.

The Internet was fast becoming a lifeline for opposition

views and balanced news reports.

The Impact of Cyber News

Malaysia’s March 2008 general elections marked a historic

change not just in the nation’s politics but also its media. For

only the second time in the country’s history, the Barisan

40

Internet news, growing fast in Malaysia, demonstrates the opportunities and challenges it brings to a society to create balanced reports and an informed populace. We have seen it be quickly appealing to young people, who want more independent reporting and attach some sta-tus to being the first to learn of news. On the other hand, our Web media find that they face the same repressive laws the government has been using on traditional me-dia – and often – as the new technology makes the ruling institutions feel insecure.

Cyber News: Malaysia’s First Decadeby S EVAN DORAI SAMY



National Alliance lost its two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The results stunned the government, which had ignored

cyber campaigning, vilified bloggers and threatened them

with jail. Jeff Ooi, one of the nation‘s top bloggers who used

cyberspace as part of his main campaign strategy, is now an

opposition parliamentarian.

Mainstream media took a beating too, losing credibility

because of blatantly biased coverage in favor of the govern-

ment. News monitoring by our organization, the Centre

for Independent Journalism, for 10 days before the election

showed Barisan National used mainstream newspapers as

propaganda tools. The election results showed that the gene-

ral public ignored that mainstream media.

What helped discredit traditional media were conflicting

reports between them and the blogs and online media. For

example, mainstream media reported much lower crowd

numbers at the BERSIH rally than the 40,000 reported and

photographed by online media.

There are signs of more balanced coverage in some main-

stream media since the election. On the other hand, expres-

sion in cyberspace remains anything but free. Malaysians

still remember the police raid in 2003 on Malaysiakini. Also,

some fear a crackdown by Malaysia’s current Prime Minis-

ter, Najib Tun Razak. Malaysia made a pledge in 1996 not

to censor the Internet; nevertheless, Web sites and blogs are

subject to strict slander and security laws. For example, Raja

Petra, arrested last year under the Internal Security Act, now

lives in exile.

Challenges Posed by Current Laws

Fundamentally, expression can be and is criminalized in

Malaysia under several laws: The Penal Code (incitement,

defamation), Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, Printing Pres-

ses and Publications Act, and the newest legislation from the

late 1990s – the Communications and Multimedia Act. Web

sites and bloggers join a list of others – including traditional

media, opposition politicians, artists and non-governmental

organizations (NGO’s) – for whom there is evidence the

government and its agents actively use these laws to stifle

expression.

In the last decade, as opportunities for cyber activism grew,

so did the government’s hold on expression. Coverage of

such topics as religious freedom, equitable distribution of

wealth, affirmative action, and government corruption has

been censored and writers attacked. In 2009, the government

used the Communications and Multimedia Act to charge

eight people for placing comments against the Perak Sultan

on an official Web site – demonstrating official intolerance

of opinions against the monarchy. The Sedition Act has been

used against both a media organization – Malaysiakini – and

individual bloggers – Raja Petra and Bernard Khoo; also,

criminal defamation charges were brought against Raja Petra

for a posting that linked the current Prime Minister and

his wife to the murder of a Mongolian woman, Altantuya

Shaariibuu.

Looking Forward

Malaysia’s government has a longstanding reputation for

curbing media independence, and it won’t hesitate to go on

using its old tactics to control new media. The Internet as an

alternative source of news is growing like never before, but it

needs the backup of greater advocacy for freedom of expres-

sion and protection. There should be an initiative to bring

together the cyber news people, possibly in a loose coalition

or even a formal union, to be a strong voice for grievances –

especially in urgent matters such as arrests, crackdowns, or

office raids by the authorities.

Civil society groups and NGO’s have to do more to promote

the cyber news community as important media alternatives.

As an organization working for media independence and

ethical journalism in Malaysia, my group welcomes any ideas

or support from any organization – local or global – for

these democratizing goals.

Weitere Informationen: WWW.CIJMALAYSIA.ORG

41

SEVAN DORAISAMY is the director of the Centre

for Independent Journalism, Malaysia. The center,

originally RadiQradio.com, is now an NGO fully

focused on media independence and protection of

journalists, including online media. It works for the

repeal of laws restricting freedom of information,

and to promote the creation of an independent

Media Council, run by media professionals and free

of government interference. The work of the CIJ

gained momentum after the March 2008 elections,

when others – including lawyers, State Assembly

members, opposition parliamentarians, academics

and students – joined in supporting CIJ goals.

Having a vibrant media scene is a necessary prere-

quisite to human development and good governance.

But, the time has come for us, media practitioners and

support organisations, to accept that this is too complex

to bring about on our own. It would be prudent to recog-

nise the limitations of our sector, and create appropriate

evaluation and impact assessment tools. The existing tools

and methodologies are devised to give a macro picture of the

overall environments but fail to clearly demarcate the roles

played by various actors: state, judiciary, executive, civil so-

ciety and media. Media is just one contributing factor, albeit

an important one. We must track the spheres of influence

wielded by the sector so that support organisations are not

misled into tracking and measuring overall environments,

while attempting to quantify the impact that media support

organisations have in the process of change.

German philosopher Jürgen Habermas envisaged the Public

Sphere as “a theatre in modern societies in which political

participation is enacted through the medium of talk”1. The

Public Sphere mediates between the ‘Private Sphere’ and

the ‘Sphere of Public Authority’ where “ the private sphere

comprised civil society in the narrower sense … the realm

of commodity exchange and of social labour”. The Sphere of

Public Authority on the other hand deals “ with the state ,or

realm of the police , and the ruling class”. The Public Sphere

criss-crosses both these realms and “through the vehicle

of public opinion puts the state in touch with the needs of

society” 2

However, this theory fails to recognise multiple public

spheres; those which form separated though connected

entities based on belief, faith, socio-economic status, issues,

language, gender and common experience. These entities

operate subtly to form several spheres within. Even Haber-

mas after considerable deliberation, concedes: “The Public

Sphere, simultaneously pre-structured and dominated by the

Media as Public Sphere

1 Fraser Nancy, Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy, Duke University Press.2 Habermas, Jurgen, The Stuctural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeoise society, MIT Press, 1989

Monitoring Impact: The Spheres of Influence Approachby A.S. PAN N E E RS E LVAN



mass media, developed into an arena infiltrated by power

in which, by means of topic selection and topical contribu-

tions, a battle is fought not only over influence but also over

the control of communication flows that affect behaviour

while their strategic intentions are kept hidden as much as

possible” 3

It is this spectrum of public spheres, where free wheeling

ideas collide and coalesce bringing forth debate and discus-

sion that truly reflect in a vibrant, plural media. While the

burden of realising the developmental goals lies mainly with

the state apparatus and other deliverable institutions, these

multiple spheres influence societal and political change thus

bestowing media with the role of an eminent catalyst.

We should scale down expectations given the truth that

the impact of media related programmes take well beyond

project completion to percolate and manifest. No amount

of number crunching will lead to direct correlation bet-

ween cause and effect attribution. The goal post needs to be

realigned with media development organisations accepting

humbly that

1. they can only be co-contributors to an effect,

2. they can continue working towards creating

more space for the multiple spheres,

3. programme completion is the beginning of a

transformation process and its impact can be assessed

only with the lapse of time.

Intrinsic Value Vs Instrumentality

In a sector like media, which is in itself of intrinsic value as

a development indicator, what we need to track needs to

be turned on its head. Given its prime value, the media’s

value as an instrument or vehicle is purely coincidental.

This change of approach is of vital importance to enable

better distribution of support and assistance for the media

development sector.

We need to change impact assessment from global feel-good

indicators like poverty reduction to achievable ones like

spreading awareness in a bid to help ordinary men and wo-

men make informed choices. “At its heart, development - if it

is to be sustainable - must be a process that allows people to

be their agents of change, to act individually and collectively

using their own ingenuity and accessing ideas and knowledge

in the search for ways to fulfil their full potential.” 4

Humbled by the fact that total and direct attributions to

change is completely out of scope, we track and document

our reach within the media, our ability to bring multiple

voices into the open, our ability to work in tandem with civil

society actors, our efforts to bring academia to render sub-

jects in depth and media on to common platforms to jointly

publish informed narratives.

With our spheres of engagement being multiple, Panos Sou-

th Asia (PSA) is looking to measure our spheres of influence

within five categories:

a) Media

b) Communities whose voices are articulated through

PSA’s programmes

c) Civil society partners

d) Academia

e) State Actors/Policy makers

We learnt from experience that a bottom-down or top-up

approach does not yield desired results in opening up more

space for debate. However well the journalists put to use

the training and empowerment that Panos programmes

provide, it will not reach the desired impact of opening up

more space for diverse voices on issues until and unless the

gatekeepers - the editors and owners are sensitized to the

issue and allow it.

We look at the impact of our partnerships with five groups

as to how they help create more space for the multiple public

spheres:

• Ourengagementandinfluenceonmedia.

• Groupsandcommunitieswhosevoicesfindspaceinthe

public sphere, thanks to PSA’s programmes.

• Civilsocietypartners,likemindedorganisationswho

3 Habermas, Jurgen, Further Reflections on the Public Sphere, MIT Press, 1992.

4 The Case for Communication in sustainable development; Panos London; 2007

Media development is crucial to building democratic socie-ties, but we have to accept that it is just one, albeit important, factor.

43

help us plan, develop and implement our vision thereby

becoming stake holders.

• Academiahelpingtoclarifyissues,guideandgivemore

teeth to arguments that gets placed in the public domain.

• Stateactorslikethepolicymakerswhofinallymakethe

‘change’.(Though in this process, PSA humbly claims to

be one of the contributors to the cause, as it would be

pure bombast to claim the change is solely due to our

interventions or programmes.)

We also gauge efficacy by tracking the advisory panel to

participant ratio in each of the programmes to ensure that it

does not get spread across thinly and retains programmatic

intensity. When it comes to new technology communication

initiatives like radio and new media, the ratio of technical

trainer to content trainer to participant is tracked.

Monitoring, Evaluation, Impact Assessment

While monitoring and evaluation of programmes have life

during the project cycle, Panos South Asia strongly believes

that impact assessment in the areas we deal in can be fruitful

only after the lapse of a certain period of time. Immediate

impact assessment not only negates the imperative need for

long term investment; it also defeats the basic purpose.

Our approach to monitoring and evaluation has strong roots

in existing models and practices that are in use in the media

assistance community. However, it is in impact assessment

that we differ conceptually from many of the other models in

use. The difference is in the scales of measurement, the time-

lines and the ultimate goals. We believe in the catalytic role

of media as opposed to being an agent in eradicating poverty

or removing illiteracy. The impact we map is measurable and

scaled down; the focus is on media as the beneficiary and we

look at impact after a certain period of time has lapsed after

project completion. The analytical data available post-evalu-

ation of a programme becomes our baseline to track impact.

When assessing impact of media assistance interventions

we use the assessment report prepared prior to the start

of the project as the baseline. After time has elapsed at the

end of the project, we track the pathway of change to which

our programmes have been co-contributors by assessing as

many of the following indicators depending on what type of

programme was organised:

It makes little sense to evaluate a project immediately after it finishes, most projects show their impact only after a certain period of time.

44



1. promoting access to information and resources;

2. raise public debate on thematic issues;

3. the departure from the dominant narrative;

4. media’s efforts to defy any form of censorship thus

rendering media a site for democratic dialogue;

5. questions raised in the parliament and state legislature

and legislative changes brought about by the outputs of

our engagement;

6. policy changes at local/ state / national level which

have been effected, i.e.

a. where no policy existed and new policies got framed

b. where clauses which gives more teeth and relevance

to policy have been included

c. at the policy implementation level;

7. bringing in multiple voices, especially those often

unheard, into the public domain;

8. bridging gaps between the grassroots level and policy

makers;

9. building awareness on peoples’ rights;

10. encourage and empower initiatives that use media for

empowering economically and socially weaker sections

of society;

11. career advancement of our fellows and participants,

thereby opening up more decisive space for the issues in

question;

12. reviews/ letters to the editor/follow-up articles and stu-

dies/republished/ reprinted;

13. citations / awards/ recognition for fellows for their work;

14. growing partnerships encouraging linkages between

media, academia and civil society fraternities.

Analysis of this data will help arrive at a doable, realistic

impact assessment of how the engagements with stakehol-

ders like media, academia, civil society organisations, and

activists lead to increased visibility for the organisation and

its activities. These Spheres of Influence in turn translate

into growing credibility for the organisation to engage in its

catalyst mission of empowering media to herald change.

More information: WWW.PANOSSOUTHASIA.ORG

45

A. S. PANNEERSELVAN is executive director

of Panos South Asia. He is based in Chennai but

travels regularly throughout the South Asia region.

He was formerly the managing editor of Sun TV and

bureau chief for Outlook magazine in India.

PETERS: What is the current overall amount of support the

OSI media programme provides?

JANkOVIC: The OSI supports media not only via the Media

Program but also under other OSI programmes – the Special

Initiatives journalism programme, topical programmes

(like public health), and regional programmes. The Media

Program alone has a budget of 10 million USD per year. And

there are also the national OSI foundations; some of them

have media programmes as well.

Q: In terms of countries you work in, what are your current

and future priorities? Why these countries?

A: Our mandate is global. In terms of deciding which coun-

tries to work in, the main criteria are set by our mandate:

Opening societies that are closed and helping societies in

transformation. So, we tend to work in countries in transiti-

on or countries with closed media systems. At the moment,

we work in close to sixty countries across five continents. We

rely a lot on the feedback and ideas of our national founda-

tions. But, we have of course other thematic priorities such

as freedom of expression, where we fund on a global level

monitoring of violations against press freedom.

Q: In terms of different types of media development (training,

media law, support to media NGOs, media development linked

to general development goals etc) where are OSI’s priorities?

A: Again, our spectrum is broad. We look at media as a sec-

tor in its own right, i.e., how producers of news and quality

content interact with societies, rather than at media as a

communication channel for development messages. We fund

initiatives that support networking between media assistance

46

The Open Society Institute’s Media Program is one of the world’s largest supporters of independent media. Its mission is to assist „media outlets that promote democratic va-lues and demonstrate through their editorial approach a high level of professionalism, independence and openness.” Gordana Jankovic has served as its director since 1995. She spoke to GFMD Director Bettina Peters about OSI’s priorities.

Gordana Jankovic, Director, Open Society Institute Media Program London

I NTE RVI EW WITH

DONORS´ PE RS PECTIVE S ON M E DIA DEVE LOPM E NT

Donors´ Perspectives on Media Development


or press freedom groups; we fund programmes providing

legal protection for journalists (the Media Legal Defense Ini-

tiative was OSI-initiated); we support programmes on media

and minorities, investigative journalism, the development of

media outlets, etc.

Q: When reviewing applications, what kind of programmes are

you looking for?

A: What we look for are good ideas that make a difference

and can have real impact. So, for instance, considering a

project application, we ask:

• Doestheprojecthavecleargoals?

• Arethesegoalsimportantforimprovingthemedia

sector/area of media the project addresses?

• Doestheprojecthavelong-termeffects?

• Willtheprojectoverallhelptoopenupsocieties?

But we also look at the organisation making the application.

It is not enough to have a great idea, if the organisation can-

not actually implement the work. So, we ask:

• Doestheorganisationhaveanappropriategovernance

structure?

• Aretheytransparentabouttheirwork(obviously,we

know that organisations working in closed societies often

cannot be open about what they do)?

• Doestheorganisationhaveclear,transparent,financial

structures?

• Istheorganisationrootedinthesocietyitwantstoworkin?

Q: What are the biggest mistakes people make when they apply

for a grant?

A: The biggest mistake you can make is to present a project

in isolation, solely focusing on the activities you want to

carry out;

We want projects to be presented within context:

• Whatassumptionsarebeingmadeaboutthesociety/me-

dia sector?

• Howdoestheorganisationthinkaboutcreatingchange?

• Whyisthechangeneededandhowisittobeachieved?

Q: Digital media, new media…how has that changed your

priorities?

A: It has and it hasn’t. Within the OSI information pro-

gramme, there is a lot of focus on new media. But we look

at digital media, new media as a tool, a different form of

dissemination, what matters most is the content and the qua-

lity of the information. So, we look at new media in terms

of whether it is a tool that can increase quality (and if so

what support may be needed) or whether it is a tool that can

ensure a better or wider spread of quality information.

OSI has provided support to its partner MDLF to help with

some experimental business models for new media, we are

supporting research on digitization and its impact on civil

society, if and how it supports values of open societies.

Q: What has been your most successful programme?

A: I don’t want to single out one programme among the many

great initiatives we supported. We spend quite a bit of time and

effort in persuading other donors to provide support to media.

Fifteen years ago we suggested that media independence could

be preserved via support to non-profit media, this approach

has taken root even in developed societies such as the U.S. We

also help make the case that even though private media are a

business, in developing and transforming societies they should

receive donor support because their information is often of pu-

blic value. The role of the media in creating and supporting

open societies is too important to be neglected by those who

support democratic development.

Q: You have worked in media development for many years.

What, do you think, are the main changes in support for media

development from the 1990 to today?

A: The main change is that the sector is emerging, organisa-

tions working in the sector are more ready to work together

around some common values, the work is less ad hoc and

has become more professional. You can see that, for instance,

if you look at the increase of academic study focusing on

media development.

Q: Do you think that media development support has shifted

from being tagged as support for building democratic societies

to support more linked to the Millennium Development Goals?

A: Yes, for many donors the MDGs play a very large role in

determining their policy. It is not enough to use the media as

a channel for communicating messages, you need to develop

a healthy structural environment for media. There’s value in

making the best use of media for information campaigns,

you can immediately see that your message is getting across,

but social values change slowly, raising awareness is just the

first step and you cannot assume that it will translate into a

change in behaviour. Transforming societies is a long-term

47

engagement, and a healthy media structure that provides re-

levant information, a watchdog function, and supports open

debate, is crucial to creating change.

Q: What is the current discussion within OSI and with donors

that you work with on future support?

A: We are all asking ourselves how the financial crisis will af-

fect the voluntary sector. Many foundations etc have lost mo-

ney and governments may be under pressure to focus more

on spending their funds at home. Generally, our discussions

with other donors focus on questions of how to better use

our resources knowing that most funds are tied to specific

policy agendas. So, we want to see how agenda-tied funding

can also be used to achieve overall goals – such as building a

healthy media structure.

Q: Do you think that media development can make a difference

in democracy building, good governance, fighting poverty etc?

A: Yes, absolutely. Media are a key – but unrecognized – me-

chanism of adult/permanent education in terms of providing

information on the basis of which people make choices in

their lives. Media is a means by which people can participate

in society’s response to particular issues. Media provide the

platform and information needed to have a debate about

change of values in societies. We learn more and more about

the key role media play but I think this argument is still not

presented clearly and forcefully enough.

Informed citizens re-examine their own values, stay open

for diversity of information, and make choices or request

more choices if they feel their view is not taken into account.

Societies need the media to have this debate.

So, media cuts across the board, whether it is democracy or

good governance or fighting poverty, media has a critical role

to play.

The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) has been at the forefront of supporting media development for years. The Swedish government has also put media development on the EU’s agenda. GFMD Director Bettina Peters asked Pia Hallonsten, Policy Specialist at SIDA, about donor trends in media development and SIDA’s plans for the future.

PETERS: What is the overall amount of support the Swedish

government gives to media development through SIDA?

HALLONSTEN: SIDA provides 130 million Swedish krona

(SEK) – about 13 million Euro – per year in media support.

If we also count broader, freedom of expression support –

which includes media, culture, and new information and

communication technology (ICT) – the total is SEK 230 mil-

lion, or about 23 million Euro. In addition, the government

recently launched a special, multi-year initiative for demo-

48

Pia Hallonsten,Policy Specialist at the Swedish International Development Agency

I NTE RVI EW WITH



cratization and freedom of expression. This initiative is not

limited to SIDA’s regular 33 focus countries, many of which

are in Africa, and SEK 100 million, or about 10 million Euro,

is at SIDA’s disposal this year.

Q: What are SIDA’s main priorities when it comes to media

support?

A: They center on civil and political rights, which are seen

as especially relevant to strengthening democracy. There

is more ambitious support for the growth of a free, inde-

pendent media – vital to strengthening transparency and

accountability – as well as freedom of expression – seen as

both central in its own right and in securing other rights.

SIDA is striving to develop a broad based and systematic

approach to media support, with three vital components:

• Creatinglegalenvironmentsthatarebuiltonprinciples

of freedom of expression and access to information.

• Capacitybuilding,journalismtraining,professionalism,

and ethics.

• Financialviabilityandsustainability,whichincludesprivate

sector engagement, media development loan funds, ma-

nagement and advertising matters, and questions related to

corporate social responsibility and social investment.

SIDA sees these three as mutually reinforcing, and can

also be the basis for discussing division of labor with other

donors.

Q: In terms of countries, what are your current and future

priorities? Why these countries?

A: SIDA’s basic focus is those 33 countries, principally to

avoid spreading ourselves too thin. There is also an effort

to emphasize work that is results driven, and where Sweden

can bring value-added to other donors – a division of labor

among donors. Thematically, the three priority areas are:

democracy and human rights, gender equality, and the envi-

ronment.

Q: How are you embracing digital media, including mobile

technology, in your initiatives?

A: SIDA supports the strategic use of information and com-

munication technology (ICT). Hybrid media – combinations

of radio, Web sites, podcasts and mobile telephones – offer

an opportunity to expand and enlarge the voice of people

living in poverty. They also increase social development and

the possibility of exposing human rights violations on main-

stream media platforms.

Q: Do you see a need to cultivate responsible citizen journalists?

If so, how and where?

A: SIDA prefers the phrase “public interest” to “responsib-

le,” because “responsible” raises the question, responsible to

whom? SIDA sees public interest journalism, bloggers and

citizen journalists as complementary to mainstream media.

Individual bloggers cannot replace the accountable editor in

chief and the transparency of a professional media.

Q: When reviewing applications, what kind of programs are

you looking for?

A: SIDA looks on single-organization projects with multiple

goals less favorably than those of a consortium of expert

organizations that all bring added value. SIDA also sees the

importance of engaging profession organizations (organiza-

tions existing and functioning on their own merit and sup-

ported by their members, such as the South East Asian Press

Alliance or the Federation of African Journalists) where our

funding will be a contribution to existing programs. Such

organizations are vital for peer discussions and for long-term

contact and support.

Q: What are the biggest mistakes people make when they apply

for a grant?

A: Too much focus on activities, and too little on measuring

a project’s results, or impact. Very often they lack baseline

reference points – the “before project” measure to compare

against the “after-project” measure. Territorial thinking is

another problem. There is also a lack of understanding for

the actual bread and butter of media outlets – the economic

viability and sustainability of the media sector. For media

outlets to continue after donor support is phased out, project

organizers have to grasp the economic conditions of the

media market.

Q: Over the past few years, what has been your most success-

ful program?

A: One of SIDA’s long-term media contributions is to

Vietnam. Training for live broadcasts started at 30 radio sta-

tions in1994, and has since spread into TV, newspapers and

Internet publications. Live broadcasting completely changed

interviewing there, because officials have to answer questions

and not just read from prepared statements. The program

is moving into a new phase focusing on media economics,

advertising and new technology. Despite some backlashes,

progress continues.

49

SIDA also supports media development loan funds, such as

Samdef in southern Africa. Samdef was instrumental in the

launch of a locally printed daily opposition paper in Mozam-

bique – O Pais – by giving a loan for a printing press.

Q: The Swedish Presidency of the EU is putting some focus

on media. For instance, there will be a panel on media at the

European Development Days. Do you think the EU should pay

more attention to media development? If yes, how could that be

achieved?

A: A central issue for the EU’s Swedish Presidency is demo-

cracy building, and Sweden sees the EU as a potential global

development actor.

Q: What are your views on the proposal for a pan-African media

observatory that recently came out of the EU and the African Union?

A: In general SIDA is positive about media council/press om-

budsman functions, but it’s difficult to comment on this spe-

cific case, which is still addressing its partnership structure.

Q: In discussions in your ministry and with other donors, how

have the priorities for support changed? Perhaps shifting from

support for building democratic societies more toward the

Millennium Development Goals?

A: SIDA does not see democracy building and the Millen-

nium Development Goals as mutually exclusive. Defending

human rights and an independent media are both elements

of democracies that are vital to strong development. Also,

fighting poverty can be a question of political choices, not

always just a lack of resources. Lack of freedom and lack of

security are equally important.

Q: Do international funders do a good job of coordinating their

efforts? What could be done better?

A: The eternal questions. In accordance with the Paris Decla-

ration and the Accra Agenda for Action, SIDA sees a need to:

• Developdivisionoflaborandincreasedharmonization.

These principles should also apply to civil society sup-

port.

• Developasetofindicatorstoassessanarea’sneedsanda

project’s results.

• Lookatmediasupportfrommanydifferentanglesand

consider cross-fertilization with other sectors – the

private sector, or any organizations addressing issues such

as the environment, overall governance, rule of law, and

education.

50

Scandinavian nations are among Europe’s biggest supporters of media development. GFMD Director Bettina Peters spoke with Elisabeth Salvesen, Senior Advisor at Norway‘s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ivar Evensmo, Senior Advisor for Media and Civil Society at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD). Later, Evensmo offered his insights on Norway’s support for independent media.

Ivar Evensmo, Senior Advisor for Media and Civil Society at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)

I NTE RVI EW WITH



PETERS: What is the current overall amount of support the Nor-

wegian government provides to media development?

JANkOVIC: The figure for 2008 was close to 110 million Norwe-

gian Kroner (about US$17 million). However, it is difficult to

find the exact figure because many media interventions are

components of programs with other labels. It is also hard to

draw a clear line between support for media development vs.

for communication for overall development programs. But ge-

nerally speaking, Norway attributes much importance to both.

Q: What are the main priorities for media support for the Nor-

wegian Foreign Ministry? Are there specific issues you focus on?

A: Our media support has virtually no limitations in terms

of purpose. However, it falls broadly into four classifications:

response to violations of free speech; media in areas of conflict

or states threatened by unstable and fragile conditions; demo-

cratic state building; and communication for development.

Norwegian media support can be targeted toward interven-

tions that promote national governance, toward: protecting

vulnerable groups, such as social and cultural minorities

and opposition politicians; giving legal help to media workers

persecuted or imprisoned; and promoting women journalists, to

mention a few. For these purposes, Norway uses various channels,

such as media enterprises, civil society organizations, state institu-

tions and regional and international/multilateral organizations.

Q: In terms of countries you work in, what are your current and

future priorities? Why these countries?

A: So far, there have been few geographic limitations. In the

future, we expect that Norwegian media support will concen-

trate more on countries in conflict or post-conflict situations

where Norway is already involved with humanitarian, political

or development efforts.

Q: How can media assistance organizations apply? When revie-

wing applications, what kind of program are you looking for?

A: The embassies, NORAD and the Norwegian Ministry

of Foreign Affairs have always collaborated to ensure that

applications end up at the right institution. We look for a good

understanding of the political situation on the ground, clear

objectives, and good tools for the specific interventions. Also,

there is more emphasis today on both strategic interventions

and the ability to document results – including UNESCO’s

work on indicators to measure broad, nationwide changes.

Q: What are the biggest mistakes people make when applying for

a grant?

A: They don’t argue convincingly enough for how their speci-

fic interventions contribute to the bigger picture. Project goals

are often too ambitious, and monitoring capacity and risk

analysis are very weak

Q: Digital media, new media…how has that changed your

priorities?

A: Digital media have so far not made their way very strongly

into our policy priorities. But there is of course a growing ack-

nowledgement of their importance, especially among younger

people.

Q: In the last few years, what has been your most successful

program?

A: A hard question! There are many small interventions that

have been successful, such as training journalists in safety

measures. An example of a larger, regional success is the Media

Institute for Southern Africa (MISA), whose branches across

all southern African nations have been instrumental in many

campaigns for press freedoms.

Q: In discussions in your ministry and with other donors, how

have the priorities for support changed? Do you think support

has shifted away from building independent media as a key part

of democratic societies to support for media that bolsters the Mil-

lennium Development Goals aimed at reducing world poverty in

half by 2015?

A: No, that is not the impression we have in Norway.

Q: Do you think that media development can make a difference

in democracy building, good governance, fighting poverty, etc?

A: There are strong indications of a causal relationship, but it’s

a challenge to document and more research on this is crucial.

Q: What do you think the media development sector should do

better to make its case?

A: It should take stock of the work done by the media it sup-

ports, to make sure theirs is serious journalism that lives up to

their democratic mandate.

Q: What is the current discussion within the ministry and with

donors that you work with on future support?

A: We see benefits in more collaboration, including easing

administrative burdens on donors and recipient programs.

51

PETERS: CIMA has undertaken several studies on media deve-

lopment support provided by donors both in the United States

and abroad. Who are the biggest supporters?

JANkOVIC: We have found in our research that it is very dif-

ficult to get comparable data on support to media develop-

ment. It often is not clearly categorized. But we still can draw

some conclusions: Among the non-governmental donors the

Open Society Institute is by far the largest supporter of me-

dia development. The Knight Foundation also provides con-

siderable support. In recent years, the Bill and Melinda Gates

Foundation has come into the field, although its support is

primarily through the media for development perspective.

As far as governments are concerned, the United States is the

biggest single supporter. But if you add together financing

provided by the European Commions and the EU Member

States, the Europeans would top the list of government sup-

port. And among those countries, the United Kingdom and

the Scandinavian countries are the biggest supporters.

Outside of the U.S. and the EU, Japan is a big supporter. In

recent years, China also has moved into the field, but it is

impossible to get precise figures on the funding it provides.

Q: What type of media development receives the most support?

A: Training programs, mostly for journalists and other

media professionals, receive by far the largest chunk of sup-

port both from governmental and from non-governmental

sources. A distant second is support for infrastructure and

equipment, and much farther down the line is support for

media law reform and press freedom advocacy.

When you look outside the field, you see that communica-

tions for development still receives much more support than

media development. Many general development programs

have a communications element that is more about using

media to disseminate a message than building free and inde-

pendent media.

Q: In your contact with Congress and other officials, do you see

a change in media development support since the beginning of

the Obama Administration?

A: From the perspective of high-level policy, President

Obama has mentioned the importance of free media. In

a speech this past July in Ghana, the president praised the

virtues of democracy and highlighted the important role that

independent media play in the development of sustainable

democratic governments. He told his audience: “In the 21st

century, capable, reliable, and transparent institutions are the

52


The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) based in Washington DC has become a key resource for media development practitioners and policy makers. It was created in 2006 by the National Endowment for Democracy, a private, non-profit organization with a mission to strengthen democratic institutions around the world. CIMA’s mission is to strengthen the support, raise the visibility, and improve the effectiveness of media assistance programs worldwide. The center holds discus-sions, commissions research reports, and hosts a HYPERLINK „http://geniehost25.inmagic.com/dbtw-wpd/searchMediaBib.html“ \t „_blank“ bibliographic database of media development topics. GFMD Director Bettina Peters asked CIMA Senior Direc-tor Marguerite Sullivan about donor trends and about CIMA’s plans.

Marguerite Sullivan, Senior Director, Center for International Media Assistance, Washington

I NTE RVI EW WITH


key to success—strong parliaments, honest police forces, in-

dependent judges, a vibrant private sector, a civil society, and

an independent press. Those are the things that give life to

democracy, because that is what matters in people‘s everyday

lives.”

Also, the recent message from Secretary of State Hillary Clin-

ton on Internet freedom and the importance of freedom of

speech could be interpreted as showing support for develo-

ping an independent media.

At USAID, a major U.S. government funder of media

development, the agency’s new Administrator Rajiv Shah

just took his post in January 2009 and immediately had to

deal with the crisis in Haiti. We will know in a few months

if he will take USAID in a new direction. From the State

Department, we already are seeing more emphasis on digital

programs and some on exchanges.

Q: Where are the biggest gaps in support to media develop-

ment? Are there countries or regions being forgotten? Areas of

media development that do not receive enough attention?

A: I have felt for a long time that two areas of media deve-

lopment need more attention. The first is the legal envi-

ronment. You can train journalists all you like but without

an enabling legal environment and without rule of law, the

impact will remain limited. More support needs to go to

media law reform, not just getting the right legislation, but

also assistance in getting the laws implemented. There is

an enormous need for advocacy, and training lawyers and

judges, for example.

And second, we need to pay more attention to media literacy.

In the age of digital media the public must be not only

critical media users, but also informed participants. They

need to be able to tell good information from bad. They

have to know how to use the new media and apply some of

the standards of journalism in their own blogging, such as

checking sources or understanding the context in which in-

formation is given. We need media literacy in schools, but we

must have adult programs as well. Some programs are doing

that. One I found quite interesting is a TV show that weekly

takes newspaper articles and TV news segments, and brings

together members of the public who critique and discuss the

stories.

Q: Digital media, new media…how has all that changed priorities?

A: I think more support will go to digital media initiatives.

One concern I have is that there may be too much emphasis

on new media to the detriment of traditional media and

traditional media values. In many parts of the world there

still is not much access to the Internet. Citizens may have cell

phones but not access to broader services. Program support

should couple old and new media. Old media is not dead;

new media can augment traditional news. It can foster two-

way communication and encourage citizen journalism, but

we should not give up on traditional media. Citizen journa-

lists, for example, need to know the importance of sourcing,

fact checking, and putting information in context.

Q: In the past few years, what has been your most successful

activity?

A: CIMA has only been around for a few years, so our

biggest success is that we got the center off the ground and

are providing important services to implementers and policy

makers. For example, Empowering Independent Media, our

comprehensive report on U.S. support to independent media

was the first that brought together all the threads of support

and the issues involved in them. We gave an overview of

where the money was coming from and how it was being

spent.

CIMA is a neutral platform with the goal of bringing

together academics, implementers and donors around

supporting the role of independent media in building strong

democracies, economies and societies. While it is a never-

ending job to bring our message to the attention of Congress

and other policy makers, CIMA is increasingly called upon

to give suggestions and advice in media development policy

discussions.

We want to do much more and welcome suggestions on

research to do and issues to address.

Q: We have just attended a meeting of media development

researchers. What are the biggest shortcomings in this field?

A: I think lack of coordination is a big problem. There

may be some coordination on the ground in one country

and then nothing in the country next door. Additionally, it

difficult to coordinate media development research globally,

and it’s important to do this.

Q: In discussions with Congress and with other donors, how

have the priorities for support changed? Do you think that me-

dia development support has shifted from building democratic

societies to pursuing the Millennium Development Goals?

A: I think that strengthening democracy is the focus. Buil-

ding strong societies with citizen participation and strong

economies is what a lot of the U.S. support is about, and

there is recognition that media have an important role to

53

play. At the same time, one should remember that a lot of

decisions on actual projects are made at local level with the

embassy or the USAID office, so that focus will vary from

country to country.

Q: What are the new trends in media development? What type

of programs do you think will get support in the future?

A: I think digital media will become a focus in the future:

training on how to do Internet research, how to pass more

information by cell phones, and how to get around Inter-

net censorship, just to name a few. There also may be more

public – private partnerships. One example is International

Senior Lawyers’ Project (ISLP) in which lawyers donated

their time to work with the International Research and Ex-

change Board (IREX), a GFMD member that provides media

development assistance various countries. The IREX project

was funded by the State Department’s Middle East Partner-

ship Initiative to work on legal reform in the Middle East.

Q: Do you think that media development can make a diffe-

rence in democracy building, good governance, fighting poverty,

and similar goals?

A: There is no question about it. You cannot have good

governance and effective democracy without free media, as

numerous studies have demonstrated.

Q: What do you think the media development sector should do

better to put its case across?

A: We need to speak more with one voice and make a com-

mon case to donors and policy makers. If a variety of people

are making the same case for the importance of media

development to a variety of policy makers the impact of our

arguments should increase. We have to join forces as much

as we can, share information, get the word out, increase

coordination and focus on places where we can really make a

difference.

We need to keep working at getting media on the internatio-

nal development agenda, not as an afterthought but as a key

topic.

54


GFMD members are part of a community of practice

to exchange information on media development

trends, new programme ideas and new partnerships. Mem-

bers receive the quarterly information briefing GFMD Insi-

der; they can attend the GFMD Regional Forums for Media

Development and the GFMD World Conference and they

receive tips and advice on running media support NGOs and

developing projects.

Join the GFMD by going to our web-site:

WWW.GFMD.INFO

and filling out the application form

CONTACT INFORMATION

GLOBAL FORUM FOR MEDIA DEVELOPMENT

IPC, RéSIDENCE PALACE, BLOC C, 2/215

155 RUE DE LA LOI, 1040 BRUSSELS, BELGIUM

Tel: +32 2 235 23 34

Fax: +32 2 235 22 21

Mail: [email protected]

BETTINA PETERS, DIRECTOR

gsM: +32 478 235 263

Mail: [email protected]

skype: beTTinagFMd

55

JOI N TH E G FM D

Join the GFMD

Join our efforts to promote better recognition of the role free, independent and plura-listic media play in strengthening democracy, human and economic development.

chair Joyce Barnathan International Center for Journalists, USA / Vice-chair Manana Aslamazyan Internews Europe,

France / chairMan eMeriTus David Hoffman Internews Network, USA / direcTor Bettina Peters

asia Roby Alampay South-East Asia Press Alliance, Thailand / A.S. Panneerselvan Panos South Asia, India / Ying Chan

Journalism and Media Studies Centre, Hong Kong and Shantou universities, China

aFrica Gabriel Baglo IFJ Africa Office, Senegal / Jeanette Minnie Zambezi FoX, South Africa / David Makali Kenya Media

Institute, Kenya

eurasia Remzi Lani South East European Network for Professionalisation of Media, Albania / Katerina Myasnykova Inde-

pendent Association of Broadcasters, Ukraine sharing with Ognian Zlatev Media Development Center, Bulgaria

laTin aMerica and The caribbean Jaime Abello Banfi Fundación Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano, Colombia /

Veet Vivarta Agencia de Noticias dos Direitos de Infancia, Brazil / Wesley Gibbings Association of Carribean Media Wor-

kers, Trinidad and Tobago

Middle easT/norTh aFrica Ali Djerri Al Khabar, Algeria / Haitham Shibli Radio Farahalnas, Hashemite Fund for Human

Development, Jordan / Hassan Nadir Chada FM, Morocco

inTernaTional caucus James Deane BBC World Service Trust, UK / Jesper Hojberg International Media Support, Den-

mark / Leon Willems Press Now, the Netherlands / Mark Wilson Panos London, UK

56

G FM D STE E R I NG COM M ITTE E

GFMD Steering Committee

GLOBAL FORUM FOR MEDIA DEVELOPMENT

TITLE AND HEADQUARTERS

The name of the organisation is the Global Forum for Media Development. Its secretariat is based in Residence Palace,

International Press Center, Block C, Rue de la Loi 155, 1040 Brussels, (Belgium).

I. DEFINITION AND GOALS

1.1. The Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) is a voluntary affiliation of media development organisations

set up at world and at regional level to highlight the importance to human and economic development of free,

ndependent, pluralistic and viable media. It aims to bring greater linkages and sustainable impact to the work of the

media development sector.

II. FUNCTIONS

2.1. To provide an international forum for the discussion of ideas, information and strategies in the field of media

development and to facilitate communication between and among GFMD members, through the support of the

GFMD international secretariat.

2.2. To create a platform for media development practitioners to interact with donors, governments, opinion leaders and

the wider public making the case for media development as a primary pillar for advancing social, economic, and politi-

cal development.

2.3 To promote and disseminate research and analysis on the impact of media development assistance on governance, civic

participation, poverty alleviation, emergent crises, and markets worldwide.

2.4 To promote the establishment of common standards and ethics for media development work that encourage

cross-sector cooperation.

2.5 To advance best practice methods in the media development sector through shared learning, training and evaluation.

2.6 To educate members, policymakers and the general public on the importance of free, independent, pluralistic and viable

media to human and economic development

2.7 To support the activities of the Regional Forums for Media Development in promoting joint advocacy and cooperation

between media development practitioners in the regions and to ensure the GFMD’s functions are performed in

accordance with local needs.

III. OPERATING PRINCIPLES

3.1. GFMD does not substitute for, or replace, existing organisations nor does it detract from the autonomy or initiatives

of its members, but exists to support them.

3.2. GFMD shall facilitate co-operation by:

a) circulating proposals amongst members;

b) bringing people together to coordinate actions;

c) preparing and disseminating information in line with the functions of GFMD;

d) providing organisational support if available;

e) promoting the case for the importance of media development to human, social and economic development; and

f) advocating increased support to media development in line with the functions outlined in Article 2.

57

CON STITUTION

Constitution

3.3. Annual dues must be paid by May 1st each year. GFMD members that have not paid their GFMD membership dues for

more than one year will no longer have access to GFMD services, the GFMD World Conference or GFMD regional

forums for media development.

IV. MEMBERSHIP

4.1 Membership: There are two categories of membership in GFMD, General and Associate.

4.2 General membership in GFMD will be open to independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisations whose work

focuses significantly on media development.

4.2.2 Independence implies independence from government, from any political party and from any singular vested political,

economic or religious interest. Independence includes independence in governing structure, in funding and in other

ways.

4.2.3 Although membership is restricted to non-governmental organisations, GFMD accepts, according to circumstances,

organisations as NGOs based on their independence, their non-profit status and their mandates rather than on official

registration.

4.2.5 General membership is restricted to groups whose work includes a significant focus on media development.

4.2.5.1 Media development includes actions in support of

A system of media regulation and control conducive to freedom of expression, pluralism and diversity;

Building media capacity to inform people on issues that shape their lives;

Plurality and diversity of media, transparent and equal market conditions and full transparency of ownership;

Media as a platform for democratic discourse within a prevailing climate of respect for journalism that represents pro-

fessional independence and diversity of views and interests in society.

Professional capacity building and supporting institutions that underpin media freedom, independence, pluralism and

diversity: media workers have access to professional training and development and the media sector as a whole is both

monitored and supported by professional associations and civil society organisations.

Infrastructural capacity that is sufficient to support independent and pluralistic media: the media sector is characterised

by high or rising levels of public access and efficient use of technology to gather and distribute news and information.

4.3. Associate membership in GFMD will be open to individuals (academics, researchers, media consultants, experts) whose

work focuses primarily on media development. Associate membership is also open to institutions and enterprises,

whose main function is to make financial grants to media development organisations or who provide considerable

assistance to media development.

4.3.1 Associate members can participate fully in all GFMD work, including attendance of the regional and global forum

meetings. In order to enjoy these rights, Associate members have to pay the membership fee.

4.4 Membership Rights

4.4.1 All members have the right to attend the GFMD World Conference and any other general GFMD activities and join

in discussions.

4.4.2 All members have the right to submit information for distribution to the GFMD platform.

4.4.3 General members have the right to be members of the GFMD Steering Committee, and to vote on matters brought

before the general membership. Associate members do not enjoy these rights.

4.4.4 To enjoy the rights described above, a member must pay the membership fee.

4.5 Membership Application Process

4.5.1 All organisations that attend the GFMD 2008 World Conference and sign the GFMD founding document shall be

deemed to have applied for membership of GFMD. The register of founding members will be confirmed by the Steering

Committee at its first meeting.

4.5.2 Other organisations may apply for GFMD membership at any time by submitting a completed application form to the

GFMD secretariat. The form shall include information about an organisation‘s aims and objectives, its finances, gover-

ning structure, non-profit status, media development work and category of membership being applied for.

4.5.3 An application for membership will be referred to the Steering Committee, which may seek further information from

the applicant or GFMD members if needed. Membership will be decided by the Steering Committee and will be confir-

med at the GFMD World Conference. There is no limit to the number of members per country. The Steering Commit-

tee shall reject an application outright where the organisation does not meet the membership criteria set out in Article

4.2. Steering Committee decisions can be appealed at the World Conference.

58

CON STITUTION


4.5.4 An applicant shall be accepted into membership upon the decision of the Steering Committee, when receiving a

two-thirds affirmative vote. The member enjoys rights of membership upon payment of the membership fee.

4.6 Membership Expulsion and Resignation

4.6.1 A decision to suspend or expel a General or Associate member under this Article shall be made when one or both of the

following conditions are met:

a) The General or Associate member no longer meets the conditions of membership as set out in Article 4.2; or

b) The General or Associate member has not paid membership fees for more than two years.

4.6.2 A decision to suspend a General or Associate member shall require a vote in favour of two-thirds of the voting members

of the Steering Committee after consideration of whether or not the conditions for suspension, as set out in Article

4.6.1, have been met. A member who has been suspended shall no longer have rights associated with membership and

shall have the right to appeal to the GFMD World Conference.

4.6.3 Any General or Associate member in good financial standing may resign from GFMD by giving notice in writing to the

GFMD Steering Committee.

V. STEERING COMMITTEE:

5.1 The Steering Committee shall manage the affairs of the GFMD, dealing with all strategic, policy and administrative

matters facing GFMD between world conferences.

5.2 The Steering Committee is comprised of two individuals nominated from each of the GFMD regions (Africa, Asia,

Latin America, Eurasia, Middle East/North Africa) and four individuals representing groups with an international focus

and working on media development in a wide range of countries.

5.3 The term of office of Steering Committee members is limited to two consecutive terms.

5.4 The Steering Committee members elected in the regional forum meetings and the four international members will be

elected and confirmed at the founding assembly, the GFMD World Conference 2008 in Athens.

5.5 The Steering Committee remains in office until the next GFMD World Conference.

5.6 The election of Steering Committee members shall be by general members of GFMD. Steering Committee members

from the five regions will be nominated by the regional forum meetings. The four members coming from groups with

an international focus will be nominated at a caucus of these groups during the World Conference. The Steering Com-

mittee is confirmed by the World Conference. The World Conference appoints one reserve per region and one reserve

for the groups with an international focus. The Steering Committee may appoint additional non-voting advisers to take

part in meetings in order to provide specific expertise or to provide gender balance.

5.7 Members of the GFMD Steering Committee shall attend duly constituted Steering Committee meetings.

5.8 All members of the GFMD Steering Committee shall be entitled to one vote.

5.9 Proxy voting shall be permitted in the case of absence.

5.10 Members of the GFMD Steering Committee shall meet their own costs of participation in the work of the Steering

Committee. The GFMD secretariat may assist Steering Committee members from low-income countries to obtain travel

bursaries.

5.11 The GFMD Steering Committee shall elect with a vote of at least two-thirds majority one member from among its

number to be the Chairperson until the next World Conference.

5.12 Unless otherwise decided by the Steering Committee, there shall be a general meeting of the GFMD Steering Committee

once a year. Policy decisions can be taken at the meeting or in between meetings via conference call or email, after con-

sultation with all members. In addition, there will be a conference call meeting of the Steering Committee held at least

once per year. Any issues relating to GFMD and to the Steering Committee may be brought to the Steering Committee

teleconference meetings by any member of GFMD. The GFMD secretariat will submit a summary report of GFMD

activities to the teleconference Steering Committee meeting.

5.12.1 A quorum for decision-making shall be two-thirds of the Steering Committee, including proxy votes. Proxy votes shall

be allowed in matters of membership, funding proposals and changes in governance. A failure by any Steering Commit-

tee member to attend a general meeting, or to send a proxy vote, shall be interpreted as an abstention.

5.12.2. Wherever possible, the GFMD Steering Committee will take decisions by consensus. Where votes are required, they shall

be on the basis of a two-thirds vote unless otherwise specified.

5.12.3 The Steering Committee will develop its own working rules at the first meeting.

59

VI. WORLD CONFERENCE – REGIONAL FORUMS

6.1 The GFMD World Conference will take place every three years. Regional forum meetings (Africa, Asia, Latin America,

Eurasia, Middle East/North Africa) will take place once between World Conference meetings.

6.2 The World Conference is the sovereign body of the GFMD and brings together all general and associate members. The

programme of the world conference will be prepared by the Steering Committee in consultation with the GFMD mem-

bership. The World Conference receives a report from the steering committee, confirms decisions taken by the Steering

Committee, deals with appeals on decision of the Steering Committee, deals with matters related to the amendment of

the constitution, decides on policy and confirms the election of the steering committee.

6.3 The Regional forum meetings shall be organised by the two Steering Committee members from the respective region in

consultation with GFMD members from that region.

6.4 Any amendment to the constitution of the GFMD shall require a voting majority of at least two-thirds. Amendments

shall be proposed and circulated not less than 45 days before the World Conference.

6.5 Each GFMD General member organization shall have one vote at the World Conference.

VII. THE GFMD SECRETARIAT

7.1 The GFMD secretariat is established to carry out activities as agreed by the World Conference and the

Steering Committee.

7.2 The GFMD secretariat shall promote the GFMD and seek to expand the influence of the GFMD and its membership

by entering into partnerships with other relevant organisations under the guidance of the Steering Committee.

7.3 The GFMD secretariat is run under these Governance Articles.

7.4 The GFMD secretariat implements the working programme of the GFMD in line with Article 2. The GFMD World

Conference sets the priorities for work of the secretariat. Between World Conferences the Steering Committee oversees

the work of the secretariat.

7.5 The GFMD secretariat is responsible for organising and fundraising for the GFMD World Conference in cooperation

with the Steering Committee.

7.6 The Director is the chief executive officer of GFMD. The director is appointed by and reports to the Steering

Committee. The Director is a non-voting member of the Steering Committee. Other GFMD staff in the secretariat or in

the regions report to the Director. Additional staff at the secretariat or in the regions and other administrative support

to the secretariat can be decided by the Steering Committee depending on the availability of funds.

7.7 The secretariat shall prepare an annual finance and activity report to the Steering Committee and a tri-annual finance

and activity report to the World Conference.

VIII. DISSOLUTION

8. The dissolution of the GFMD may take place at a World Conference or a special world conference called for that

purpose upon the tabling of a motion to that effect and its adoption by at least two thirds of the voting membership

present. In the event that the World Conference decides upon dissolution all liabilities of the Forum shall be discharged

and remaining assets shall be divided among member organisations equivalent to the proportion of their contributions

to the Forum during the current year.

IX. MISCELLANEOUS

9.1 Matters not provided for in this Constitution shall be decided by the World Conference or, if they arise between World

Conference meetings, by the Steering Committee.

9.2 This Constitution, which is framed and interpreted according to the conditions and circumstances set out in the Belgian

law of October 25th 1919, shall at all times be interpreted and applied in a manner which avoids undue technicality and

which best maintains and promotes the character and objects of the GFMD.

9.3 Modifications to the Constitution shall be submitted for Royal Assent and published in annexes to the Moniteur Belge

in accordance with Belgian law.

60

CON STITUTION

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR

MEDIA DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATIONS

PREFACE

The Global Forum for Media Development is a non-governmental and not-for-profit membership network with its head-

quarters registered in Brussels, Belgium.

The Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) is a voluntary affiliation of media development organisations set up

at global and regional level to highlight the importance to human and economic development of free, independent, plurali-

stic and sustainable media. It aims to improve networking and learning and increase the impact of the media development

sector.

The GFMD‘s core value is to support the creation and strengthening of free, independent, sustainable and pluralistic

media, as defined by the declarations of UNESCO at conferences in Windhoek, Almaty, Santiago de Chile, Sana’a and Sofia.

In line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we believe free, independent, sustainable and inclusive media are

prerequisites for creating and strengthening democratic society and human development.

This code of conduct, developed by and for its members, is designed to provide a robust ethical framework to which

GFMD members commit themselves.

GFMD has the following aims:

To provide an international forum for the discussion of ideas, information and strategies in the field of media development

and to facilitate communication between and among GFMD members, through the support of the GFMD international

secretariat.

To create a platform for media development practitioners to interact with donors, governments, opinion leaders and the

wider public making the case for media development as a primary pillar for advancing social, economic and political

development.

To promote and disseminate research and analysis on the impact of media development assistance on governance, civic

participation, poverty alleviation, emergent crises and markets worldwide.

To promote the establishment of common standards and ethics for media development work that encourages cross-sector

cooperation.

To advance best practice methods in the media development sector through shared learning, training and evaluation.

To educate members, policymakers and the general public on the importance of free, independent, pluralistic and sustaina-

ble media to human and economic development

To support the activities of the Regional Forums for Media Development in promoting joint advocacy and cooperation

between media development practitioners in the regions and to ensure the GFMD’s functions are performed in accordance

with local needs.

This is achieved through:

Circulating proposals amongst members;

Bringing people together to coordinate actions;

61

G FM D CODE OF PRACTICE

GFMD Code of Practice

Preparing and disseminating information in line with the functions of the GFMD;

Providing organisational support to members if available;

Promoting the importance of media development to advance human, social and economic development; and

Advocating for increased support to media development.

PURPOSE

This Code of Practice serves as a statement that GFMD members are committed to maintaining the highest standards of

integrity, governance, financial transparency and accountability while furthering the GFMD’s mission.

Adopting and adhering to this Code of Practice serves as an ethical charter for the activities and operations of GFMD

members, as well as an internal guideline for the application of GFMD values and mission.

The GFMD member’s Code of Practice takes inspiration from the Code of Ethics as adopted by the World Association of

Non-Governmental Organisations.

I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES

GFMD members shall not, in the course of their work, violate any person’s fundamental human rights, with which each

person is endowed.

GFMD members fundamentally respect religious, ethnic, gender, political and cultural diversity, but also work to transcend

and enable dialogue across divisions sometimes resulting from such diversity.

GFMD members shall serve the greater good of freedom of expression and respect of human rights as defined in the Uni-

versal Declaration of Human Rights.

GFMD members shall seek to develop good relationships and fair partnerships with sister organisations operating in the

media sector.

II. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

GFMD members shall be accountable towards the general public; those beneficiaries whom they serve; those partners

they work with; and those who support them. Information provided about GFMD members to those stakeholders shall be

accurate, timely and balanced.

GFMD members shall seek to be transparent in all their dealings with the public, donors, partners and beneficiaries.

GFMD members shall protect and consider any information confidential in case it may endanger (the work of) any of its

staff, partners or beneficiaries.

III. ANTI-CORRUPTION, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND LEGALITY

GFMD members shall not engage in, and avoid being a willing partner of, any form of corruption, bribery, or other finan-

cial improprieties or illegalities. GFMD members shall never misuse funds and their staff and partners will behave honestly

and never accept or pay bribes.

GFMD members shall take prompt corrective action whenever wrongdoing is discovered among its staff, contractors, and

partners.

GFMD members shall be honest and truthful in its dealings with its donors, project beneficiaries, staff, partner organisa-

tions and the public in general.

GFMD members shall avoid any potential or actual conflict of interest, including institutional affiliations, which might

possibly involve a conflict of interest.

IV. NON-PROFIT, NON-GOVERNMENTAL AND INDEPENDENT

GFMD General members are not-for-profit organisations. Any surplus that is generated through the operations of GFMD

members is to be utilized solely to help the organisation fulfil its mission and objectives.

GFMD General members are non-governmental organisations. GFMD members are not to be part of, or controlled by,

government or an intergovernmental agency.

GFMD General members shall maintain their independence. Their vision, policies and activities shall not be determined by

others (e.g. for-profit corporations, donors, governments, government officials, political parties) but shall be decided upon

solely by the governance structure as laid down in their statutes.

62

G FM D CODE OF PRACTICE

GFMD members shall not be rigidly aligned to or affiliated with any political party and shall not seek to implement the

policy of any government.

V. GOVERNANCE AND STAFF

GFMD members shall have an effective governance structure, which reflects the core values, mission and cultural standards

of their organisations.

GFMD members shall have an independent board that can ultimately be held responsible for all activities and (human

and financial) resources of the organisation. The functioning of the board (structure, term, duration, nomination process,

grounds for cancellation, responsibilities, frequency and mode of conduct) shall be laid down in the statutes and relevant

by-laws of each organisation.

GFMD members shall seek to employ capable and responsible staff.

GFMD members shall expect from their staff to maintain the highest standards of professional and personal conduct.

VI. FINANCES AND USE OF FUNDS

GFMD members shall work according to good practice to ensure that financial and legal procedures and safeguards are

followed and that fiscal integrity is maintained.

GFMD members shall have their financial records audited regularly by a qualified and recognised auditing firm to certify

that the organisation is operating in full compliance with the law and in accordance with generally accepted accounting

practices. Exceptions will only be permissible in rare circumstances accompanied by full and acceptable information and

explanations.

GMFD members shall only seek and accept funding which is consistent with their mission.

63

Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs

64

PARTN E RS

Main Partners, Sponsors, Supporters of GFMD World Conference, Athens 2008

Donors

Published in Belgium by the Global Forum for Media Development

Editor: Bettina Peters

Production Co-ordinator: Sylvia Henze

Design: www.formatdesign.net

GFMD, International Press Centre

Résidence Palace, Block C, 2/215

155 rue de la loi

B-1040 Brussels

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the Editor. The contents of this publication are covered by

authors‘ rights and the right to use of contributions rests with the Editor and the authors themselves.

Printed by Druk. Hoeilaart, Belgium

PHOTO CR E DITS

The GFMD: © GFMD

The GFMD in the regions: © International Labour Organisation / Deloche P., © Thomas Sennett / World Bank,

© Internews Network, © UN photo / Albert Gonzalez Farran, © Ray Witlin / World Bank, © Tran Thi Hoa / World Bank,

© Eric Miller / World Bank, © Anrar Ilyasou / World Bank, © GFMD

Making the Case for Media Development: © Eric Miller / World Bank, © Bill Lyons / World Bank, © Scott Wallace / World Bank,

© Curt Carnemark / World Bank, © Alejandro Lipszyc / World Bank, © Trevor Samson / World Bank

Mark Nelson: © Shezad Noorani / World Bank, © Eric Miller / World Bank, © International Labour Organisation / ILO/MFA

Wiliam Orme: © Ami Vitale / World Bank, © Alan Gignoux / World Bank, © International Labour Organisation / Kutty V.,

© Eric Miller / World Bank

World bank: © International Labour Organisation / ILO/MFA

Aidan White: © Gennadiy Ratushenko / World Bank, © Internews Network, © Ray Witlin / World Bank, © UN photo / Rick Bajornas,

© World Bank, © UN photo / Fardin Waez

Sevan Doraisamy: © UN photo / Christopher Hewig

A.S. Panerselvan: © Curt Carnemark / World Bank, © UN photo / Fardin Waez, © World Bank, © UN photo / Martine Perret,

© UN photo / Eskinder Debeke

Donors´ Perspectives on Media Development: © GFMD

Steering Comitee: © GFMD

gfmd media matters 2009-2011

Documents