At the huge peace demonstration in November in Florence,
Italy, together with "No" to war on Iraq, were "No's," to
globalization, genetically modified foods, commercial control of the Internet,
copyright laws, and Israel's policies toward the Palestinians. While the
mainstream media have trouble connecting the dots between these demands,
the demonstration of a half-million people in the street was the culmination
of a week of European Social Forum workshops, in which activists had been
meeting to do exactly that: connect the demands of peace, media justice
and anti-globalization.
Among those meeting were members of a new international
coalition, called Communication Rights in the Information Society, and
known by its acronym, CRIS, which is publicizing these connections and
articulating an alternative vision of communications based on human rights
and social justice.
The CRIS Campaign resurrects much of the international
network of alternative media producers, activists, academics and
non-governmental organizations who have been organizing informally since
the 1970s, when a near-global call for the New World Information Order was
stopped by the US withdrawing from UNESCO and pulling most of its money from
the UN. [See Many Voices, One World, The Global Struggle for Information
Justice, by Dee Dee Halleck. Media File Vol. 20#1.] CRIS' Campaign
strategy is to use the next UN forum, the World Summit on the Information
Society (WSIS), as a public education platform and mobilizing event.
Hosted by the International Telecommunications Union
(ITU), two forums (in Geneva, in December 2003, and Tunisia in 2005) will
bring together corporate and government representatives, with representatives
from "civil society." This is the first time at a UN Forum that
non-governmental groups have been 'allowed' in to the Formal Meetings,
and already the ITU has tried to marginalize this participation through
familiar tactics, such as excluding groups from meetings and press conferences,
and stacking the meetings with 'civil society groups' made up of businessmen.
At a time when the .coms and the telecommunications sectors
are crashing, there is a lot at stake for all sides. Many of the issues
are familiar to US media watchers: corporate media monopolization; a further
sell-off of public broadcast and satellite frequencies and privatization
of publicly owned institutions; the takeover of the Internet operating
systems by telecommunications giants; of software and on-line content through
stringent intellectual property right regimes; and the vulnerability of
community and independent media.
These issues play out very differently around the world.
However, it should be no surprise that one of the biggest stumbling blocks
to a globally just and equitable "information society" are US
corporate and government interests, and indeed, the model of corporate
commercial media "made in the USA". David Rothkopf, Deputy Undersecretary
of Commerce under Clinton, and Managing Director of Kissinger Associates
underscored the approach. In an article entitled In Praise of Cultural
Imperialism, he wrote: "For the United States, a central objective
of an Information Age foreign policy, must be to win the battle of the
world's information flows, dominating the airwaves as Great Britain once
ruled the sea . . . it is in the economic and political interests of the
United States to ensure that if the world is moving toward a common language,
it be English; if the world is moving toward common telecommunications,
safety and quality standards, they be American; that if the world is becoming
linked by television, radio and music, the programming be American. . .
It could not be more strategically crucial that the United States do whatever
is in its power to shape the development of global information infrastructure."
I think US activists should heed Rothkopf's call, although
in a much different direction. The Bush War strategy, has led to a greater
re-engagement with the UN: they even began to pay back their overdue UN
account, withdrawn over just this issue of control over global information
infrastructure. The US Government is of course expected to play an important
role in the upcoming forums.
No less than a year away, CRIS and other media activists
have been debating how best to use the Summit opportunity. As the coordinator
of the CRIS-Youth Arm, Sasha Costanza-Chock, has written, the underlying
debate is whether activists should continue to engage with the (WSIS) Summit
process and risk watering down any proposals, or take to the streets 'Seattle
style.' However, as Chock notes, "tactics of counter-summit and protest
are no panacea" and could "dissipate CRIS momentum." [www.wacc.org.uk/publications/md/md2002-4/costanza].
But, what if we rotated the debate in an entirely different
direction? If the made- in-the USA corporate media system is indeed one
of the central problems, isn't the first priority for US media activists
to mobilize to change the US media system. There is already a growing media
democracy movement, whose campaigns pivot around the media reform discussed
in this issue, corporate campaigns, and support of community media. Success
in these areas, would not only start to get at the root problem, but also
aid our allies in other countries, by showing that 'another media system
is possible."
Further Reading
Platform for Community
Networks: www.globalcn.org.
Media
Development. Journal of the World Association for Christian Communication:
www.wacc.org.uk/publications/md/md2002-4/cris.
Dorothy Kidd teaches Media Studies at the University
of San Francisco. Her story on legal challenges to the FCC was
selected by Project Censored as the #1 most censored story in 2002. |