 | This article includes a list ofgeneral references, butit lacks sufficient correspondinginline citations. Please help toimprove this article byintroducing more precise citations.(July 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
TheNew World Information and Communication Order (NWICO, also shortened toNew World Information Order,NWIO or just, more generally,information order) is a term coined in a debate overmedia representations of thedeveloping world inUNESCO in the late 1970s early 1980s. The NWICO movement was part of a broader effort to formally tackle globaleconomic inequality that was viewed as a legacy ofimperialism upon theglobal south.[1]
The term was widely used by theMacBride Commission, a UNESCO panel chaired byNobel Peace Prize laureateSeán 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.
The fundamental issues of imbalances in global communication had been discussed for some time. The American media scholarWilbur Schramm noted in 1964 that the flow of news among nations is thin, that much attention is given todeveloped countries and little toless-developing ones, that important events are ignored and reality is distorted.[2] From a more radical perspective,Herbert Schiller observed in 1969 that developing countries had little meaningful input into decisions about radio frequency allocations forsatellites at a key meeting in Geneva in 1962.[3] Schiller pointed out that many satellites had military applications.Intelsat which was set up for international co-operation insatellite communication, was also dominated by the United States.[citation needed]
In 1970, at the 16thCongress of UNESCO, the need for a NWICO was clearly raised for the first time.[citation needed] In the 1970s these and other issues were taken up by theNon-Aligned Movement and debated within theUnited Nations and its agency responsible for communication, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In response to theNew International Economic Order (NIEO) of 1974, the expression "New International Information Order" (NIIO) was established to protest the disadvantages countries in theglobal south faced in relation to information and communication. The Non-Aligned Movement alleged thatnews agencies in theWestern world controlled 95 percent of worldwide information flows, namelyAssociated Press (AP),Agence France-Presse (AFP),United Press International (UPI), andReuters.[4] The term "new world information order" was coined byHedi Nouira, the prime minister ofTunisia, who was the first to use it during a conference in 1974.[5] From 1976 to 1978, the phrase New World Information and Communication Order was generally shortened toNew World Information Order or theNew International Information Order.
In 1976, for the first time, the slogan of establishing a "New World Information and Communication Order" was clearly proposed. At the start of this discussion, NWICO got associated with the UNESCO starting from the early 1970s.
Mass media concerns began with the meeting of non-aligned nations inAlgiers, 1973; again inTunis 1976, and later in 1976 at theNew Delhi Ministerial Conference of Non-Aligned Nations. The "new order" plan was textually formulated by Tunisia's Information MinisterMustapha 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.[6][unreliable source?]
The UNESCO work on the NWICO was immediately met with criticism from many areas, mainly from Western countries. An interim report released in 1979 by UNESCO was targeted by theAmerican Newspaper Publishers Association and theAmerican Society of Newspaper Editors. While these organizations took issue with some of the early proposals including right of reply and press councils, they also were troubled by the phrase "New World Information and Communication Order", seeing it as a dog-whistle for the use of government propaganda in the guise of information flow balance.[7] The criticism of UNESCO was sometimes overdrawn, as whenpresstime (the journal of the American Newspapers Publishers Association) carried an article suggesting that a study on U.S.-UNESCO relations commissioned by UNESCO was "a cheap shot against the press" and that "it will add no luster to UNESCO's image," before the book even coming into existence.[8][9][10]
In 1980 theMacBride Report was published. The report stated that the right to inform and be informed was critical to modern societies, and that information was a key resource. The report than proposed five main ideas of action to progress these goals
Following the release of the report director-generalAmadou Mahtar M'Bow was reelected as the head of UNESCO, and those in favor of the NWICO movement found the report giving them strength. UNESCO received a thirty four percent increase in funding, and the United States agreed in principle to creating a new international body for communication in developing countries "within the framework of UNESCO". The report itself was controversial, as many viewed it as lending strength to the Communist and nonaligned blocs. M'Bow backed a compromise resolution that eliminated the more radical proposals of the report, however hard liners resisted these changes. Likewise, the United States warned that they would not provide funds or technical assistance if UNESCO appeared to desire government control of media.[12]
In December 1980 the United Nations formally endorsed the MacBride Report by saying that nations should "take into account" the report in framing of communications policy. The resolution also invited members to promote "the widespread circulation and study" of the report. While not a binding resolution, this move was met with immediate criticism from the British government, saying they did not regard the report as definitive.[13]
In 1983, the 22nd edition of UNESCO established the medium-term plan for the establishment of NWICO from 1985 to 1989. The struggle to establish a new world information order won broad support within the United Nations. Among those involved in the movement were the Latin AmericanInstitute for the Study of Transnationals (ILET). One of its co-founders,Juan Somavia was a member of the MacBride Commission. Another important voice wasMustapha Masmoudi, the Information Minister forTunisia. 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. SomeOPEC 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 inCosta Rica.
.jpg)
The only woman member of the commission wasBetty Zimmerman, representing Canada because of the illness ofMarshall 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.
When NWICO appeared to have failed,UNESCO adopted a plan for the medium term, defined as 1990 til 1995, under the title "Communication at the service of humanity" (La communication au service de l'humanité). The plan foresaw the free circulation ofinformation.[14]
The UNESCOConvention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions 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 asWorld Trade Organization agreements that support global trade in mass media and information.
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 bysatellite andcomputer technologies. The issues included:
The United States government was hostile to NWICO. According to some analysts[who?], 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 forcensorship on a large scale.[17]
While theCarter administration had been responsive to the goals of UNESCO, theReagan administration took on a different approach. The work of UNESCO was perceived by this administration to limit both individual and press freedoms. Additionally, anti-communist cold war sentiments were gaining increased traction in the United States. The US eventually withdrew its membership in UNESCO at the end of 1984.[18] The matter was complicated by debates within UNESCO aboutIsrael's archaeological work in the city ofJerusalem, and about theApartheid regime inSouth Africa.[citation needed] The United States rejoined in 2003.[19]
TheIndependent Media Center (IMC) was established in Seattle, USA, on November 24 of 1999 as a cluster of independent news media and websites. IMC is a new media collective hosted by grassroots organizations generally supportive of the intent of NWICO (while pointing out 1st amendment concerns along the way). Founded by a grass-roots synthesis of anti-Neoliberalists and activists, IMC was considered to be a pioneering effort to gain freedom of the press, and theoretically part of a more democratic "new world information order".[citation needed]
The debate on the NWICO that started in the 1970s reflected criticism about non-equitableaccess to information andmedia imperialism. The NWICO saw theUnited Kingdom and theUnited 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 todeveloping countries such asMexico,Korea,Kenya andNigeria; by the adoption of protectionist measures in regards to the free market by western countries likeCanada andFrance; and with the rise of satellite broadcasting as a transnational means for non-western countries.[20] Still, evidence suggests global media has a strong bias towards the global north. Studies estimate around eighty percent of international news travels throughReuters,Agence France-Press,United Press International, and theAssociated Press. Only around twenty percent of this news focuses on developing countries. In the decades following the NWICO debates little changed in this regard as a study on stories relating to Africa in theNew York Times andThe Washington Post showed in 2000. In this study of 89 articles, all lacked sufficient context linking the West to Africa, and seventy-five of them were negative in content.[21]
The 1991Windhoek Declaration for the Development of a Free, Independent and Pluralistic Press is a statement ofpress freedom principles by African newspaper journalists.[22] African diplomats inUNESCO, theUnited Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and theUN General Assembly commitment were crucial to the success of the Windhoek process.[23]
UNESCO endorsed the Windhoek Declaration and United Nations General Assembly recognized the 3 May, date of the Declaration, as "World Press Freedom Day".[20] The Windhoek Declaration has had other significant impacts in the media field. UNESCO adopted the Windhoek framework concerningmedia development, characterizing it by freedom,pluralism andindependence.[25]
The Windhoek Declaration is implemented through the Media Development Indicators (MDIs) framework[26] developed by theInternational Programme for the Development of Communication Intergovernmental Council in 2006.[27] 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 ofcommunity media and of human resources.[27]
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 inBelgrade. The Programme was adopted by 39 Member States and aimed at strengthening the development ofmass media in developing countries. Its mandate since 2003 is "... to contribute tosustainable development, democracy andgood 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."[28]
In December of 2003 in Geneva and November of 2005, two phases of the UN World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) were held. These gatherings were done to develop a "common vision of the information society" and to overcome the digital divide within theUnited Nations Millennial Development Goals. This process involved both governmental actors as well asnon-governmental organizations and sought to solve many of the issues proposed during the NWICO debate. Critics have noted that WSIS was too narrow minded a process and focused exclusively on an information technology approach.[29]
Threats onjournalists 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.[30]
Technological developments have direct effects on access to information and onprivacy. Access to information is the ability for an individual to seek, receive and impart information effectively. According toGuy Berger, "access to digital means of communication, even within the limits established by platform owners, is unprecedented".[20] Since the NWICO debate, many of the desired developments have come about through access to the internet and mobile phones. Many are now able to seek as well as impart information to the public. The one way information flow fromGlobal North to South has been corrected partially due to this flow of information. The biggest barrier is now lack of access, and as of 2013 only one third of the population has such access (with some of the poorest regions having less than 10% access).[31]
There has been a significant increase in access to the Internet in recent years, which reached just over three billion users in 2014, amounting to about 42 per cent of the world's population.[32] Nevertheless, issues remain such as thedigital 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 ofinformation and communications technology (ICT).[33][34]
Social barriers such asliteracy and lack of digital empowerment have created stark inequalities between men and women in navigating the tools used for access to information.[35] Also, with the evolution of the digital age,freedom of speech and its corollaries, includingfreedom of information, and access to information, become more controversial. As new means of communication arise, so too do new restrictions including government control or commercial methods that succeed in turning personal information into a danger.[36][25]
The increasing access to and reliance ondigital media to receive and produce information have increased the possibilities for States and private sector companies totrack 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 ofEurope, newanti-terrorism laws have enabled a greater degree ofgovernment surveillance and an increase in the ability of intelligence authorities to access citizens' data. While legality is a precondition for legitimate limitations ofhuman rights, the issue is also whether a givenlaw is aligned to other criteria for justification such asnecessity,proportionality, and legitimate purpose.[25]
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)