For communication among alternative media producers, academics, artists, and activists.


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Reply To:
Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:52:06 +0600
text/plain (188 lines)
Dear Ellie,
I do fully endorse your idea.
Now time to act! How we start this without more talk.

With best regards,

AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR
Chief Executive Officer
Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC)
Member, Strategy Council
UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID)

House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207
Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh

Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501
01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105

E-mail: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "G" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2008 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: community media accreditation

> Hi Ellie-
> I heartily agree with your concern expressed in your article (
> http://www.creative.org.au/webboard/results.chtml?filename_num=224226) and 
> I
> love your bold idea for a labeling scheme (some colleagues and I tried to
> suggest something like this at WSIS but were promptly clubbered).
> Here in Japan we could certainly use such a labeling scheme.
> As you know, 'community broadcasting' here means 'local commercial'.
> Ohmynews and big internet corporations market their services as 
> 'alternative
> citizens media'. Many organizations that are genuine NPOs don't have legal
> NPO status, while others that are small business ventures or money
> laundering operations have legal NPO status. And of course everyone asks- 
> if
> we have youtube, why would we need public access TV? In other words, we 
> have
> plenty of 'alternative/community/civic/democracy-wash'! (analogy to
> 'greenwash', 'hogwash' etc.)
> As for how to do it? That is indeed a tricky question and to make a scheme
> that will work globally, for all countries (differences in democratic
> governance as Susan said), and for all media technologies (broadcast and
> online, so why not include print) seems close to impossible... But why not
> try anyway :)!
> Some ideas based on things which Arne, Stefania, some other colleagues and 
> I
> have come up with while discussing our definition of 'civil society media'
> (in the CSMPolicy Consortium http://homepage.mac.com/ellenycx/CSMPolicy/):
> The evaluation would have to be some sort of a peer-review, based on
> research on the ground, interviews, research by independent researchers 
> from
> abroad and the country in question--- lots of contextual knowledge 
> necessary
> here and mechanisms to guard against vendetta politics and control by
> cliques.
> the label, rather than 'all or nothing' should indicate kind of percentage
> or level, perhaps separated into different aspects... Perhaps something
> closer to a 'nutritional content' label than a 'certified organic' label.
> 'measuring' the democratic value of different aspects of the organization:
> message, organization/ownership, participation, goals and actual outcomes,
> audiences, control over infrastructure used (DIY level) etc.
> (tentative checklist see Article Hadl & Hintz in 'Making our media' book,
> forthcoming from Hampton Press, and old version
> http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/cg/ss/sansharonshu/413j.htm )
> different kinds of labels for different kinds of organizations/projects
> e.g. An organization that has a high level of 'alternative style and
> content' but low audience participation would get a different label (e.g.
> 'alternative news/culture') than, say an organization that has a close
> connection to the community (high 'participation'), but the content is
> rather conventional (low 'content and style'). And then there are
> organizations which provide alternative infrastructure but no content 
> (which
> Stefi and Arne recently labeled 'radical tech')....
> Blacklist/list of 'fake civil society media'
> Those which have high participation but ultimate goal is to make money
> (youtube & co.) should get blacklisted as 'fakes'! (We started a project 
> on
> listing 'fake community media' some years ago, but didn;t have the 
> resources
> to continue...
> http://homepage.mac.com/ellenycx/RitsCSM/FileSharing60.html
> ;)
> Maybe have a kind of 'civic wash award' (like corporatewatch.org 'greewash
> awards')? Which we present at every ourmedia conference... Together with a
> 'best practice award' of course ;)
> Who or what can be certified? Only formal longstanding organizations? How
> about smaller orgs and temporary networks? How about a project within an
> otherwise commercial or governmental scheme? There may be a kind of
> quick-certification scheme for such cases... And how does one get 
> nominated
> for evaluation?
> - WHO will PAY FOR IT?
> If its the organizations itself (as with 'certified organic')... Then we
> only get big and well-funded orgs into the scheme...
> G
> On 09/08/08 8:42 AM, "Ellie Rennie" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> Apologies for writing in English. I hope someone can translate for me.
>> I am interested in hearing your feedback on the idea of an accreditation
>> scheme for community media - a bit like Fair Trade labeling but for 
>> broadcast
>> and online community media.
>> A group of us here in Australia have organised a symposium ito discuss 
>> the
>> concept and logistics. We would like to trial it here and then see if it 
>> could
>> go global. OURMedia could possibly be a key organisation in making it 
>> work by
>> uniting various peak bodies etc.
>> I have written a short article explaining the idea. It can be found at:
>> http://www.creative.org.au/webboard/results.chtml?filename_num=224226
>> Ellie
>> Dr Ellie Rennie
>> Research Fellow
>> Institute for Social Research
>> ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation
>> +61 3 9214 5303
>> 0404 808 900
>> -----
>> Swinburne University of Technology
>> CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D
>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for 
>> the use
>> of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or 
>> protected
>> by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination,
>> distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly prohibited. The 
>> University
>> does not warrant that this e-mail and any attachments are secure and 
>> there is
>> also a risk that it may be corrupted in transmission. It is your
>> responsibility to check any attachments for viruses or defects before 
>> opening
>> them. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us 
>> on
>> +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not 
>> accept
>> liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay,
>> interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment.
>> Please consider the environment before printing this email.