I have read the report and find it interesting. But for me, there seem to be various objectives to support for media development. Some organizations want more development content in the media, others see the importance of freedom of expression, while there are those who look at the transparency and accountability angle.
What we are looking for determines whether we think our support us successful or not. A recent study on media and accountability in Uganda supported by one of the bilaterals concluded that because corruption is still a big problem in Uganda, the media has failed. As a person who has been involved in media development in Africa for many years, I found that report very shallow. The media in Uganda has been hugely transformed in Uganda with the help of development agencies. I know not of any other African country where you have a flurry of FM stations that give opportunities to leaders and citizens to engage in vigorous debates. Indeed the President himself and a number of his team regularly participate in the talk shows. Local leaders are kept on the edges of their seats because of what are called "Bimeeza" or roundtables where ordinary folks engage leaders directly. In other words, an opportunity for public debate and dialogue has been enlarged by the media. Has corruption been erased, no way. There is still too much corruption in Uganda, just as it is in the UK and USA especially in the corporate world. Is the media in Uganda where we would want, no way. There are some impediments still, but there is tremendous progress. One recalls the work of the media on HIV and AIDS, the training and mentoring of such outstanding regional journalists like Onyango-Obbo and Andrew Mwenda.
So, as we look at research agendas and support for media development, I think the questions we should focus on our agendas and the questions we ask. Can we agree on key objective outcomes for media support, for us in media development?
What is the end game in media development?
James,
I have read the report and find it interesting. But for me, there seem to be various objectives to support for media development. Some organizations want more development content in the media, others see the importance of freedom of expression, while there are those who look at the transparency and accountability angle.
What we are looking for determines whether we think our support us successful or not. A recent study on media and accountability in Uganda supported by one of the bilaterals concluded that because corruption is still a big problem in Uganda, the media has failed. As a person who has been involved in media development in Africa for many years, I found that report very shallow. The media in Uganda has been hugely transformed in Uganda with the help of development agencies. I know not of any other African country where you have a flurry of FM stations that give opportunities to leaders and citizens to engage in vigorous debates. Indeed the President himself and a number of his team regularly participate in the talk shows. Local leaders are kept on the edges of their seats because of what are called "Bimeeza" or roundtables where ordinary folks engage leaders directly. In other words, an opportunity for public debate and dialogue has been enlarged by the media. Has corruption been erased, no way. There is still too much corruption in Uganda, just as it is in the UK and USA especially in the corporate world. Is the media in Uganda where we would want, no way. There are some impediments still, but there is tremendous progress. One recalls the work of the media on HIV and AIDS, the training and mentoring of such outstanding regional journalists like Onyango-Obbo and Andrew Mwenda.
So, as we look at research agendas and support for media development, I think the questions we should focus on our agendas and the questions we ask. Can we agree on key objective outcomes for media support, for us in media development?