The Arguments Against Development Journalism

The arguments against development journalism include the following:

(i) "A house built on shale cannot stand". Whilst it is true that Third World nations are yet young, that their unity - within the artificial boundaries devised by the colonial powers - is precarious/ and that their political institutions in many instances lack the support of trad­

ition and sit somewhat uneasily upon their newly formed

societies, it does not follow that the dampening of criticism and the suppression of a free flow of information are the best means of ensuring unity and stability in the long

term. The repression of dissent may create the appearance of security; but if the schisms remain present/ they will ultimately re-appear. The best way to formulate lasting policies and to develop political institutions suited to the particular society is to do so on the basis of all

relevant information - and the suppression of certain facts or ideas in the interests of development journalism (or any other goal) inevitably militates against this.

(ii) There is no evidence that development goals are best served by the suppression (or slanting) of information.

It is submitted - echoing the argument above - that viable and effective policies for the resolution of the grave and intractable problems of development can only be form­

ulated in the light of all relevant information and by

taking due account of every failure and setback. Furthermore,

3 2

-even it it is accepted that freedom of expression must

take second-place to development goals, the question remains as to '/w/ho /is to/ decide that a nation has reached that goal? /Moreover/ /a/ssuming it has reached its desired stage of development, will that nation's ruling clique/

which has become accustomed to hearing only good things

said abotit itself/ be willing to allow the media to criticise constructively? And even if the rulers do allow this

criticism, will the media/ after years of guidance and self-restraint, be trusting/ prepared and bold enough to accept the challenge?' In the long run, therefore/ will not development itself be the loser?

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that it is only in the long term that effective development may be impeded. The development policies adopted by a particular government may not be the best - objectively - for the society: as,

arguably, illustrated by the decision of a number of Third World governments to introduce nuclear power at a time when the United States/ for one, is curtailing its own nuclear power programme in favour of other options. This change of policy in the United States is undoubtedly the result of a combination of many different factors: but public concern regarding the risk of nuclear accident must surely rank as one. Are the people of the Third World to be deprived - through the principle of 'development journ­

alism' - from being fully acquainted with the dangers involved and from being given an opportunity to make their views known?

T

T

3 3

-A further complicating factor is the suspicion with which the general population may regard media messages extolling a particular development policy. 'In many Third World

societies... people are generally suspicious of officialdom/

having witnessed so much government inefficiency/ corrup-ticn and insincerity in the past' ; and 'if the critical function of... the media /*is/ stifled' , how is public o confidence to be restored?

Persistent outpouring of 'good1 development news may also engender a sense of frustration amongst people in fact experiencing considerable difficulties. In this regard/

the experience of Mitten m Tanzania is salutary. 3 He reports:

'On my travels in Tanzania I frequently had the view expressed to me by people who were in no way anti-govern­

ment, that they felt no one knew about their particular problems. If the news media, and in particular the radio, reported people's real problems and concerns more often, they might have allayed the frustration that some people felt. When the press and radio reported news from the regions and districts, they mostly reported happy events, nation-building activities, speeches of leaders and so on.

To some people this must have given the news media an air

of unreality; more likely it gave them the unhappy feeling . that they were the only people who were suffering difficulties'.

Ibid.

^ Ibid,

3 Mitten, op cit,

^ Ibid, at p 46.

3 4

-(ii) Development journalism is arrogant, elitist and paternalistic. In assuming that the general population will be "confused" by being offered a choice of policies or by being informed of the difficulties encountered in particular projects, the principle of development journ­

alism evinces a contempt for the ordinary individual.

Common sense and the capacity to distinguish good from bad do not depend on formal education, as Third World support for the advantages of traditional culture implicitly

acknowledges. Whilst some government guidance may well be required in the complexities of the modern world, it should also be recalled that man - over centuries - has shown himself well capable of absorbing new technologies of demonstrated superiority. And if there is doubt as to

the utility of particular development policies, the solu­

tion lies not in coercion but rather in persuasion: and the latter - to be effective - must be based upon as com­

prehensive a review as possible of all the risks and benefits entailed. It must always be remembered that the ordinary individual is well capable of discerning any discrepancy between his own experience and the view put forth by the media - as Mitten's report from Tanzania (described above ) 1 graphically demonstrates.

(iv) Corrupt and selfish leadership deserves no respect and its exposure is required in the best interests of society as a whole. Moreover, any attempt to "paper over the cracks"

See p 33 above.

3 5

-is likely - in the end - to result in far greater violence and attendant anarchy; whilst, the view that the ordinary people cannot be trusted with bad news about government is - again - fundamentally paternalistic.

(v) Critical and investigative journalism does not under­

mine the importance of love, sharing or cooperation. On the contrary, such journalism is premised !6n high moral standards and may help to promote these values by exposing selfishness or corruption which might otherwise flourish undetected. Moreover, whilst the "sharing" ethic of social­

ism may well have greater intrinsic value thafc the "compet­

ition" of "self-reliance" ethic of capitalism, the interests of society are best served - not be promoting one and

denigrating the other - but by examining (in full) the advantages and disadvantages of both ideologies; and

attempting to develop a system which incorporates the best of both.^

(vi) Privately owned media are dependant on sales and advertising revenue and can never, therefore, entirely ignore the interests and wishes of their customers. 2 On

- - - - “

See Raphael Mergui 'UNESCO; The state and the media', /1981J 1 Index on Censorship, pp 23-26, p 24. See also Mitten,

op cit, p 44, who points out that Nyerere's statement (reprod­

uced above) should be read in the light of the importance attached by him to winning over the 'vitally important class of entrepreneurs, middle managers and other professional and executive people' to the cause of socialism. This aim of Nyerere seems implicitly to acknowledge the advantages of 'marrying' these ideologies.

2 See Mergui, ibid, p 26.

3 6

-the o-ther hand, many Third World governments are not demo­

cratically elected; and there can be no guarantee that news media - in obeying their directives - are any more responsive to the interests of the majority.

(vii) Freedom of expression is a value which transcends geographical, ideological and cultural boundaries and is an important check on the abuse of power in any society.

'It is a general rule, in all societies, that power rests on knowledge' ; and if government is permitted to obtain a 1 monopoly on the dissemination of information, there is a grave danger that it may degenerate into Orwellian dictat­

orship. 'Developmental journalism' has a far more attrac­

tive ring than 'thought control' but the difference - in practice - may not be great. Moreover, the value of indep­

endent media in exposing abuse of power and in compelling re-examination of government policies has been graphically demonstrated by the role of the press both in the Water-gate Scandal and in promoting the end of the Vietnam War 2 (to name but two examples). The message from these exper­

iences is clear; and is applicable throughout the world.

In conclusion, it is submitted that - compelling though the arguments in favour of developmental journalism may seem - they cannot override the objections described above. The countervailing arguments are not easily summarised but - at the risk of gross oversimplification - may perhaps be

Mergui, op cit, p 26.

2 Ibid.

3 7

-marshalled together as follows: Development journalism is intrinsically autocratic, ultimately inefficient, and fundamentally paternalistic; and it leaves little room for

the ideal of self-determination, which has been proclaimed throughout the world as an aim of all societies.

1.3.3.3. Further Ramifications of Developmental Journalism