Is it time for an alternate media narrative?

When Russia, China and the Arab world claim their rightful place in the global media landscape.

by Jan Douwe Keulen28 Jan 2015

• 

The European Parliament urged the commission ‘to propose a communication strategy to counter the Russian propaganda campaign’, writes Keulen [EPA]

Russian and EU narratives seem to be on a collision course. A low-intensity information war between Moscow and Brussels is heating up and the main victims may be the citizens on both sides, deprived of reliable and credible information.

Propaganda, defined as the systematic, widespread distribution of specific ideas, doctrines, practises which can help one cause or be harmful to another cause, inevitably provokes counter-propaganda.

In Brussels some hard thinking is taking place to counter the Russian “information war”. The European Parliament urged the commission last week “to propose, within two months, a communication strategy to counter the Russian propaganda campaign directed at the EU, its eastern neighbours and Russia itself”.

The unease and anger in the EU about the Russian disinformation and propaganda war is growing.

Russian propaganda

The small Baltic state of Latvia, which holds the presidency of the EU’s Council of Ministers in the first half of 2015, has proposed, together with its neighbours Estonia and Lithuania, the UK and Denmark, to counter Russian propaganda with a European strategy that should include credible and competitive information alternatives to Russian-speaking populations and those using Russia’s state-controlled media.

The Latvians are thinking specifically of a European-backed, Russian-language TV station.

According to Latvian Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkevics, this channel, also geared towards the large group of Russian-speakers in the Baltics, will not be an alternative propaganda channel but will be analternative normal European TV, with entertainment and news, but with very factually accurate news.

In a related development, the European Endowment for Democracy launched afeasibility study that should produce clear recommendations on the way forward for the development of different independent Russian-language media initiatives.

The study is funded by the Netherlands where irritation soared last year about the way Russian state media reported on the shooting of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine, killing almost 200 Dutch nationals.

According to the official Russian version, the plane was downed by the Ukrainian air force. But most independent observers believe it was a Russian-supplied anti-aircraft rocket system, operated by pro-Russian rebels, that caused the aeroplane to crash.

Threat to freedom of speech

Russia reacted angrily to the European plans and proposals accusing Latvia and the EU of posing a threat to freedom of speech. This was in itself a remarkable accusation from a country that censors the internet, scores very low on the press freedom indexes (number 142 on the 2014 RSF index) and has an army of trolls influencing social media with loads of propaganda posts.

Or are the paid pro-Kremlin campaigns on Facebook and elsewhere and Russia’s criticism of global press freedom NGOs, the chimera of western paranoia? Is this in itself propaganda?

Russia reacted angrily to the European plans and proposals accusing Latvia and the EU of posing a threat to freedom of speech. This was in itself a remarkable accusation from a country that censors the internet, scores very low on the press freedom indexes …

The question is how effective European-sponsored Russian-language “counter-propaganda” will prove to be and if it will be able to change the Russian mind-set. Russian media accuse the US, the EU and NATO of being motivated by aggressive, anti-Russian intentions.

The new authorities in Kiev are framed as fascist usurpers and western media are accused of sowing aggressive propaganda discord and trampling on international law and common sense.

This framing has been challenged by Euronews in Russian and by alternative news websites. But in general, the worldview as presented by the Kremlin-supported media seems to appeal to millions of Russians and others who distrust the western narratives.

Even those in the West who are probably not persuaded by the Russian point of view, enjoy watching alternative opinions. Actually, the state-funded RT is one of the most popular and most watched news channels worldwide, including in the US, reaching around 700 million people in more than 100 countries.

A new Russian media organisation (radio, news website and news agency), Sputnik, was launched in November, for a world that is tired of a unipolar point of view. Sputnik intents to produce over 800 hours of broadcasting, in 30 languages, covering 34 countries.

Global media landscape

The US and Western Europe have long dominated the global media landscape. What is wrong if other players, like Russia, China or the Arab world, claim their rightful place? Though propaganda has a negative connotation, thanks to Goebbels, Stalin and Mussolini, there is nowadays hardly a government in the world not engaged in public relations,  information campaigns, soft power and “public diplomacy”.

If governments are engaged in information wars, where sometimes all means are permitted, the task of independent journalists remains to scrutinise the facts. Journalists should counter all sorts of propaganda by investigating to what extent it relies on a verifiable truth.

It is our task as journalists to discover what is propagandistic (because often the best propaganda is hidden) and denounce propaganda if it relies on lies or half-truths.

In that sense, the best way to counter propaganda is not counter-propaganda, but just plain objective and accurate reporting.

Jan Keulen is a Dutch journalist and media development consultant. He taught journalism at Rijks Universiteit Groningen, and served as general director of the Doha Centre for Media Freedom.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA 28 January 2015

Can free speech be counter-productive?

Professional journalism must take centre stage in our attempts to create a better world.

Will the world really be a better place when freedom of expression is guaranteed? This certainly is the conviction of a strong and vocal lobby of more than 200 civil society groups advocating free speech, press freedom and access to information. At stake is the wording of a new framework for global development replacing the Millennium Development Goals (MDG’s).

The 2015 deadline of “the most successful global anti poverty push in history”, as UN secretary general Ban-ki Moon called the MDG’s, is approaching. Though not all targets have yet been met, heated discussions behind the scenes are already taking place to formulate a new global development agenda. The new Sustainable Development Goalsshould result in a world “without poverty in all its forms” in 2030: no violence, a healthy life for all, food security, permanent education, gender equality, good governance and a number of other lofty targets. 

Although few would deny that “good governance” contributes to development, peace and a better world, the question really is how to define it. According to the high level panel, good governance is understood as “a society’s ability to guarantee the rule of law, free speech and open and accountable government”. The panel includes eminent leaders from global civil society, private sector and governments and is chaired by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyonio, Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and UK Prime Minister David Cameron.

The negative effects of political propaganda, disinformation and incitement to hatred and discrimination are well-documented. However, professional journalism is not the same as free speech; it is a constrained form of free speech, that takes into account principles of verification, fairness, accuracy, balance, responsibility and public interest.

If good governance implies upholding free speech, access to governmental information and independent media acting as a watchdog, the question remains how to incorporate these issues into the development agenda. Some see accountability as a cross-cutting theme. Others, like most free speech and press freedom lobbyists, advocate for a separate global development goal. Free media and quality journalism, they argue, play a crucial role in informing the public, facilitating the debate and creating a culture of accountability.

Accurate, easy access data

There are also sound technical arguments to link development to a free flow of information. Citizens and governments need accurate and easily-accessible data and information to make better decisions and to check that these decisions are effectively carried out. On the other hand, it is important that governments share more of their information, online or otherwise.

Access by all to vital data like statistics, budgets, monitoring, evaluation and financial reports, the land registry etc, prevents corruption, facilitates effectiveness and provides legitimacy to development processes. In fact, the absence of reliable and updated data was identified as one of the biggest obstacles for achieving the MDG’s. If the political will is there, modern technology makes it possible for the authorities to open up and make open government data available for citizens, experts and international organisations.

In a document on the UNESCO website, published on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day 2014, it says that “a society that is guaranteed access to public documents and public decision-making is able to bring conflicts of interest to light and empower citizens with information about development processes”. UNESCO advocates therefore access to information laws that enable citizens, including journalists, to easily and freely access information in the public domain.

The push for greater openness, freedom, accountability and – as a logical consequence – professional and credible journalism, is presented as a way to help eradicate poverty and create a better world. But it can, in fact, also lead to an ideological and political turning point.

Although the UN Security Council adopted already in 1949 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in many countries this document remains, at least partly, a dead letter. Take the famous article 19 of the Declaration: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. A recently published report by the US-based organisation Freedom House reports that in 2013 global press freedom fell to its lowest level in more than 10 years.

Especially in the Middle East, some European countries like Ukraine and Russia and in East Africa, national security issues (and other excuses) were used by governments to impede media freedom. According to Freedom House, in 2013 only 14 percent of the world’s population enjoyed a free press – and those 14 percent live mainly in the industrialised world, not in developing countries that are most in need of the new Sustainable Development Goals.

An Islamic answer

When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was introduced 65 years ago, with its potentially far reaching article about freedom of expression and opinion, some criticised the Western bias of the document. Islamic critics said the Human Rights Declaration was based on a secular world view and Western philosophy. In 1980 theCairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, issued by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, was generally seen as an “Islamic answer” to the UDHR. In the Cairo Declaration’s article 22, the right of everyone to express his opinion freely is guaranteed, as long as it is not “contrary to the principles of the Sharia”.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/can-free-speech-be-counter-produ-20145362440177708.html

To include a specific goal in the SDG’s 2015-2030 to ensure free expression, pluralistic and independent media and governmental transparency, would certainly lead to more discussion about the universality of this objective. In many parts of the world, governments want to be in control of the main media messages and are not ready to allow a free debate, a free flow of information, let alone annoying watchdogs.

Sometimes media and journalists are tightly controlled by the government precisely because they are supposed to play an “active and constructive role” in the country’s development. That is, the development as designed by the government or the ruling party. This is the case of Ethiopia that adopted “development journalism” as an official policy for its state media. The result is that Ethiopia scores badly in all press freedom indexes, because this form of journalism does not allow plurality, criticising the government and honest feedback from the audience.

Access to governmental information, regulated by law, is extremely rare in some parts of the world. In the Arab world only Jordan, Yemen, Morocco and Tunisia have Freedom of Information legislation, but have not yet built a solid practice of using it. In some Arab countries, governments set up information portals on the web, but citizens – including journalists – do not have the legal right to demand official information or to seriously question the bits and pieces of information provided.

If the principle of making governments more accountable, empowering citizens through free media and access to information is adopted by the United Nations, this might provoke a new media revolution. In this revolution, journalistic professionalism and ethics will play an important role. Free speech as such can be enormously counter-productive: the negative effects of political propaganda, disinformation and incitement to hatred and discrimination are well-documented. However, professional journalism is not the same as free speech; it is a constrained form of free speech, that takes into account principles of verification, fairness, accuracy, balance, responsibility and public interest. This kind of journalism may take the centre stage in the attempts to create a better world.

Jan Keulen is a Dutch journalist and media development consultant. He taught journalism at Rijks Universiteit Groningen, and served as general director of the Doha Centre for Media Freedom.

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA 3 May 2014