|
Back to Index
Broadcasters'
Declaration
World Broadcasting
Unions (WBU), World Summit on the Information Society
December 09, 2003
Back
to main article
Statements
from broadcasters representing the world's main regions:
José
Roberto Marinho, for Latin America and the Caribbean (Co-Chairman
of "GLOBO Organizations")
Comments on Article 2 of the Broadcasters' Declaration.
Freedom of expression
and pluralism of ideas and opinions depend on the existence of different
forms of media. None of them should be subject to censorship or coercion.
Nor should they have their editorial decisions dictated by any centralized
entity. They should be able to freely vent their different views of
the world.
For this situation
to prosper, the co-existence of different types of media organizations
is essential. These may be in the form of private companies, not-for-profit
organizations and state-owned companies. There should also be a
mix of large and small entities, some of them having an international
focus, and others targeting national, regional or local communities.
Only media diversity, with different economic purposes, coverage
and size, is going to guarantee the diversity of content and opinion
as well as assure opportunities of choice for the public. After
all, the public should ultimately decide what they want to see,
hear and read.
Therefore, media
freedom and content diversity are conditions for freedom of choice
and opinion. However, today, we are living a paradox: never before
has the world offered such a wide diversity of media options. And
never before has there been such a great risk of communication becoming
so globally concentrated.
The globalization
of communication creates both opportunities and threats at the same
time. It creates new options for the individual to be informed,
educated and entertained. It creates possibilities for cultures
to be seen as well as to be enriched through a constructive cross-fertilization.
However, if the enormous economic power wielded by the major transnational
media groups is used in an unbalanced manner, we risk becoming a
divided world between content producers and consumers. And that
translates into a loss of cultural identity and the creation of
excluded groups in countries with smaller or weaker economies, not
to mention a leveling down and sapping of intellectual life as a
whole.
In the past,
the greatest threat to the freedom and pluralism of the media came
from authoritarian governments in many countries. Currently, this
same threat (which still exists) has been added another: the need
for balance in relation to the power of the global media organizations.
This threat has escalated with the convergence of the media and
telecommunications companies. One of the most important challenges
we increasingly face is to ensure that the diversified content of
media companies can flow freely along the content distribution channels.
For this freedom
to be guaranteed, we have to distinguish between communication,
a social fact, and distribution, a physical infrastructure. The
latest technological facilities and convergence in the media sector
cannot blind us to the different needs, concerns and regulations
which should govern each one of these fields. Telecommunication
and content distribution channels are services and tools that create
enormous possibilities for well-being and an improved quality of
life.
Social communication
is the content which travels along these channels and which transforms
this possibility into reality. Distribution is the body while communication
is the soul of society. Distribution channels are commodities, while
communication is a cultural asset of immeasurable strategic value
to the people. Both industries must act together, without one dominating
the other. Communication without distribution is a show for the
few, bringing no benefit to the population at large. On the other
hand, a situation whereby telecommunication companies control content
and social communication mean the shortest route to monotone thinking
and the loss of national cultural identity.
There are three
conditions for the free media to prevail nowadays. First, international
media giants cannot offset national and local media. Second, a rich
portfolio of media options should be available for to public, with
no centralized guidance. Third, telecommunication companies should
not be allowed to control media companies.
At the end of
the day, a free media must provide each citizen with both a mirror
and a window. In other words, like a mirror, it must ensure that
each one has the right to recognize him- or herself in what is seen,
heard and read. This engenders a feeling of belonging to society.
At the same time, like a window, it must broaden horizons, allowing
each and everyone to live new experiences and see beyond his or
her own particular world.
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
