In his presentation of media and democracy, Mr. Gautam Adhikari stressed five areas of discussion in the context of India’s mass media. The first was the relationship between government and the media. Journalists, workers and proprietors are the representatives of media and strive for the strengthening of freedom of the press. He noted the contradictions of journalists and their positions vis-a vis the government.

The second discussion topic was the power and influence of the corporate world. Advertising has been the tool that corporations have used in the media. The recent phenomenon of the ownership of the media was also raised. In this discussion, we can highlight the U.S. experience since it is the oldest and the most important democracy in today’s world. The U.S. is the nation that the world looks to promote freedom of the press. The third area under discussion was the power of the press. What does this mean for democracy? The press becomes not just a media tool but a form of power. It has enormous influence on people’s lives through influencing the way people vote and the way that people may feel. Some sections of the press have more power than others. What does this mean for the profession and the social structure? The fourth area of discussion were the contrasting influences of print media and audiovisual media. Newspapers began 400-500 years ago as a trade. This concept developed into the media that we know of today. It is the hugely profitable and rapidly growing industry. Audiovisual media can be powerful in developing nations such as India. India has a 38 percent illiteracy rate that makes audiovisual media highly popular and influential compared to print. The power of audiovisual media in a country with a low literacy rate is significant for democracy. The next area of discussion was the impact of new technology, specifically the internet. It was considered to be an area on the edge of revolution but there was uncertainty on how it would change the world. Every major newspaper in the world has websites. This is an important factor since the internet is an unregulated form of media. Other channels of medias are still regulated and follow certain ethical standards. These standards rarely apply to websites that are visited by millions of people. What does this mean for the dissemination of information and for media? Influence can vary greatly between countries that can afford computers and those that cannot.

Kavi Chongkittavorn (Executive Editor, The Nation, Thailand)

Mr. Kavi Chongkittavorn of Thailand has been a veteran journalist for twenty-five years in the area of foreign affairs. He covers events that happen in the world, specifically in Southeast Asia. He starts his presentation by emphasizing the different governments in Southeast Asia, from monarchy to constitutional democracy. The division of political system affects the media. The Singaporean government has new standards of media, which is using the media to tell their people what to do. In Thailand, newspapers tell the government what to do. The main theme in Mr. Chongkittavorn’s presentation is the changed role of the media after the economic crisis. Three thousand journalists lost their jobs because of the crisis. The Philippines suffered a lack of newspapers because of the lack of money to print newspapers. Democracy in this sense became secondary to economic needs. Because of this, the corporate world came to the media, which in turn led to the privatization of the media. The privilege of freedom of experience moved away from government oppression to the private world. The government found ways to oppress the masses through the corporate network. There is a crisis of economic survivability and privatization of economic freedoms.

In the news media, old hacks and editors used to be owners of newspapers or they belonged to certain families. With economic crisis, 12 newspapers in Thailand and numerous more newspapers in Indonesia were shut down. New owners came with new editorial teams and agendas. A famous Thai gambler who operated an illegal gambling ring decided to try his luck in the media and bought the oldest newspaper in Thailand. Did this promote freedom of information? It promoted Thai casinos and this showed that the influx of new owners changed the influence of information. It came up with new editorial policies.

Government oppression of free media was not done through the use of force but through the use of existing archaic laws that tie up the screw against freedom of the press. The Thai constitution is the second most popular constitution in the world. There are 67 individual articles that protect freedom of information. However, there are 25 laws that are used as a disguise to restrict freedom of expression. The practice of using these laws is prominent in Southeast Asia.

In contrast to the problems of freedom of the press in Thailand, Mr. Chongkittavorn presented some positive trends that exist in Southeast Asia. The first is the proliferation of information technology. The Philippine president was brought down by SMS messaging that allowed citizens to write each other via their cell phones, encouraging their participation in rallies and demonstration sites.

In the aftermath of the economic crisis, the media improved through new methods. There was a movement for Asia related news. There was proliferation for Asians to come out with BBC type news. Singapore attempted this with Channel News Asia but the problem of this channel was that it reflected more Singaporean views, rather than Asian ones.

After the economic crisis, media organizations in Asia joined together. It was a movement for Asians to speak for Asians. Local organizations, such as the Southeast Asian Press Alliance which follows the model of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), took responsibility in attacking governments that suppress freedom of the press. However, this organization is still limited. The press in Cambodia, albeit free, and other totalitarian regimes are still controlled by the government.

Enrique Zileri (Editor, CERATAS, Peru)

In recent events, new times have come for Peru and Latin America. There is a story that deals with these transitions. Democracy has been present for 200 years in Latin America. Blood has been shed in the fight for democracy. In the 1990 elections, there was no media source that favored Alberto Fujimori to win the elections. Television especially, supported the opposing candidates. Different methods such as editorials, and celebrity support were used to deter Fujimori from winning. However, even with limited and negative exposure in the media, Fujimori, surprisingly, managed to win the elections. Because of this phenomenon, campaigning with too much money and media became a negative aspect.

Public opinion supported Fujimori’s regime, even with the 1992 self-coup. The coup had a special element and results of a public poll showed that the majority approved of the coup. The coup became popular as it faced public opinion due primarily to economic reasons. Fujimori became the darling of foreigners, especially foreign owned businesses. With authoritarian right-wing government, it fostered privatization and foreign investment. They did not care about democracy and banished news that was against their interests. The boom period of emerging markets was favorable to the stability of democracy. However, when the economy turned worse, Fujimori’s popularity dropped steadily. The collapse of the Fujimori government was prompted by the media, especially television, revealing money scandals involving people in politics. Videos of such accounts showed that the government kept secrets from the people. Through the use of these videos, the press was successful in bringing down the Fujimori government.

Through this experience with media in Peru, we learn that television can be a powerful tool. Scandals that were revealed through the media weakened the government and military and gave power to the journalists. There needs to be a strong and independent local media that is free to receive information and divulge it with no limits in the processing of information. Another issue to be addressed when we look at the situation in Peru is the danger of foreign investment and media. Media becomes soft if it is foreign-owned and has no power to influence the government. There is concern that media that are offshoots of corporations do not promote journalism but defend own personal interest. In conclusion, we, as the media, need to criticize what is going wrong and sustain the democratic principles of freedom of the press.

Conclusion of the First Day of panel discussion

Mr. Veton Surroi, the chair of the panel for Media and Democracy drew upon five obstacles and challenges to be discussed in the panel before drawing up recommendations for the Community of Democracies.

The first obstacle is how the diversity of governments creates the diversity of freedom, especially freedom in the media.

Second, addressing the increasing challenges to economic sustainability of media. Three issues to be discussed here are media as a business, media versus business when autocratic regulations restrain freedom, and media as a business, which is a phenomenon in the developing world where businesses buy media for business.

The third challenge is internet technology.

The fourth obstacle in media freedom is the global versus local debate. How do local media promote freedom of expression in the global perspective while preserving their identification. This discussion touches upon regional news agencies and transnational organizations that may dictate the levels of freedom of expression.

The fifth obstacle to be discussed is the role of “hate speech” in the media, especially during times of crisis. How does the media serve as a bridge between cultures and states that may conflict or contradict each other?

Day Two
Chair: Veton Surroi(Kosovo)
Panelists: Gautam Adhikari (India), Kavi Chongkittavorn(Thailand), Enrique Vileri (Peru)

The second phase of the panel for Media and Democracy convened again on Monday. This time the panel met to continue discussion and to come up with recommendations for the Community of Democracies. Discussion was drawn upon the contents of discussion papers from the Ministerial Conference of the Community of Democracies. Issues that were discussed were business and media, the influence of ownership of media, the media as a watchdog in democratic governance, and the need for government transparency in regards to the access of information.

The chair for the panel for Media and Democracy, Mr. Veton Surroi, started the discussion by outlining the five points addressed in yesterday’s discussion. There was expressed disagreement over ministerial attempts to create regional media, such as attempts to make an Asian model of media, declaring that there are no Asian models of media. All panelists agreed that the freedom of media is universal. There should be no regional, ethnic, or religious models for free press. Also, free media should not be defined as a western value. There are no western values in journalism. The press predates western civilization and that the use of “western” is racist.

In the area of media and democratic governance, the panel agreed that the media should be the watchdog that “checks abuses of power.” However, this is a complex role since the corporate world can own the media and distort information for their advantage. Media and the government rely on the corporate sector for money and the role of money plays a huge role in political processes, especially in election campaigns.

The role of journalists should not support the government but must serve as a check and balance for the government. Media should monitor to ensure that government properly runs state of affairs without corruption or irresponsibility. Ownership of the media should not limit the powers of journalistic freedom.

The issue over government transparence and the access to information stressed the need to make the recommendation as specific as possible so that every nation enforce freedom of information even more so during crisis. It was suggested that every functional democracy should have a freedom of information act established as law.

In conclusion, a list of recommendations were drawn from issues of universal freedom of press, the freedom of information, government transparency, issues of ownership of media and the implications it can have for journalists, and the need for the internet to remain free from government control. One issue that was not mentioned in the recommendation list included the impact of hate speech in the media.

Recommendations to the Community of Democracies from the Non-governmental Forum regarding Media and Democracy.

A. Press freedom is a universal value and should be agreed to by all governments. There should be no attempts to define press freedom on any ethnic, regional or religious basis.

B. The free flow of information should be guaranteed. The debate over the “new information order” is irrelevant and regressive. We call upon participants in the Community of Democracies to convene at the upcoming UNESCO meeting to develop a common position to safeguard freedom of the media.

C. Access to state held information must be guaranteed. There should be transparency and public dissemination of information related to the workings of state institutions. All governments should put in place legislation providing for freedom of information access.

D. The distribution of broadcast frequencies should be a transparent process governed by autonomous entities that reflect the diversity of society.

E. Any restriction on the freedom of media justified by national security should be narrowly drawn and interpreted. Withholding of information under the aegis of a broad and imprecise definition of national security is unacceptable.

F. We welcome the attention drawn to the issues of ownership and the influence of the corporate world in the media sector. This issue needs to be addressed without compromising basic journalistic freedoms. The Non-Governmental Forum volunteers to outline problems and issues of this area for the upcoming meeting in Santiago.

G. We welcome the raising of issues posed by the expansion of the internet. The Non-Governmental Forum recommends that internet content not be restricted, that internet distribution be diverse and accessible and not be controlled by a monopoly.