Session 3: Media and New Technology: Can the Digital Revolution Boost the Impact of African Media on Development and Governance?

This 4-page paper provides background for the third session of a conference that was held on March 22 2007 at the London School of Economics (LSE) in the United Kingdom (UK) to explore current international development strategies and thinking related to the role the media play in development and in meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The conference - hosted by POLIS, a joint initiative of LSE and the London College of Communication - was designed to spark a more structured dialogue between those in the media for development community and a broader set of actors in the non-governmental, bilateral, academic and other development-related communities.

The paper begins with a section titled "Postcards from Africa", which provides snapshots of the state of media and technology use on the continent - and the intersections of these trends with efforts to address democracy and governance issues. For example:

• Radio: There are more than 100 radio stations on air in Uganda, where the language of programming has shifted significantly toward the local dialects. In 2002, the government, "weary of the criticism it was fielding from the Ebimeeza (open air discussions broadcast live on radio), attempted to ban them. A spirited defence by the general public and civil society followed"; however, "a lot of radio proprietors" have found it "wiser to steer clear of issues that attract the wrath of government and threaten their business interests."
• Computers & the internet: According to author Gerald Milward-Oliver, Africa's media-makers are proactive professionals with motivation to use information and communication technologies (ICTs) to better do their jobs; they are not inadequate or passive when it comes to using technology. However, they are hampered in their quest by several constraints, which are outlined here. For instance, even though they may be installed, "in many cases computers in southern African newsrooms do not work, and a great many more are not even connected to the internet. Where there is (online) access, such as in one Malawian newsroom, it is only permitted for 30 minutes per journalist per day." Furthermore, many journalists have complained about a lack of African information online; some have particularly lamented the lack of African languages online.
• Telephones: 9 out of every 10 subscribers in sub-Saharan Africa accessing a phone use a mobile, and mobile penetration doubled between 2003 and 2005. The author speculates that, as mobile grows even stronger, widespread broadband internet access is more likely to be delivered over a mobile phone than over a fixed line. As of this writing, 28 sub-Saharan countries were unconnected to any international fibre connection.

In this context, Milward-Oliver seeks to understand whether the digital revolution in Africa can boost the impact of the media on development and governance. The short answer, he says, is "yes". He explains that new electronic tools can foster new ways of organising for change, often without traditional vertical hierarchies or rigidly formal structures. ICTs and digital media can help build pro-economically-poor political alliances for development by connecting people. For instance, in one example cited here, 2 young Kenyans found it difficult to hold their Ministers of Parliament (MPs) accountable due to lack of information about the work of the Kenyan Parliament. As a volunteer "citizen journalism"-type pursuit, they set up a weblog called "Mazlendo" (Swahili for "patriot") to help protect what they construe as Kenyans' right to know about - and to take a more active role in determining - their country's role. However, the author cautions, ICTs can also be used to entrench undemocratic regimes or policies (e.g., in the case of ICT-enabled surveillance by the state, or the coordination of anti-democratic action through the use of mobile phones or radio).

One key for drawing on ICTs and digital media as tools for holding governments to account, Milward-Oliver says, is ensuring that people can buy and use the tools and that governments do not hinder access. The 4 specific elements that the author suggests be explored during the session for which this paper was prepared are:

1. Infrastructure - Africa has fewer international telecommunication circuits than Ireland, Milward-Oliver notes. He hypothesises that, since fixed line provision is "a massively uneconomic prospect for most of Africa, mobile will continue to dominate....While phones are currently used primarily for keeping in touch with colleagues, friends and for wider networking (e.g. checking on market pricing), they will become an increasingly powerful source of news and information from third-party sources." He points to 2 examples to illustrate this trend: an audio Wikipedia that has been developed by MobilED in South Africa, and the GSM Association's "3G for All programme", which involves the development of low-cost 3G handsets. That is, the success of private competition in this sector seems to be driving further expansion. Lack of electricity in rural areas, however, remains a major challenge.
2. Regulation - The author believes that competition needs to be encouraged, with minimum state involvement, so that the potential that new technologies hold for fostering human freedom and social justice can be capitalised upon. The key, he feels (as illustrated by the origin of the internet) is finding a way to retain the model of collaborating without any central control. Yet, "[h]ow can media practitioners and donors help ensure a reasonable and fair regulatory climate that does not hobble innovation but that also provides public protection?"
3. "Old" media (newspapers, TV, radio) continue, the author claims, to dominate media communications across Africa. Spoken-word media like community radio will play a central role for some time, he predicts, since adult literacy rates in sub-Saharan Africa vary from 16% to 89%. One source that Milward-Oliver quotes here highlights the fact that "The media fraternity cannot achieve a better operational environment for radio without support from civil society and other actors like donors and the international community. Pressure from all these quarters can get governments to sit up and listen and let radio continue to be part of the people's lives."
4. "New" media are apparently "being embraced by Africans with enthusiasm and skill, particularly when delivered by mobile phones. An increasing number of new media users within the general population are concerned with issues of governance....Not surprisingly, many of those in power see much of the new media as a potential threat (and not only in Africa..." Five challenges outlined here for new media in Africa relate to: bandwidth, use of relevant languages (both in terms of software and the availability of online material), literacy, cost, and trust and responsibility.

The author argues that intersections between "old" and "new" media might be fruitful. For instance, increasing the access of journalists who are working in radio and other "old media" to the internet could help them communicate accurately and broadly - not only with readers on the continent but, also, to correct what he sees as a dearth of news and information reaching the outside world about the advances being made to foster progress in Africa. In addition to the core issue of increasing bandwidth, perhaps an exchange scheme for broadcast and print journalists could be developed to help them make the most effective use of web-sourced knowledge.

The paper concludes with several questions related to the impact on governance of increased access to, and participation of, members of the news media across Africa in new ICTs and media. Among these questions is the issue of what role the media can and/or should play in using new technology to foster African citizens' engagement in political life - toward more open and pluralistic governance. And, if they are interested in and capable of playing that role, to what extent should they be held responsible for the "old" and "new" tools they use to report on and influence issues of governance?