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 - e.g.
'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 OMV 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 community 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
ideas: regarding the process of discussion he felt it might be a mistake to have
panels on 'ideas' - descriptive presentations are 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 affecting our understandings of
space and community for example? Some panels had 4-5 presenters which were 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 till now) the network has been fluid, it doesn't have a form
as such and thus its hard for a few people to organize 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, e.g. 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 list-serve and preparing for next conference and making it one in
which ideas are debated more effectively. The way OM works is that a steering
committee is appointed at one conference who go on to support a local committee
for the next conference.
Rev Sham made a suggestion: this time none of
local committee was part of steering committee - this would be beneficial next
time.
Alfonso - last year we didn't know it was going to happen in India
this year - and same applies for next year - life of steering committee is as
long as it takes to appoint local committee [in which case, steering committee
should become members of local committee to avoid local committee 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 initiate 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; as well as maintain regular correspondence,
and consistent connection. There are many practitioners here - it's 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 committee)
2. Cost of location have to be reasonable (including transportation)
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:
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 organization committee once location selected
END OF NOTES