Media and Development - Where's the Gap?

In this blog on the POLIS, Journalism and Society website, John Davison identifies what he sees as the gap in the media development debate between what has actually been achieved in practice and the academic debate on: accountability/good governance in development and poverty eradication; the role in this effort of free, pluralistic, and independent media; and the importance of local/indigenous input. He seeks to answer the question "who should fill the gap?"

Davison states that there is frustration among researchers, the United Kingdom (UK) government, and the United Nations, though there is also consensus. Consensus, as stated here, centres on the importance of "Accountability/Good Governance in efforts for international development and poverty eradication"; of a "free, pluralistic and independent media in order to achieve such levels of governance by holding developing country governments to account"; and of "local/indigenous input into the development of such a media industry and culture". Frustration results from lack of real progress in these areas and in the extent to which that is recognised in development debate - a disconnect between the debate and on-the-ground practice.

Two so-called partial truths about the debate on the role of media and other communications in development, according to Davison, are lack of knowledge among journalists about communication for development and the mainstream development field's distancing itself from communication for development. He differentiates between communication for development and media as an advocacy tool in development - including campaigning, lobbying/opinion-forming, fund-raising and "watch-dogging" - citing his own journalistic endeavour in 1994 to expose government corruption in abuse of development funding.

However, Davison considers how communication for development falls outside the "Big Picture" or "Big Push" campaigns because non-governmental organisations (NGOs) find that:
1. It doesn't fit into their formulation "poverty-is-about-money".
2. It doesn't fit the high profile given to topical problems like climate change.
3. They are resistant to getting involved with media, in part resisting "overshadowing the voices of the south by meddling in local media matters."
4. They feel a lack of expertise or practical policy.

In part, the author suggests the breadth of the communication for development field is daunting: "covering everything as it does from the digital divide to mobile phone prevalence to journalists’ training." He is critical of the "magic bullet" stories about technological breakthroughs impacting development and states that a "clear distinction needs to be drawn... between the generation of stories/messages and how they are distributed."

Davison questions whether there is a shift from seeing poverty as economically based to seeing it as a question of power relationships. He asks whether international development NGOs (INGOs) should take a major role in Media for Development initiatives based on their established infrastructures in developing countries, the degree of local/indigenous involvement (demand-driven initiatives), and their voice with institutional donors. On the other side of the question is the problematic possibility of an INGO taking control of parts of the media process, thus crossing from fund raising and supporting the media for development process into being a voice of influence in the media.

Davison, whose research encompasses ‘Communications in Governance’, suggests that "there is a need to re-focus on the actual business of producing media content that can serve the Development agenda in the way that so many players agree is vital. This is about the voice that is needed to effect change as well as the means of delivering it. It is also about focusing on the function of the media - in and of itself - as an activity that by its nature can promote the desirable ends of greater accountability and so better governance to better serve poor people." He seeks a clearer theoretical basis, acknowledged within the NGO world, "of how the media can be a vital part of the fight to eradicate poverty – integral to which must be an analysis of how this might be achieved as well as why."