World Press Freedom Reflecting Community Values

I found it interesting to find there is a day allotted by UNESCO As World Press Freedom Day. I remember attending a Lecture in Melbourne by a senior Age journalist discussing the changes to the media industry. The emerging on-line media sources, free media, the ability of citizens to undertake their own reporting, the ability to choose between news sources on-line and declining newspaper sales.

The mainstream media has trends of declining market share and hence declining influence as other voices can be heard. The media executives had concerns about where media was going in the future. They will have to adapt to the changes and appeal to the public desire for quality information that is pertinent to their lives.

As a former community media journalist myself with 5 years experience reporting on peace and nonviolence issues, I would be pleased to see greater media freedom and funding particularly in community (public) media. What I liked about being part of a radio station was the demographic of people across all ages producing programs and various multicultural services. There was music for all genres and topics were broad and deep. We felt that sense of community at the station.

I would propose we see a shifting focus from negative media to what is working or serving the community in reality. What we see is the biased slant on reporting violence, wars, political news, financial statistics which many are turning off or becoming deeply cynical. Many of the news stories come from the same major media sources Associated Press, Reuters etc. where other media organisations just pick up the main news and report it as their own. There was also the serious issue of embedded journalists reporting literally from one side of the conflict and then stating they were unbiased. I actually knew one American journalist who was embedded, I sent him an Age article by one of the top Australian jouranlists (Journalist of the Year Award) Paul McGeough who was critiquing media accuracy in the war in Iraq. There is not enough questioning of all parties when reporting on an issue and there is no footnoting so that the public can actually check on the accuracy of the item. We footnote academic articles, books, why not journalists. Some would argue protection of sources, I don’t disagree with that, providing it is important and not just lazy journalism.

I also had the idea to start a positive newspaper that would uplift society, I spoke to a local journalist (Editor) of a local paper, he was keen but couldn’t get it off the ground. I was hoping to do Market Research to find out what the public think and develop better relationships with the public to report stories that affect their lives. However, I didn’t find the right people.

Reform is required in the mainstream media and responsibility taken for stimulating news stories (making the news) which perpetuate conflict through dramatising and over emphasising aspects designed to magnetise the viewer, listener or reader. It may also be deliberately spun to create impressions and influence political beliefs. The old adage ‘when it bleeds it leads’ is noteworthy.

The introduction and exposure to peace media would encourage discussion around citizenship, conflict resolution, integrity, values and inspirational stories that inform peace about the peace that is already happening day to day. Peace media would report on stories and focus on proven ways to solve problems rather than the constant battles played out through the media that increase cynicism. The media has a belief that negative media sells rather than balanced media that reports truth (as it is) and inspires. I believe negative media is a floored belief in the sence of what people want. Yes, it does sell I think that is evident. However, if the media was a public good that reports in a way that is balanced and informing to enable the public to gain a fair appraisal of issues that affect them, I think our society would become happier and empowered. In the present day I believe the public is desperate for balanced news that is positive news. Positive doesn’t mean the opposite to negative, it is to report in a way that is unbiased, presenting both sides, but perhaps ending with questions or reporting on pathways where problems have been solved or focussing on values. This doesn’t bias positively it just focusses on values rather than drama. People want to feel happy and have hope in their community and the future for their children. So this is an important discussion.

The media is very powerful as a change agent and has often been used by Government. There is a tendency for journalists to parrot PR crafted media releases rather than adopting an approach of investigative journalism which focuses on the truth of matters seeking to find out the real story or come close to it. What we see is some journalists not wanting to be excluded by political inner circles and trying to ensure they become the journalists of first choice, so they can break news and find notoriety (success). So there has to be compromise of journalistic freedom and integrity in favour of winning friends and influencing people. The media is in a powerful position and is a shape changer of society. They can cause the downfall of governments or swing public opinion as they choose. If they have many media channels – newspapers, radio and television they become extremely powerful and are responsible for how the world is viewing events in the world. They can take us to a bright future or armegeddon. This is not democracy, it is hegemony.

I had an interesting experience in respect of secrecy, when I asked to record for radio John Dean, the former Whitehouse Counsel to President Nixon. He came to La Trobe University, Melbourne some years ago when he was launching his book called ‘Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W Bush’. I approached the lecturer introducing John Dean and asked if I could record for Community Radio. He conferred with John Dean and then said no. I was surprised given he is advocating visibility. After his lecture I asked again and reluctantly he gave me a short interview stating he should have agreed in the first place. He didn’t see the link between making visible his lecture and the issues around Watergate and the Bush Presidency. I saw it instantly.

I also recall listening to John Pilger (Australian journalist) speaking about Iraq at a community meeting. I asked him if I could interview him. He agreed. This is a guy who interviews governments on very sensitive issues such as Iraq, Central and South American interference, torture and the oppression of vulnerable peoples. He has tried to make visible what is secret in governments. So I tried to interview him. I was told later by his secretary that he couldn’t do the interview. I pushed and asked could we book a time in a month or two when he is free. He refused. I then wrote him a long letter about my work in peace and urged him to honour his agreement. His secretary rang me and said he won’t like your letter and may not agree, he asked me to tailor my letter so he would be likely to agree. I was surprised given I have a right of freedom of expression and I am not altering to please anyone. It was not offensive, just honest. I couldn’t see why we couldn’t reschedule. I guess I was not the ABC. So it appeared to me the people who had no voice who he tried to give a voice, was different from myself, a unpaid community journalist seeking to give a voice. He said no.

So I see issues in the media in respect of the values. I actually think this is the key issue. We require journalists to have high ethical standards, to walk the talk, to seek out the truth from all sides and to have the courage to report on unpopular subjects in the public interest. I feel we need positive news stories that inspire and uplift the public and don’t render them disempowered, which is the reality today. The fear levels are over the top. Fortunately I don’t watch the media and I found I lost my fear as a result. As an analyst myself I see that it is not balanced, it is biased towards the same themes and is not representative of the community. It has become a modus operandi that is unquestioned. The media itself should be questioned and vested interests not able to influence top journalists to turn the tide of public opinion, this subverts true democracy.

I see a future where there are many voices, the public are represented fairly and empowered to make decisions about their community. They will require fair and balanced representations, I feel.

Below is a Press Release from the US Department of State about World Press Freedom Day. It makes me think of the International Day of Peace (21st September) where all wars are supposed to stop for one day. So far this hasn’t happened, but the idea is to think about it for one day and cease violence. I wonder if the press can practice balanced, accurate and truthful reporting without fear or favour for one day in the interests of the public and those who seek to influence can refrane from doing so for one day. It would be nice to see democracy actioned.

Wikileaks should be mentioned here. What Julian Assange did was question the right to secrecy of govenments. There are of course genuine viewpoints for secrecy where it ensures safety of sources in the public interest but there are also genuine viewpoints for freedom of speech and empowering the community with accurate information. Showing the true faces behind the media/PR spin. The reason for this, govenments are not always honest and they are not always operating in the public interest, there are agendas. There has to be a counter balance, an honest broker in there somewhere. This is in the public interest on the grounds of World Citizenry and the impacts from decisions that affect the public not only in the home country but across the world.

New media will be the rainbow of a new way of seeing life. Even this blog is another information source with a spiritual and values based dimension, this would never be reported in the media. My poetry would never get a mention, that is why the internet is excellent for airing a range of diverse voices. This empowers people like yourself to make up your own mind from a range of opinions and to seek truth within yourself. When you are exposed to the truth, you then feel the responsibility or the ability to respond, you will make your own changes.

When we are all free to speak and be heard, then we find an amazing world full of infinite possibilities opens up. Sacred cows that were never challenged suddenly find there are others who may not adhere to such views. The balance of public opinion in my view as a analyst often reflects common sense. That is what I found when I analysed hundreds of voices. So I am on the side of freedom with responsibility.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/12/152465.htm

U.S. to Host World Press Freedom Day in 2011

Press Statement
Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
December 7, 2010

The United States is pleased to announce that it will host UNESCO’s World Press Freedom Day event in 2011, from May 1 – May 3 in Washington, D.C. UNESCO is the only UN agency with the mandate to promote freedom of expression and its corollary, freedom of the press.

The theme for next year’s commemoration will be 21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers. The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and development efforts. New media has empowered citizens around the world to report on their circumstances, express opinions on world events, and exchange information in environments sometimes hostile to such exercises of individuals’ right to freedom of expression. At the same time, we are concerned about the determination of some governments to censor and silence individuals, and to restrict the free flow of information. We mark events such as World Press Freedom Day in the context of our enduring commitment to support and expand press freedom and the free flow of information in this digital age.

Highlighting the many events surrounding the celebration will be the awarding of the UNESCO Guillermo Cano World Press Freedom Prize at the National Press Club on May 3rd. This prize, determined by an independent jury of international journalists, honors a person, organization or institution that has notably contributed to the defense and/or promotion of press freedom, especially where risks have been undertaken.

The Newseum will host the first two days of events, which will engage a broad array of media professionals, students, and citizen reporters on themes that address the status of new media and internet freedom, and challenges and opportunities faced by media in our rapidly changing world.

The State Department looks forward to working with UNESCO and the U.S. executive committee spearheaded by the Center for International Media Assistance at the National Endowment for Democracy, IREX, and the United Nations Foundation and the many civil society organizations they have brought together in support of the organization of events unfolding in Washington.

For further information regarding World Press Freedom Day Events for program content, please visit the World Press Freedom Facebook page http://www.connect.connect.facebook.com/WPFD2011