Dear all
Thanks for your patience in awaiting my notes from the last session.
I'd like to add to the thanks to the local committee for pulling together
a very enjoyable conference - like others, I'm sure we can learn a lot
from the experience about how to move forward and I really appreciated
all the efforts to make an OURMedia mark in Asia. It was great to catch
up with old friends and colleagues and meet many new people.
We discussed three things in the final session, the first being the
declaration. I took notes following the discussion on the
declaration (I hope the declaration will speak for itself - needless to
say there was lively discussion and general agreement that the
declaration was a good outcome of the meeting). My notes are thus on the
topics 'review/evaluation of conference' and 'what's next?' as follows.
These are comprehensive notes, and I have not attempted to draw out
points unless they were explicitly drawn out during the discussions. The
wider discussion on the future of OURMedia seems to be attempting that,
and here I felt it was my job to communicate the discussion in as
comprehensive a way as possible. I hope this is useful. [I have taken the
liberty of making a few comments in square brackets]. Apologies if I
missed any points - those who attended OMV, please do add to the notes
where appropriate.
Best wishes
Jo
================
There was a discussion of the achievements of OURMedia V which can be
summed up as:
- many new people
- expanding network
- strong link between research and grassroots
It was widely felt that there was no need for negative thoughts
about OURMedia's future (Alfonso had raised the question of whether
OURMedia should continue in the opening session to the conference) - that
it was more appropriate to think in terms of strengths:
- good to have an international mix (now incorporating Asia)
- there are many new ideas circulating
More critically:
Alfonso described how the past two meetings had a much larger group, more
young activists, and he missed that this time, fewer people and he felt
it was less vibrant. He also thought many presentations were very
descriptive not leaving much space for discussion of ideas.
Venu felt we could have had a space for discussion of ideas, maybe at the
expense of one of the panels
Mario suggested we all make a concerted effort to involve many more young
people, and that the good thing about the small group was that it was
more intimate, we really got to know people.
Working sessions would have been useful - eg 'what is community media?'
'what do we mean by "transformative"?' - more conversations
about these kinds/levels of issues in rural and urban settings would have
been good (echoes earlier points about discussions of ideas).
There have been a number of ideas emerging about the building of networks
within the OURMedia network on particular issues (more later on this
point)
Juan agreed that having more people and students generates energetic
debate, however, in this OMV the level of relationships has been better,
more intimate - so there are positive things about smaller groups as well
as larger and younger groups.
The organization of presentations into panels did not work according to
the plan except in a couple of instances - we had panels where the topics
were completely different to the panel title
At OM4 we had 5 volunteers to help organize this conference but very
little happened, there was a disengagement of OURMedia people from the
organization. There was a lack of structure and organization from the
beginning. We asked for panels and discussions, most people put in
individual papers.
Alfonso made the point that he didn't know until the last minute that he
was able to attend, thus making it difficult to plan panels, whereas he
felt academics have more opportunities to plan ahead.
Deepti felt it would be good to integrate communit radio with other media
and that the agenda for next year might include:
- integrate discussions on alt media with traditional and mainstream
media
- How are we going to empower communities to use media effectively?
- media ethics and regulation
Ganesh learned more about community radio than he had known, it has
motivated him, he made lots of media activist friends and heard and
expressed lots of ideas. We (as media activitst) need to create space for
creation and experimentation and need to address motivating community
expression.
Sajan wants to ensure that all attendees are on the OURMedia listserve
(Juan asked for people to email to him and he will add to the
list)
Alfonso - during first 4 OMs John created and sustained a website
voluntarily but can no longer do this - John Downing said the server
could be moved to his University and he would provide someone to support
it. This didn't happen. The website is not up to date. WE NEED A WORKING
WEBSITE. [There was widespread agreement about this and it came up
several times but without any clear resolution of how to address it those
there were some offers of assistance (see below) - it was felt to be a
crucial tool in maintaining and strengthening the network].
Jethro picked up on the point of descriptive re ideas: regarding the
process of discussion he felt it might be a mistake to have panels on
'ideas' - descriptive presentations is a good way to generate discussion
of ideas. We need to get beyond traditional academic format of panels and
teacher/student formats. More small group work would be beneficial,
parallel sessions in which we find ways to generate discussion of ideas
and from there action. Jethro volunteered to be part of next conference
planning committee, taking particular responsibility for thinking through
and planning an enabling format that will allow discussion of
ideas.
From UTC's perspective Rev Sham explained that it wasn't until the last
few days that they knew they had enough attendees - important to start
process earlier in future. He also missed debates at a theoretical level:
How is new media effecting our understandings of space and community for
example? Some panels had 4-5 presenters which was too many.
Suzanna saw website as a problem, people looking for info on the
conference would not have found it, and there was no other information on
either UTC or Voices websites - so unless you were already in the circle
you would not have found information. She felt it important to try and
find a bridge between academics and activists - different modalities
might be explored because format was very academic. We should apply what
we practice when working in communities, ie exchange and creation.
Displays would have been good - for example we could have played with
Chris' OurMob website in advance of his talk.
Juan reminded us that there was a call for interactive presentations and
films in advance and that was intended to run for the whole
conference.
He also reiterated that (up til now) the network has been fluid, it
doesnt have a form as such and thus its hard for a few people to organise
a conference - Suzanna's feedback for example would have been useful 3
months ago. We must take this on board for next time or we will be in
same situation.
Stephen said that communication wasn't taking place with Joshva very
effectively - he offered assistance but it wasn't taken up. Need better
planning, eg we had rather formal welcome sessions which took up valuable
time. Website is important - Stephen offers assistance of a
webmaster.
Tripta feels that what is good about OURMedia is that it is fluid. It
would be a shame if it were forced to have a definitive structure. Should
work towards maintaining the fluidity of the network.
Alfonso acknowledged that we want things to work better, eg the website
and listserve and preparing for next conference and making it one in
which ideas are debated more effectively. The way OM works is that a
steering cttee is appointed at one conference who go on to support a
local cttee for the next conference.
Rev Sham made a suggestion: this time none of local committee were part
of steering cttee - this would be beneficial next time.
Alfonso - last year we didnt know it was going to happen in India this
year - and same applies for next year - life of steering cttee is as long
as it takes to appoint local cttee [in which case, steering ctte should
become members of local cttee to avoid local cttee feeling lack of
support??? this is my comment JT]
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Alfonso outlined the practical things we need to deal with:
- proposals from the floor re next OM location
- when to do it
- appointment of steering committee [up to 10, 5 from here, 5 from
wider OM network]
Suzanna asked that we not only discuss next meeting but other
responses to networking
Mario would like to initiaite an expanding network practically in terms
of actual production of community media. We can create our own network of
relationships between radio stations, practicing journalists, maintain
regular correspondence, maintain consistent connection. There are many
practitioners here - its an easy way to have authentic voices heard and
strengthen and build visibility of community media. Can have live links.
Exchange of radio personnel to experience and learn from each other. Can
OM play some kind of role in moving such a project forward?
Alfonso responded that whoever drives such a proposal must take it
forward.
Maria suggested we have a 'correspondent' list - make it a 'mass
network'.
Jethro proposed the formation of a learning network around participatory
forms of community media - bring communities together more by documenting
what is already happening. This can be a project under the auspices of OM
and Jethro is happy to take a leading role in this [and I am happy to
support Jethro in this - JT]
Stephen proposed a unit under umbrella of OM for 'communication for
social change'
Arun commented that his experience of the OMV was greatly enhanced by the
opportunity to stay and eat together in a campus environment - which also
reduces costs of course.
The discussion moved on to WHERE to host OMVI:
Juan explained the 'ideal' criteria that have been followed to
date:
1. has to be a strong and active local environment (strong community
media, active local cttee)
2. cost of location have to be reasonable (incl transport)
3. there should be possibilities of funding (lack of funding was critical
factor this conference) [Ellie and Tanya's efforts were often
acknowledged in this respect and they did manage to gain some funding
from commonwealth for some attendees]
Juan also explained that we can put forward proposals here, but then the
wider network would also have some proposals and these would all need to
be considered alongside proposals coming from participants at
OMV.
The first proposal put forward from Juan was for Sydney,
Australia.
Juan presented pros and cons of Sydney bid:
1. Australia has been present in all OM conferences - there is strong
interest and support from Australians
2. Community media is strong in Australia - they are able and interested
to take part
3. UWS (University of Western Sydney, Juan's Uni) will host - mission of
university is community engagement, there is a lively community media in
the local context.
QUT will also support this location and conference [extent of support to
be established, and I'll look into this on my return to Australia -
JT]
However, it is expensive and OM need to consider:
1. if there will be other Australian support
2. ways of reducing costs
3. visas may be a problem [need to plan well in advance]
4. funding
in terms of when this might happen, we need at least 12 months if not
more.
Do we try and associate with a larger conference?
Mario proposed New York:
the cost is prohibitive, visa is difficult... but because of these things
and the current climate in US, it would be good to meet in NY to 'get in
their face'. Mario wants to work on a proposal with other OM members who
live in NY.
Stephen thought it would be good to hold next OM in Philippines.
Juan said he would need to develop a case for that. Other proposals
mentioned in the network so far have been Korea and Mexico.
Juan felt that as Pacific is not well represented in OM it strengthens
Australia case.
Alfonso pointed out that a steering committee created from this
conference and wider network would need to receive all proposals and take
this forward.
Tasks of steering committee:
1. commit to some possibility of gaining funding
2. commit to supporting website
3. commit to managing the list
4. linking with local organisation cttee once location selected
This is a serious commitment.
Volunteers: Jethro, Tanya, Tripta, Juan, Alfonso
When local cttee formed, at least 2 of local cttee should be part of
steerning cttee [or should this be vice versa? JT question].
END OF NOTES
At 04:35 PM 29/12/2005, voices wrote:
Dear Friends ,
Please find the Local Committee Report on Our
Media V that is enclosed as an attachment .
We will include Jo Taachi's comments as soon as
we receive it .
Best Wishes for the New Year .
Local Committee - OUR Media V, Bangalore
(Leela Rao, Joshva Raja, Rev Sham, Ashish Sen)