|
|
|
A RESPONSE FROM ERIC JOHNSON I disagree that there is a negative correlation, though it is true that there is not always a linear positive correlation. This is principally because there are many factors affecting the ability of an independent media sector to get created and flourish. William Dunkerley correctly notes the importance of there being an economic basis—fundamentally, sufficient ad income. But speaking in mathematical terms, though that is a necessary prerequisite, it is not a sufficient one. Other issues are the desire of a government to foster a free press (or at least not inhibit its development) and a judiciary that allows media to defend their rights. The efforts we (“media assistance” projects, taken together) make are similarly important but not sufficient in and of themselves. If there is no economy, it is hard (but not impossible) for independent media to exist (viz. Tajikistan). If the government’s determined to be completely repressive, it is hard (indeed impossible) for independent media to exist (viz. Turkmenistan). These other two factors—economic and political—are for the most part beyond the reach of assistance providers. On the political front we can do something, but on the economic front much of the work of media aid providers is predicated on the supposition that there will be an economic basis for commercial media. There are many examples of where this is correct. Private broadcasters in countries such as Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan have become notably independent in their news when they achieve a certain level of economic sufficiency. The tiny amount of money spent on media assistance (compared to economic assistance) is in some way a form of insurance—if (or when) the economy picks up, there would better be an independent media waiting in the wings to do its job. Of course, in countries with lackadaisical economies, such economic activity as there is tends to be concentrated in the capital, and therefore it is much more difficult for private media outside the capital to find the ad revenue they need. Moreover, even with hindsight, it is difficult to see what could have been done differently—by the providers or by governments (or by funders’ strategic plans)—that could have substantially altered the development of the free media. Dunkerley correctly notes the need for synergy—but all assistance funding is a zero-sum game. Aid providers like USAID and TACIS have put a lot of money into economic development (far more than into “democracy and government” projects, under the umbrella of which media work is usually categorized), but I have not seen a cogently articulated description of how one could have been that much more effective at getting the economies of many of these countries on their feet. The problems are simply immeasurably vast, and many are connected not with technicalities like how the stock market is regulated or how land cadastres are maintained, but with the skills of millions of people to be entrepreneurial and with the rather well-entrenched desires of existing elites to keep control over the flow of resources. Regarding the U.S. recent $10 million aid to Russia, I suggest we wait to see what that $10 million is going for before we lay into it. I would be willing to bet that subsidizing out-of-work journalists does not end up being a very large component—if it is there at all. RAPIC (the author of the study you mentioned) and Internews were both consulted by the USG before the $10 million was allocated, and I do not think either of us recommended subsidizing out-of-work journalists! Finally, even though increasing ad revenue has always been recognized as one of the most important ways of helping media become independent, that has not been overlooked by most existing media assistance providers, who tend to have made management skills and ad sales and productions cornerstones of their work, along with media law reform and journalism skills. Eric Johnson |
Last Updated: 11/20/99 |
|
© 1999 Post-Soviet Media Law &
Policy Newsletter |
