Last year, International IDEA launched a project called "Media and democracy in the context of change." This vital institution had understood a mutation that was happening before our eyes and decided to go for your inquiry, its deconstruction. And the first publication to mark the horizon for this investigation is called High Intensity mediocracy. I must say that I followed closely and accompanied at all times this beautiful adventure. Therefore, the interview published here is not nothing but a friendly flag to Utopia, to keep walking for more and better intercultural communication for democracy.
that was published in the newspaper IDEAS Page 7, February 20 is edited so that, for those who like them, is the full interview.
What is, what it offers, the book's mediocracy high intensity? To tell of the author the communications expert José Luis Exeni R. Bolivian, is "a shared ride by the media forest. To see the building as landscape. But also to explore, fertilizer / ax in hand, some of its most typical trees. It is, therefore, an incitement. "
exploration proposal includes a review of the sensitive relationship between political communication and democracy, a look at the regional context in tension between mainstream media and progressive governments, a pan of regulatory framework Bolivia, a small place by the quality of reporting, a balance of self-regulation, the inescapable what to do and some conclusions.
mediocracy not as government mass media, but as a government surrounded by the media coverage. High intensity for "live-altered, without truce, our daily agenda."
The assumption is that the media action, especially in contexts of change, is of particular importance in the fight for democracy building. Moreover in the process of recasting the state and Bolivia. Media Action agendas through information and opinion. But direct media action.
Why "High Intensity mediocracy?
mediocracy The idea has to do with a course in my opinion is a wrong assumption, namely that the idea would be attending a sort of media governance, so mediocracy, the book has to do-and this itself is an important fact, with the increasingly large role that media and its impact increasingly important in relation to democratic processes. This is a play on words that has to do with this idea of \u200b\u200bgovernment funds or, rather, the impact of media on democracy.
Did you indicate in the document that "the promotion of sustainable democracy and improve the quality of democratic governance require (...) guarantee the rights to information and communication for citizenship." What is the path critical in ensuring that communication rights directly affects the quality of intercultural democracy?
Well, in the Bolivian case we have a challenge. First we are before a process of reorganizing the State which is a complex process and as part of the challenge of building a cultural democracy, I think the exercise of the rights to communication and information is substantial, we can say that we can hardly go further beyond the standards in democratic practices and especially in a political culture intercultural if we do not guarantee that communication above all is a fundamental component in terms of open spaces to promote dialogue or deliberative mechanisms to establish issues of transparency and full access to information, to ensure informed participation of citizens in democracy and electoral processes. So I think that there is a strong overlap has to do with the recognition that just as there demodiversity-or various forms of democracy, no single model, there are different media forms and practices that deal with different areas , different sectors that make up the richness of what may be called a democracy for a plural communication intercultural, which in turn is framed in a Multinational State autonomy.
The document was prepared under a project initiated by International IDEA entitled "Media and democracy in the context of change" How is this relationship?
Indeed one of the concerns of this project, promoted by IDEA, has to do to explore and discuss whether the relationship, always difficult, sensitive, often conflicting, political and media actors change or not in contexts of change like we have in Bolivia. And the fact that we have as a result of this examination is that there are indeed important changes, we may say so, in this regard.
In the book you are motivated to do something that few people working in media do: open the debate on the need for a regulatory framework for information and communications field. What is the current status of this legislation?
Well, many experts, studies and surveys of data that has been done on this subject agree that in Bolivia we have a fragmented legislation, incoherent, dysfunctional, anachronistic incomplete and not enforced. This diagnosis is posing to us if we have both empty, both deficits in relation to legislation in the matter, it seems clear that what is more appropriate to move towards a comprehensive regulatory framework, to account for new processes or informational communication, how communication should be establishing a new moment in the country, what to do with ICTs. I think if we are honest about the status of this situation, one of the issues we discuss is how we move forward in a comprehensive regulatory framework, to ensure democratic and democratizing, in this time, the right to communication and information, these are some of the topics covered in the book, from just above diagnosis this issue.
And the state of the self?
Well, the important data exploration deals with the important recognition that Bolivia, under democracy, has a very wide and very important experience and tradition in terms of self: we have many codes of ethics We have had a very important and unprecedented experience of a public editor of many newspapers, there are already drafting statutes in some newspapers, there is a national ethics council not only business but also their own professional associations and journalists, then my point in the book is that self is a smart and should be encouraged and must be promoted. But also take full-and here there is a debate with some colleagues, that self alone is not enough, this claim that ethics is the self, does not replace the law, ie the regulation, I think is fundamental, then the proposal does is move forward together and complementary mechanisms of regulation and self-regulating mechanisms, because they are not exclusive.
devotes an entire chapter to account for the state of affairs in Latin America. Why?
Because I believe that we are witnessing in recent years to a moment in which they have returned to discuss these issues, then these discussions very rich, intense, wide occurred in the decade of the 70 above all, of the last century, promoted by UNESCO and Latin American leadership, that experience ended aborted and it was an experience without the desired results. I think that in recent years in Latin America are becoming not only to discuss these issues and provide substantive progress in terms of legislation itself, there are: the audiovisual law recently passed in Argentina, a bill organs of communication in Ecuador, a proposed rule in Uruguay, and the decision to do the same in Brazil, a team that is working for a long time in Mexico, other proposals for democratizing the media in relation to processes elections in Peru, then there are regional context favorable to reconsider the issue again in the XXI century.
Throughout the course you do also go through the complex field of journalistic performance, specifically the "quality of news reporting," What is the balance in this area?
Here is a balance that can be viewed in two ways, if we assume from a self-critical logic, I think it coincided with major national journalism awards in the country, when taking stock of the journalistic performance, we should say very clear that we are wrong, we're not doing a sufficiently serious and responsible our work. But at the same time, the other side of this is that there is indeed an active participation from the media and journalism in the democratic and governance in terms of control, in terms of monitoring the public policy agenda of monitor performance of governmental or state actors is always relevant and it is very important because it contributes to society of these issues is beyond the private sphere, everyday, then I think that assuming the fundamental importance of journalism, I think it Importantly, this from a challenge to himself that he has to do not only with the self, but the exercise itself, in terms of quality, responsibility, to be part of this process in other conditions that contribute best to democracy.
Under this scenario
What, then, urgent actions to live in a society in which to guarantee the rights to information and communication?
First the challenge of regulation is to advance a general regulatory framework and, at the time, expertise to ensure the exercise of the rights to communication and information in different areas of regulation and this deals not only with the challenge of rescuing the ideology of national communication policies, but also specifically with standards that can be built in a participatory and democratic.
complementary fashion, is the challenge of self that, again, is an intelligent challenge, if not become a trench to prevent the regulation only to the extent that it is a complementary aspect strengthen the exercise of the rights and allows and guarantees of somehow push for accountability in the management of media and journalism in particular, the self is fundamental and essential.
Third, I believe we should encourage something that has had very good experience with the National Media Centre, but should be widened to the whole society, so that citizens can have spaces and mechanisms for greater participation communication processes and information, and more likely to be closely monitored, narrow, documented what they are doing the media, a power as important as the media can not be exempt from mechanisms for transparency and accountability .
And finally, I think the most substantial commitment has to do with progress in strengthening or building where the public communication, I think to the extent that we can move in a communication be managed from the company itself, from the social actors, from public really going to build democratic mechanisms communication and information that are part of a broader process of democratization of society.
Then, the articulation of these four proposals: regulation, self-regulation, public oversight and public communication, each with its own challenges, perhaps it could be a major gamble to really ensure the exercise of the rights to communication and information, beyond the constitutional mandate, thinking to ensure democratic and democratizing communication practices.
