Annonymous, the problem is that there is no agreement about how you get "free of the shackles of poverty and economic oppression", and that is why media for development is so different to media development. Media for development involves an outsider's view of what development means and has a message which is usually driven by the donor's view. Developing media should mean encouraging good journalism which stimulates debate and dialogue in civil society about what is the best development path for the country. Whilst there are shared objectives between the two, media for development is very different and should be clearly differentiated. Media development should be a much more 'hands-off' intervention (if that is not an oxymoron!), with less of an agenda on the table.

Development organisations should ask themselves why they are involved in encouraging a freer and more plural media? With so many media organisations (e.g. Free Media Movement) supporting media development with no overt connection to 'development' in the sense we are discussing here, and with no 'vision' of what development means, what do development organisations bring to the table? Perhaps there is always an agenda from the development community, whether they like to admit it or not! Perhaps 'development' should stay out of media development and stick to media for development?