Media Activists and Communication Policy Processes

Mobilizing “Inside”

The 2005 Council of Europe (CoE) Ministerial Conference on Mass Media Policy in Kiev was one of the first instances when civil society organizations were invited to contribute to a media policy “window.” Activists from the umbrella organization Community Media Forum Europe (CMFE) participated in a nongovernmental organization forum, which was attended by more than 50 civil society organizations and was held in parallel to the official summit. Forum participants agreed on amendments and appointed spokespeople for the conference, who advocated freedom of expression and protection of journalists. Their amendments on human rights standards, editorial independence, and transparency were accepted for inclusion in the final conference documents.

Following Kiev, the CMFE became involved in a CoE commission on media pluralism that contributed to drafting policy documents and gained observer status. The group helped to establish the community media sector as a legitimate policy stakeholder and to introduce the issue of “community media” in the policy discourse. The CMFE thereby accepted the rule of the game, thus recognizing institutions as legitimate power holders.

The UN World Summits on the Information Society (WSIS; 2003–2005) provided a similar opportunity to engage in a transnational arena on communication policy. Civil society networks such as the Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS) campaign attended WSIS, attracted by the promise to participate “on equal footing” with governments and business actors. CRIS's repertoire was defined and constrained by the UN process, which negotiates among states and produces declarations. Several umbrella organizations that represent grassroots media activists, such as the World Association of Community Broadcaster and the Association for Progressive Communication, equally interpreted WSIS as an opportunity to get involved, get legitimized, and get their issues recognized.

Being inside does not necessarily mean “harmonizing.” Activists inside WSIS criticized many of its outcomes and occasionally threatened to replace insider with outsider tactics, or to distribute “subversive” information. However, acting within institutions comes at a price. Being “inside” forces activists to interact under institutions' rules, which might compromise internal democratic processes for the sake of efficient representation. There is a risk of dampening critical perspectives. Media activists, who tend to be loosely organized, face procedural challenges of admission and accreditation, which might prevent their access to policy arenas. As nonprofessionals, they might also lack the financial resources and the policy language expertise for participating effectively.

...