Communicating For Change: Media and Agency in the Networked Public Sphere

This paper "asks how we foster communication about the wider world to the UK [United Kingdom] public in the digital age." It is based upon the author's experience as a journalist, including with the BBC and ITN’s Channel 4 News (UK), where he had to make editorial judgements about humanitarian and development issues, as well as his research done at the London School of Economics (LSE) on media change and growth in "networked journalism" and the work of Polis, LSE, on media development.

From the Preface: "This paper is aimed at anyone who is interested in the role of media as an influence on power and policy. It is especially about the role of news journalism, NGOs [non-governmental organisations] and other activists who use communication for change. It looks at the context for those actors and their actions. It asks how much the Internet and social networks are changing advocacy. It takes an ethical and political rather than technological or theoretical approach. It asks whether the 'public sphere' needs to be redefined. If that is the case, I argue, then we need to think again about journalism, advocacy communications and the relationship between mediation and social, political or economic change.

   
I would identify three overlapping, interrelated media dynamics that might add up to the need for a new notion of the public sphere: the disruption of communication power; the rise of networked journalism; the dual forces for online socialisation and corporatisation. This is not only a theoretical concern. From these dynamics flow all the other arguments about what kind of media we want or need, and what effect it will have on our ability to communicate particular kinds of issues or information. Unless we understand the strategic context of these changes we will continue to make the kind of tactical blunders that Kony2012, for example, represents. This is not just an academic question, it is an ethical, political and practical set of problems."

The paper is written in three sections: The Digital Challenge; Media Agency In The Digital Era; and Humanitarian, Development, and Aid Communicators in the Networked Public Sphere.

From the Executive Summary, Section One:

"...There are now vast flows of information through digital social online networks that compete in scale and effectiveness with mainstream media. These information flows are associated with new forms of audience behaviour and thinking. The nature of the public sphere is therefore subject to challenge and change There are three key dynamics at work as the analogue public sphere changes to a networked public sphere...."These include:  citizens and other society groups who are enabled to "disintermediate traditional gatekeepers" of information and debate; mainstream media recognition that it must work with the citizen in a collaborative process; and the "tension (sometimes creative) between the trend towards socialisation of communications through social networks that offers greater opportunities for expression and connectivity with the historic trend of corporations and governments that attempt to reassert control over the networks and content...."

"There are expectations that we should have about the responsibilities of the organisations that provide the infrastructure for the networked public sphere:

• A duty to provide open, accessible networks that respect privacy and prevent harm and that allow for free and informed societies. Corporate responsibility to foster healthy societies by direct support for and collaboration with the creation of humanitarian information networks
• A self interested responsibility to increase media literacies and to create value for the citizen in networks

We should all understand that the communications relationships are also different based on new ways of establishing truth and creating trust."

Section Two:
"...Key to media agency is the ability of mainstream media to adapt to its new role in the networked public sphere. It must change its production processes to a form of networked journalism but also its whole structure to become more open in its relationship with society and the citizen." The document gives three case studies:

• Syria - "...activist media production networked into mainstream media shows how this can afford new opportunities for reporting complex and difficult stories although it also presents problems of verification and bias."
• BBC global news - "...how media organisations can adapt to these new circumstances though there are obstacles of culture and resources...."
• The Guardian - "...how these more open ways of working such as live blogs and partnerships with foundations could provide a solution to the private news media business model crisis as well as creating more opportunities for facilitating flows of information and agency."

Section Three:
"We ask what are the risks and challenges for iNGOs [international NGOs] and how they communicate in the networked public sphere..." The document warns of careless communication increasing sceptism around iNGO marketing and reinforcing negative responses. It suggests that if transparency and openness work, then they need to be adopted by iNGOs, including engaging in critical debate around their work. The author suggests the possibility of using new online advocacy organisations in partnerships with iNGOs and states that these organisations also need to take an interest in the struggle for an open internet and make a greater investment in citizen media literacy and public service networked journalism.