Institute of Development Studies

Media, Violence and Citizenship

On Tuesday 24 November Joanna Wheeler of IDS and James Deane of the BBC World Service Trust spoke at an event run jointly by IDS and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Debt, Aid and Trade. The event, chaired by David Borrow MP, explored different ideas about the role of media in everyday violence and conflict, especially in fragile states.

State-building or citizenship-building?

Joanna Wheeler spoke first, basing her presentation on participatory research she has carried out in Brazil – though as she noted, the findings are applicable anywhere that people live in fear of violence, in developing or developed countries. She explained her focus on 'everyday violence' rather than war and conflict, saying that its effects on social cohesion are often underestimated.

We are all used to hearing the phrase 'state-building' but, Wheeler pointed out, perhaps we should be more focussed on 'citizenship-building'.  Violence leads to fear which leads directly to a lack of social cohesion; when gangs or other armed groups disrupt government provision of services, state authority is further eroded. Governments are frequently seen as complicit in the situation, and police often implicated in the violence that goes on – so legitimacy is difficult to maintain.

The media shapes perceptions of both people and places involved in this violence; for instance, some newspapers in Rio in Brazil referred to private security firms as ‘militias’ whilst others called them ‘community self help groups’ – two very different framings with different effects on the reader. Community based media, on the other hand, gives people the chance to self-label, which in the right situation can be very empowering.

The dangers of a free media

James Deane of the BBC World Service Trust spoke next. He asked the question 'is a free media dangerous?' Deane set out possible scenarios familiar to many who have watched post conflict states; media outlets are freed, only for corrupt political parties to buy up media outlets and use them to foment unrest. There has been particular unease with projects that provide ethnic minorities with they own media for the first time – as was seen in Kenya, where ethnic radio stations did encourage violence.

However, said Deane, the problem was not that the minorities had their own stations now, but that it was the first time they had ever had a voice. The radio stations, having been set up for entertainment and advertising purposes, were not equipped to sensitively handle the outpouring of emotion that greeted their arrival.

According to Deane this was the result of a 'chaotic liberalisation process'  and 'anarchic' development of the new media – which is what often occurs in fragile states. Political co-option of liberalised media is a real fact in the analysis of potential damage that can be caused by the media; but the conclusion he draws from this is not to restrict media in fragile situations.

Why liberalisation makes sense 

The reasons for this are, according to Deane, fourfold. The first issue is the alternative – what happens when there is not a free media? New democracies are often a façade; elections are sometimes less of a threat and easier to manipulate than a free press for a repressive regime. The accountability which a free press generates is crucial; as Paul Collier has said, a democracy requires an 'informed and organised society'.

Secondly, Deane explained, the feelings expressed in these new liberalised media outlets are there regardless; does it make sense, if one wants to build a peaceful and stable society, to ‘put a lid on anger’?

The third reason Deane outlined against repression of media in fragile states was the decentralisation of communications. This encompasses social media as well as mobile telephony; though it is the latter that is having the biggest impact at present, the former has huge potential. ‘Censorship and control of communication is possible’, he said, but ‘indefensible and unsustainable’.

The last reason he gave was that it makes more sense to promote a plural media than to try and shut it down. Media can support political participation; deregulation, if done carefully, can discourage hate media. 'Market failure' in this context must be counteracted, just as governments interfere in other kinds of markets to prevent monopolies and so on. He gave an impassioned defence of public service broadcasting, in which he is a strong believer, and said it needs 'reinvention and re-articulation'.

The main problem, Deane explained, is a simple lack of policy attention. There is, he said, an 'engagement gap'; many people speak airily of a 'free press' but there are very low levels of research, duplication of work and a lack of coordinated strategy and action.

Related News

Effective states and the media: A research dialogue across disciplines

Published: 28 Jan 2009

Our Media 7 conference in Accra, Ghana

Published: 9 Sep 2008

Interview with B’Tselem, One World Media Award Winners

Published: 30 Jun 2009

Related Audio