Dear colleagues of Our Media,

I couldn¹t react much earlier to the whole group because I wanted to find
the time and read the proposal from our colleagues in Australia submitted by
Juan Salazar, the paper that Clemencia Rodriguez and Sergio Rodriguez
circulated, and other messages related to the network, which I had not the
time to read because of moving from Brazil to Guatemala, and then travelling
intensively during April and May.  I did however respond to Juan ratifying
my commitment to be part of the International Steering Committee, as I had
volunteered in Bangalore.

Our Media 6 in Sydney

The proposal from Australia is in my view very well crafted and is already
the results of preliminary agreements between our colleagues from various
organisations and universities in Australia, which is very encouraging and a
new great improvement from past experiences. I¹m impressed. We have a joint
effort from four universities of Australia, I think this is great. Plus 11
organisations that have expressed their interest in supporting the
conference, from AMARC Asia to RMIT School of Applied Communication. All
this confirms my belief that Our Media 6 should take place in Australia, and
not because there is no other proposal, but for other equally important
reasons: our Australian colleagues have been participating in the Our Media
network from the beginning; they are well organised, motivated and working
worldwide with initiatives that enrich the content of what Our Media
represents. 

Having the next conference in Australia is also an important indicator of
the growth and expansion of Our Media, allowing the network to meet in a new
region. We had met already in North America, Europe, South America and Asia,
so this new development should be more than welcome. Already with Our Media
5 in Bangalore, the argument of ³too far² was defeated.  Too far from whom?
For Our Media to be a real global network, we need to challenge our own
centralist approaches.  If some of us will not make it to Sydney, it¹s OK,
as long as many other colleagues from the South Pacific and Asia can join.
The issues of visa that some have mentioned, are now common to most of the
world: not easy to get a visa to the US or Europe, for most of the
countries.  Depending on what passport we hold, we may have difficulties to
enter countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America.  So the visa factor is just
a reality we have to faced. The sooner we start with the visa request, the
better.  We will all need a more formal invitation from the university
hosting the conference.

Juan has done great work to bring all of us in front of our responsibilities
and commitment. Do we want to contribute towards Our Media 6?  Then let¹s
activate the international steering and the local organising committees,
within the timeframe he has mentioned in one of his messages. I suggest we
all get into Skype, exchange our Skype names, and then plan for a meeting of
the international steering committee, with Juan as the link to the local
organising committee.

During the preparation of the Our Media 5 conference in Bangalore, one
important question raised was about funding. Some colleagues thought Our
Media 5 would fail to take place because it was the first meeting that
started with zero funding, and the little funding that the organisers got
came later. I¹m involved as chair of a Working Group in the preparation of
the ALAIC conference next month in Brazil, and again, there is no funding.
Each one has to manage to get there, with the support of his/her own
academic institution or by her/his own means. Most of these large
conferences happen because people want them to happen.  Funding is
increasingly scarce, but with a university offering the facilities to meet,
things get much easier.

Another myth that was broken in Bangalore is that we have to ³marry² Our
Media conferences with some ³larger² conference.  This is only valid if for
some colleagues Our Media is not a priority, just a minor activity. If ICA
or IAMCR or any other network is more important than Our Media, then it is
clear that we may not have the same faces around every time.  But Our Media
has shown already that we don¹t need to piggy-back on another conference to
exist. We started as a one-day ³pre-conference², then we grew to two days,
three days... We are now a conference on our own, without any complex of
inferiority. The only remaining issue is prioritising, but I leave that to
each colleague to decide.

I will not get into the details of the proposal from Australia, because that
can be discussed with the members of both committees. The programme, the
themes, the papers, the logistics, can be refined as we go.  The most
important issue now is to know who is willing to support the process,
joining the international steering committee. Some of us had volunteered in
Bangalore and some joined later: Alfonso Gumucio (Communication for Social
Change Consortium); Clemencia Rodriguez (University of Oklahoma); Jethro
Pettit (Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University); Marilu
Villachica (Southern Illinois University); Tripta Chandula (Queensland
University of Technology); Elvira Truglia (World Social Justice, Montreal);
Stefania Milan (IPS, London); Gaby Hadl, (Ritsumeikan University, Japan);
Sergio Rodriguez (Geomar, Montreal).  Are we all in? Maybe the first step is
to raise our hands and say: count me in.

So, in short, I just wanted to say I support the proposal and I¹m ready to
make some time available to participate as a member of the International
Steering Committee.

The future of Our Media

With their usual commitment to the network, Clemencia and Sergio issued a
message in Spanish and English on the future of Our Media. We have all been
concerned that the network may disappear, given the tepid level of
participation. I myself suggested at the opening of the Bangalore
conference, that if we had to disappear because of the lack of interest, be
it.  But Bangalore showed that there was more people than we even thought,
committed to push the process forward. There is a young generation
motivated, but we need to make room for them in the decision making process.
Which is why is so important than anyone reading the messages in this list
participates and has a saying. Nobody owns this network, so everyone should
feel free to comment on what is circulated. Those that have been involved
from the beginning should support a process of renewal.

Once again there is on the table the topic of Our Media becoming, or not, an
organisation with a formal structure: a governance structure, an
institutional structure, or an efficient communication structure. This means
having people elected to perform certain tasks and assume certain
responsibilities. Logically, it may also mean having some core funding to
maintain a secretariat, etc. I personally disagree with a very formal
structure, and think that we have managed quite well until now just by
joining our enthusiasms. Some, like Clemencia, have dedicated much more time
and effort than others. There is much to do to improve the communication
flow and particularly the website, but if we haven¹t been able to do that
part, I don¹t see a more complex structure being put in place, with more
generals than soldiers.

It is true that we all want Our Media to be more than an annual conference.
We want it to become a real network of academics and activists, that can
articulate our work in various parts of the world between two conferences.
It is a key issue to discuss, and when we do that, we should be very
realistic, because we are all members of numerous virtual networks and we
seldom have time to participate online. Our exchanges on this list are a
clear proof.  How many of those receiving these emails actually contribute
with their ideas? I¹m one of those that surfaces every now and then, but
some others don¹t even show up once a year.  This is to say that making a
network function on a virtual platform is far from easy. Whatever we decide
to do, it has to be feasible, not just wishful thinking. Let¹s not dream
about having financial support to function as an organisation. Let¹s
continue learning how to do things with the little we can get. Above all,
let¹s think of including Our Media in the other activities that we do; that
is the best way to do something for Our Media between two conferences.

Are we unique? I think so. We are different from IndyMedia, we are different
form academic networks, we are different from activists networks. The mix of
academics and activists is unique, or it was.  If there is another network
doing the same, we still have the right to claim that we were there first.
The fact that there are new networks only means that there are more people
in the field, with different needs. Networks do not multiply with the same
people, although we might be part of several networks at the same time. As
Clemencia pointed out, we should be excited about these developments.

One thing is clear, none of us can ³dissolve² Our Media, because nobody owns
it. It may fade away if nobody pays attention to it, but it cannot be
eliminated by decree.

Anyhow, I think the discussion should take place during our conference, not
just by email.

Sorry for this very long posting in the list. Maybe it compensates my
absence during the past two months.

Alfonso 

Alfonso Gumucio Dagron
Edificio Marqués del Valle
Apartamento 16-P
2a Avenida 23-85, Zona 14
CP 01014 Ciudad de Guatemala
GUATEMALA

Tel. +502-2366-3801

[log in to unmask]
http://www.geocities.com/agumucio/
http://gumucio.blogspot.com/