An
informal submission to UNESCO conference, Connecting the Dots, 3rd to
4th March 2015, Paris.
---
Suggested
addition to draft outcome statement from UNESCO conference,
Connecting the Dots:
"2.5
Recognise concerns about a growing crisis in global journalism, and news neutrality, impacting quality of public access to digital information worldwide."
---
by
Jason Brown
"Connecting
the dots" is a comprehensive look at the state of the net - with
some vital elements missing.
Starting
today in Paris, this international conference comes complete with the
findings of a global #netstudy, and a draft outcome statement.
That
draft has seven sections, with 28 different recommendations, covering net neutrality, security, privacy, equality, access and freedom of expression,
including safety for journalists.
A
logistics note for invited speakers goes through the draft, with
provision during the conference for "suggestions for
improvements or points missed by the draft study."
From
the far side of the planet, the logistics of getting to the
conference proved too difficult in the end, and I missed out on an
invitation to attend.
Concerns
remain. A neutrality victory appears to have been won in the net's leading protagonist, the United States. My concerns here are less with what will no doubt be an ongoing battle for net neutrality, as news neutrality. As a journalist who began his career on a tiny island in the
Pacific, I have much less experience and far fewer qualifications
than many more learned colleagues.
However
life on a small island has given me a little insight into the
patterns of development agendas on a small planet.
An
admittedly less than exhaustive reading of the papers associated with
the conference reveal what I contend here are two major elements
missing from the study.
The
95 page draft study has nearly 70 references to journalism and
journalists, covering freedoms of speech and safety of journalists,
including from impunity.
The
first of what seems to me to be missing from the draft is the wider
question of access to information. There is the question of quantity
of access, with the bulk of the world's net users suffering expensive
and often inferior broadband speeds, even in 'developed' countries.
An
emergent prospect is that of free internet, with global giants such
as Google and its Loon project offering a future where anyone with a
mobile device can gain access. This would of course be a welcome
development, while
bringing
its own concerns about privacy and security.
These
concerns are referred to in the draft study:
"Solutions
suggested include public provision of free Internet access, such as
in libraries and schools, and the facilitation of universal and
secure broadband and WiFi networks. Broadband access was also
highlighted. Some nations are beginning to view broadband access as
an emerging definition
of universal service in the digital age, or even as a fundamental
human right. Some respondents, however, expressed concern about the
details of how universal access is provided. For instance, public
provision of infrastructure might increase state surveillance
capabilities and reduce market options; on the other hand, the
provision of free public Internet access by private companies might
be associated with content filtering,
advertising, or intrusive data collection."
There
are however other more major concerns, to do with the quality of
access.
Many
refer to an
'overwhelming' flood of information available on the internet. A
prime example of this is scientific studies on climate change, which
is an issue of leading urgency for my part of the world, with its
tiny, isolated and remote islands.
But
it's not just the public.
Journalism
too appears overwhelmed with the weight of information.
This
lack of capacity reveals itself in several aspects; resources, ethics
and ownership.
Examinations
of news media coverage shows more concern with giving equal voice to
different sides of arguments about climate change, rather than the
clear weight of scientific study.
Global
warming sceptics have targeted what they feel is a politically
correct and self-interested conspiracy to mislead the public.
Yet
the weight of evidence suggests quite the opposite - that the news
media coverage of this issue is more likely to be corporately
correct, spreading doubt where there is increasing scientific
certainty.
Even
long trusted voices such as the BBC have been accused of giving into
political and
corporate pressure
to add prominence to voices from the scientific margins.
How
this has come about needs more examination in the context of
connecting the dots between the state of the net, and UNESCO's stated
desire to drive "momentum for a new development agenda."
How
might that be realised?
Like
it or not, by far the main source of awareness amongst the public
stems from the media.
One
Pew Institute study showed that around 80 per cent of shares on 'new'
media came from websites produced by 'old' media - radio, television
and print.
Yet,
particularly in print, old media resources are imploding.
Another
Pew Institute study found that newsrooms lost US$1 billion in
resources following the Global Financial Crisis.
Again
using the US as an example, newsroom numbers are around 35,000, down
from a 1989 high of nearly 60,000 a mere quarter century ago,
according
to a census from the American Society of News Editors.
If
this rate of decline continues, mainstream
media, acting as the 4th
estate, will all but cease to exist in the US within the next quarter
century. Other 'first world' markets show similar rates of decline.
Third world markets show more commercial
resilience,
but suffer widespread corruption and editorial suppression. Given the
lack of scrutiny given to financial markets and various conflicts,
the same criticism could also be made of first world news media.
Once
more referring to figures from the Pew Institute, a graph from the
United States shows that much vaunted 'new
media'
ventures
including citizen journalism attract just 1% of news media funding
flows.
Despite
this paucity, solutions to problems facing the future of journalism
and the future of news refer almost exclusively
to "business models". A casual search online reveals nearly
half a million references to such business models, while the more
neutral term "funding models" attracts barely 30,000 hits.
Narrowing this down further, there are exactly 712 hits for "funding
models" in Google books, against 2,900 for "business
models".
Let's
be clear.
Journalism
is not a business.
This
much is evident from the Global Investigative Journalism Network,
which finds that freelance journalists have to subsidise their work -
and public discourse - out of their own pocket.
Journalists
may work within the media 'industry', the same as doctors work within
medicine, as lawyers do while maintaining
equality under the law.
Medicine
and law receive vast swathes of public funding, but not journalism,
despite its utter centrality to public discourse.
These
issues of failing quantity and quality in news media are enough for
some to draw from the Global Financial Crisis and refer to a Global
Journalism Crisis.
The
only question here, in my view, is to ask - what came first?
Much
emphasis is placed on the role of the internet in collapsing old
media incomes. Yet census figures in the US show that newsroom levels
began declining long before.
Evidence
for a Global Journalism Crisis hides in plain sight, with the Global
Financial Crisis resulting from corporate media, both public and
private, failing to adequately examine shonky stocks, instead acting
as cheerleaders for endless growth on a finite planet.
There
are other indicators for a GJC.
Thirty
years after news media swayed public opinion against the Vietnam war,
its
descendants
acted as cheerleaders for war on terror, promoting propaganda about
weapons of mass destruction now proven false.
Falsity
surrounding war and business has come at the cost of hundreds of
thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.
At
the same time as journalism resources are shrinking rapidly,
'communications' spending in public and private sectors has
mushroomed. Where in the 1980s ratios of journalists to public
relations workers used to be near one to one, they are now one to
five in favour of corporate messaging.
Techno-utopian
visions such as data journalism have little more chance of succeeding
in conveying clear, neutral, independent information against these
ratios than telegram, telex and fax.
What
are some solutions?
First,
admitting the problem.
World
bodies such as UNESCO might play a leading role in drawing attention
to the Global Journalism Crisis.
This
role is badly needed as most corporate media have downplayed the
crisis, dismissing it as 'old news', instead promoting "business
models" despite evidence that business is part of the problem,
not the solution.
Much
talk about reinvention of journalism is trapped in the details of
technology and resources.
What
may be needed is reinvention of the wider concepts of journalism
itself - including as an essential part of ongoing, lifelong, adult
education.
Giving
citizens greater access to independent information is a prerequisite
to effective participation in future development agendas.
It
is my hope that a future #netstudy will show that the Global
Financial Crisis prompted recognition of a Global Journalism Crisis,
with a resultant Global Journalism Agenda.
A
good start would be targeting global aid spends, using the 0.7%
formula to suggest 0.7% of global aid be spent on supporting
independent global journalism.
At
global aid targerts around US$200 billion, this would form a fighting
fund of some US$140 million.
Such
funding would include room for advocacy, calling on NGOs, governments
and businesses to also allocate 0.7% of their rapidly growing
'communications' budgets towards independent journalism partnerships.
Quid
pro quo for public funding could be increased adoption of charters of
editorial independence, so that no matter what kind of organisation
is funded, there are formal channels for transparency and
accountability.
Some
warn that public funding is a "slippery slope" towards
political interference.
Yet
similar arguments made in relation to public funding for legal,
medical or educational systems do not stop public funding from
happening. And the same argument could be mustered against corporate
interference that comes from private funding, including the ethical
blurring of lines between advertising and editorial 'content.'
There
are no perfect funding solutions. Direct funding from members of the
public remains miniscule compared to private and public sources, and
given continued inequality seems an unlikely saviour.
The
answer to blurred
lines is
greater, more formal professionalism within journalism itself.
Journalists
once rightfully resisted such formalisation as potentially fatal to
freedom of information, in their role as guardians and gatekeepers of
wider freedoms of expression, operating in the grey areas where law
fears to tread.
Those
roles can be relinquished somewhat in favour of the many human rights
groups that now take a much greater if not equal role in defending
such freedoms, thanks to the impact of the world wide web.
Where
journalists were once the de facto defenders of human rights
information, they can now absolve themselves of this conflict of
interest situation, and return to their role as independent
observers, scrutineers, and commentators.
So
where to from here?
Connecting
the dots requires that organisations such as UNESCO look at not just
safety issues impacting freedoms of expression, but also the economic
safety of journalism itself.
As
above, solutions start with admitting there is a problem.
Delegates
at Connecting the Dots could address this problem by writing in a new
clause to the draft outcome statement, perhaps under the second
section, "Options for UNESCO related to the field of Access to
Information and Knowledge."
Such
as:
"2.5 Recognise concerns about a growing crisis in global journalism, and news neutrality, impacting quality of public access to digital information worldwide."
To
be honest, such an addition seems unlikely at this late stage. The
#draftstudy is largely done, as is the outcome statement. But these
difficult, sensitive and controversial issues must be confronted, and
solutions found.
Why?
Either
journalism is the 4th
Estate, a cornerstone
of democracy, fundamentally vital to this and all forms of modern
governance and global outcomes. Or it's not.
Ignoring
this issue is no longer an option, lest we face existential threats
from climate change, endless war and rising inequality. As the war on terror and
the global financial crisis attest, evidence and concerns about a
global journalism crisis are well founded.
The
rise of a 5th estate in the form of a digitally empowered citizenry
only reinforces the need for a confident, well informed and strongly
resourced 4th estate, one that practices news neutrality as well as professional independence.
Connecting
the dots is already valuable as a conference in recognising the
contributions of news media towards development agendas.
What
is needed is recognition that journalism, as
the 4th
Estate,
suffers a
lack
of
equity
not just in resources but also policy spaces such as this one.
.
. .
Jason
Brown has been a journalist in the Pacific since 1982. He is
currently an editor on a volunteer basisi with the Pacific Freedom
Forum.
See
also from
this author:
http://ejc.net/magazine/article/2010-journalism-review-series-jason-brown-south-pacific
Links
for this article:
.
. .
