New World Information and Communication Order

The New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO or NWIO) aka the MacBride Commission is a term that was coined in a debate over media representations of the developing world in UNESCO in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The term was widely used by the MacBride Commission, a UNESCO panel chaired by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Sean MacBride, which was charged with creation of a set of recommendations to make global media representation more equitable. The MacBride Commission produced a report titled "Many Voices, One World", which outlined the main philosophical points of the New World Information Communication Order.

History[edit]

The fundamental issues of imbalances in global communication had been discussed for some time. The American media scholar Wilbur Schramm noted in 1964 that the flow of news among nations is thin, that much attention is given to developed countries and little to less-developed ones, that important events are ignored and reality is distorted.^[1] From a more radical perspective, Herbert Schiller observed in 1969 that developing countries had little meaningful input into decisions about radio frequency allocations for satellites at a key meeting in Geneva in 1962.^[2] Schiller pointed out that many satellites had military applications. Intelsat which was set up for international co-operation in satellite communication, was also dominated by the United States. In the 1970s these and other issues were taken up by the Non-Aligned Movement and debated within the United Nations and UNESCO.

NWICO grew out of the New International Economic Order of 1974. From 1976-1978, the New World Information and Communication Order was generally called the shorter New World Information Order or the New International Information Order.

The start of this discussion is the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) as associated with the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) starting from the early 1970s.

Mass media concerns began with the meeting of non-aligned nations in Algiers, 1973; again in Tunis 1976, and later in 1976 at the New Delhi Ministerial Conference of Non-Aligned Nations.

The 'new order' plan was textually formulated by Tunisia's Information Minister Mustapha Masmoudi. Masmoudi submitted working paper No. 31 to the MacBride Commission. These proposals of 1978 were titled the 'Mass Media Declaration.' The MacBride Commission at the time was a 16-member body created by UNESCO to study communication issues.^{[3][unreliable source?]}

Among those involved in the movement were the Latin American Institute for the Study of Transnationals (ILET). One of its co-founders, Juan Somavia was a member of the MacBride Commission. Another important voice was Mustapha Masmoudi, the Information Minister for Tunisia. In a Canadian radio program in 1983, Tom McPhail describes how the issues were pressed within UNESCO in the mid-1970s when the United States withheld funding to punish the organization for excluding Israel from a regional group of UNESCO. Some OPEC countries and a few socialist countries made up the amount of money and were able to get senior positions within UNESCO. NWICO issues were then advanced at an important meeting in 1976 held in Costa Rica.

The only woman member of the Commission was Betty Zimmerman, representing Canada because of the illness of Marshall McLuhan, who died in 1980. The movement was kept alive through the 1980s by meetings of the MacBride Round Table on Communication, even though by then the leadership of UNESCO distanced itself from its ideas.

The UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity of 2005 puts into effect some of the goals of NWICO, especially with regard to the unbalanced global flow of mass media. However, this convention was not supported by the United States, and it does not appear to be as robust as World Trade Organization agreements that support global trade in mass media and information.

Issues[edit]

A wide range of issues were raised as part of NWICO discussions. Some of these involved long-standing issues of media coverage of the developing world and unbalanced flows of media influence. But other issues involved new technologies with important military and commercial uses. The developing world was likely to be marginalized by satellite and computer technologies. The issues included:

• News reporting on the developing world that reflects the priorities of news agencies in London, Paris and New York. Reporting of natural disasters and military coups rather than the fundamental realities. At the time four major news agencies controlled over 80% of global news flow.
• An unbalanced flow of mass media from the developed world (especially the United States) to the underdeveloped countries. Everyone watches American movies and television shows.
• Advertising agencies in the developed world have indirect but significant effects on mass media in the developing countries. Some observers also judged the messages of these ads to be inappropriate for the Third World.
• An unfair division of the radio spectrum. A small number of developed countries controlled almost 90% of the radio spectrum. Much of this was for military use.
• There were similar concerns about the allocation of the geostationary orbit (parking spots in space) for satellites. At the time only a small number of developed countries had satellites and it was not possible for developing countries to be allocated a space that they might need ten years later. This might mean eventually getting a space that was more difficult and more expensive to operate.
• Satellite broadcasting of television signals into Third World countries without prior permission was widely perceived as a threat to national sovereignty. The UN voted in the early 1970s against such broadcasts.
• Use of satellites to collect information on crops and natural resources in the Third World at a time when most developing countries lacked the capacity to analyze this data.
• At the time most mainframe computers were located in the United States and there were concerns about the location of databases (such as airline reservations) and the difficulty of developing countries catching up with the US lead in computers.
• The protection of journalists from violence was raised as an issue for discussion. For example, journalists were targeted by various military dictatorships in Latin America in the 1970s. As part of NWICO debates there were suggestions for study on how to protect journalists and even to discipline journalists who broke "generally recognized ethical standards". However, the MacBride Commission specifically came out against the idea of licensing journalists.^[4]

Response of the United States[edit]

The United States was hostile to NWICO. According to some analysts, the United States saw these issues simply as barriers to the free flow of communication and to the interests of American media corporations. It disagreed with the MacBride report at points where it questioned the role of the private sector in communications. It viewed the NWICO as dangerous to freedom of the press by ultimately putting an organization run by governments at the head of controlling global media, potentially allowing for censorship on a large scale. From another perspective, the MacBride Commission recommendations requiring the licensing of journalists amounted to prior censorship and ran directly counter to basic US law on the freedom of expression.

There were also accusations of corruption at the highest level of UNESCO leadership in Paris. The US eventually withdrew its membership in UNESCO (as did the United Kingdom and Singapore) at the end of 1984. The matter was complicated by debates within UNESCO about Israel's archaeological work in the city of Jerusalem, and about the Apartheid regime in South Africa.^{[citation needed]} The United States rejoined in 2003.^[5]

Developments[edit]

The debate on the NWICO that started in the 1970s reflected criticism about non-equitable access to information and media imperialism. The NWICO saw the United Kingdom and the United States back out of UNESCO until 1997 for the UK and 2003 for the US. In 1990-2000, a switch occurred globally, carried by the Internet that contributed to bring more equity to the available content. This was supported by the extension of media powers to developing countries such as Mexico, Korea, Kenya and Nigeria; by the adoption of protectionist measures in regards to the free market by western countries like Canada and France; and with the rise of satellite broadcasting as a transnational means for non-western countries.^[6]

Windhoek Declaration[edit]

This tendency has reached its peak in the 1991 Windhoek Declaration. The Windhoek Declaration for the Development of a Free, Independent and Pluralistic Press is a statement of press freedom principles by African newspaper journalists.^[7] African diplomats in Paris (UNESCO), Geneva (ECOSOC) and New York’s (UN General Assembly) commitment has been crucial to the success of the Windhoek process.^[8] UNESCO endorsed the Windhoek Declaration and United Nations General Assembly recognized the 3 May, date of the Declaration, as “World Press Freedom Day”.^[6] The Windhoek Declaration has had other significant impacts in the media field. UNESCO adopted the Windhoek framework concerning media development, characterizing it by freedom, pluralism and independence.^[9]

The Windhoek Declaration is implemented through the Media Development Indicators (MDIs) framework^[10] developed by the International Programme for the Development of Communication Intergovernmental Council in 2006^[11]. Resonating with the NWICO, the MDIs help assessing the priority areas for media development that are the promotion of freedom of expression and media pluralism, the development of community media and of human resources.^[11]

International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC)[edit]

As a result of the “Many Voices, One World” 1980 report UNESCO’s General Conference launched the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) the same year in Belgrade. The Programme was adopted by 39 Member States and aimed at strengthening the development of mass media in developing countries. Its mandate since 2003 is “... to contribute to sustainable development, democracy and good governance by fostering universal access to and distribution of information and knowledge by strengthening the capacities of the developing countries and countries in transition in the field of electronic media and the printed press.”^[12]

Safety of journalists[edit]

Threats on journalists are one of the major issues blocking media development. Since 2008, UNESCO Member States submit information on the status of the judicial inquiries conducted on each of the journalists killings condemned by the Organization. This information is included in a public report submitted every two years to the IPDC Council by the Director-General and is basis to the Programme's follow-up to killings of journalists.^[13]

Technological developments[edit]

Technological developments have direct effects on access to information and on privacy. Access to information is the ability for an individual to seek, receive and impart information effectively. According to Guy Berger, “access to digital means of communication, even within the limits established by platform owners, is unprecedented”^[6]. There has been a significant increase in access to the Internet, which reached just over three billion users in 2014, amounting to about 42 per cent of the world’s population.^[14] Nevertheless, issues remain such as the digital divide, the gender divide and the security argument. A digital divide is an economic and social inequality with regard to access to, use of, or impact of information and communication technologies (ICT).^[15] Social barriers such as illiteracy and lack of digital empowerment have created stark inequalities between men and women in navigating the tools used for access to information: it’s the gender divide.^[16] With the evolution of the digital age, application of freedom of speech and its corollaries (freedom of information, access to information) becomes more controversial as new means of communication and restrictions arise including government control or commercial methods putting personal information to danger.^[17][9]

The increasing access to and reliance on digital media to receive and produce information have increased the possibilities for States and private sector companies to track individuals’ behaviors, opinions and networks. States have increasingly adopted laws and policies to legalize monitoring of communication, justifying these practices with the need to defend their own citizens and national interests. In parts of Europe, new anti-terrorism laws have enabled a greater degree of government surveillance and an increase in the ability of intelligence authorities to access citizens’ data. While legality is a precondition for legitimate limitations of human rights, the issue is also whether a given law is aligned to other criteria for justification such as necessity, proportionality and legitimate purpose.^[9]

See also[edit]

• Communication for Development
• Community film
• Development communication
• Freedom of speech
• Inter Press Service
• International communication
• International Programme for the Development of Communication
• NAM News Network
• New International Economic Order
• Non-Aligned News Agencies Pool

Source[edit]

 This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC BY SA 3.0 IGO License statement: World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development Global Report 2017/2018, 202, UNESCO. To learn how to add open license text to Wikipedia articles, please see Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. For information on reusing text from Wikipedia, please see the terms of use.

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• "Hope and Folly: the United States and UNESCO, 1945-1985", William Preston, Edward S. Herman, and Herbert Schiller, Univ of Minnesota Press, 1989. ISBN 0-8166-1788-0
• Hans Köchler (ed.), The New International Information and Communication Order: Basis for Cultural Dialogue and Peaceful Coexistence among Nations. (Studies in International Relations, X.) Vienna: Braumüller, 1985. ISBN 3-7003-0645-8
• McChesney, Robert W. and Schiller, Dan. The Political Economy of International Communications: Foundations for the Emerging Global Debate about Media Ownership and Regulation. (Technology, Business and Society Programme Paper, 11). United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. October 2003. http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/%28httpAuxPages%29/C9DCBA6C7DB78C2AC1256BDF0049A774/$file/mcchesne.pdf
• Media, Culture and Society, Vol. 12, No. 3 (July 1990), Special issue on "Farewell to NWICO?"
• Mowlana, Hamid, & Roach, Colleen. (1992). New world information and communication order: Overview of recent developments and activities. In Michael Traber & Kaarle Nordenstreng (Eds.), Few voices, many worlds: Towards a media reform movement (pp. 4–17). London: World Association for Christian Communication.
• Nordenstreng, Kaarle. (2010). MacBride report as a culmination of NWICO. In Keynote at International Colloquium ‘Communication et Changement Social en Afrique’. Université Stendhal, Grenoble 3 http://www.uta.fi/jour/english/contact/nordenstreng_eng.html
• Nordenstreng, Kaarle. (2010). The New World Information and Communication Order: Testimony of an actor. In Round Table at International Colloquium ‘30 Years of Communication Geopolitics: Actors and Flows, Structures and Divides’. Paris http://www.uta.fi/cmt/en/contact/staff/kaarlenordenstreng/publications/Paris.pdf