The International Programme for Development of Communication (IPDC) – UNESCO’s media development arm – initiated work on the MDIs in 2006 and endorsed them in 2008. And several countries, two in South Asia, have already begun employing them to assess their media environments.
The MDIs come in five main categories, 21 sub-categories and accompanying indicators (50 in all) that aim at measuring freedoms, access, representation and voice, development needs, and the New Media environment, among others. The indicators are largely quantifiable, and those where sufficiently reliable data would be available, and are based on internationally accepted ideals for free media. The indicators can also include additional categories and indicators as relevant to the local context.
Further, there is also no hard and fast rule on who should do the assessment – it could be government, legally mandated independent media and right to information organizations, universities or non-government organizations or all of them working together. Independent consultants have assessed the media in some nations while other countries have adopted a collaborative process of national stakeholders and regional and international agencies.
It is not that we do not know something about our media and therefore the need for an assessment. We know our media fairly well. Still, the reason why I am advocating a MDI test is that it can provide Nepal an opportunity to systematize and document information, and use the findings to gauge progress (or regression for that matter) over time. This is what I have learnt while working with the Government of Bhutan and a private organization there on a MDI assessment now underway.
At present, there are very few publicly available sources for data on the media in Nepal and quality of what is available has also never been assessed. Among those that come to mind is the Press Council Nepal that publishes an annual categorization of the print media (which is a basis for Public Service Adverts); the Department of Information also produces its own data set on registered publications.
The Ministry of Information and Communication has broadcast licensing information and the Nepal Telecommunications Authority has good quality data on the telecoms and Internet penetration. The Federation of Nepali Journalists has been recording data on attacks on media freedoms and there are NGOs that research and publish on the media. Further, there also are commercial agencies that generate data on media use but much of this is proprietary and not easily available for research purposes. The MDI assessment can thus be useful for coming up with good data for deciding what needs to be done for media development. The paragraphs below discuss the five categories and some MDI indicators.
We know our media fairly well. Still, the reason why I am advocating a test is that it can provide Nepal an opportunity to systematize and document information, and use the findings to gauge progress (or regression for that matter) over time.
The first category concerns “a system of regulation conducive to freedom of expression, pluralism and diversity of the media”. This looks at four sub-categories: Legal and policy framework, regulatory system for broadcasting, defamation laws and other restrictions on journalists and censorship. The indicators for, say, the first category looks into freedom of expression, right to information, editorial independence and journalists’ right to protect sources, among others, not only written in law but also whether or not it is respected in practice. There are separate benchmarks for assessing the other sub-categories.
The second category looks at “plurality and diversity of media, a level economic playing field and transparency of ownership.” Its sub-categories are media concentration, diversity (public, private and community), licensing and spectrum allocation, taxation and business regulation, and advertising. As an example, the indicators on advertising look at whether the state discriminates through advertising policy and the effectiveness of advertising regulations. Government advertising is one issue that comes up for discussion in Nepal from time to time but there are no studies on how it is done or how effectively it is distributed, and if the process is fair or not.
The third category examines “media as a platform for democratic discourse” – the ideal that is rarely closely examined on the ground. Its sub-categories are media diversity, the public service broadcasting model, self-regulation, requirements of fairness and impartiality, levels of public trust and confidence in the media, and safety of journalists. One suggested indicator under this group is the existence of a code on fairness and impartiality in broadcasting and its enforcement. Again, this is one area where Nepal has not given much thought, despite the rapid expansion of broadcasting.
The fourth category examines “professional capacity building and supporting institutions that underpins freedom of expression, pluralism and diversity.” The associated sub-categories are availability of professional media training, academic courses in media practice, presence of trade unions and professional organizations, and civil society organizations (CSOs). The CSOs are assessed in terms of whether or not they monitor media systematically, advocate on issues of freedom of expression, and their assistance to communities to access information and voice their concerns.
The last category looks at if the “infrastructural capacity is sufficient to support independent and pluralistic media.” Its two sub-categories are the availability of technical resources and the penetration of the press, broadcasting and Internet and communications technology (ICT).
Together, the MDIs not only promise a thorough reality check on the state of the Nepali media but also an opportunity to enhance local media research capacity – provided a collaborative approach is adopted for the assessment.
patrapatrika@gmail.com
Related story
Why media must be free
