C O M M U N I C A T I O N : A R E T H I N K O F
JOURNALISM STUDIES IN MALAYSIA?
Ismail Hashim
T
his essay brings into focus the question of development communication in the field of communication with special interest in journalism. Decolonisation are attempted works that trying to debunk ideas that has become entrench in Communi-cation, partly as a result of colonialism and continuing Eurocen-trism in the field.The focus of this paper is to discuss decolonisation, a practice that is a logical consequence of political and intellectual colonisation or Dr C.K. Raju (2011) called it `Academic Imperialism‘.
Communication can link individuals and communities, governments and citizens in participatory and shared decision -m aking. As a concept, developm ent communication stems from the belief that telephones, radio, television, the Internet, or group media can support the overall betterment of less privileged people in underdeveloped countries. In other words, development communication generally refers to the planned use of strategies and processes of communications aimed at achieving development.
In relation to it, Prof. Dr. Syed Farid Alatas (2001) itemised the problems that beset the social sciences in Southeast Asia and elsewhere as follows:
1. There is a Eurocentric bias in that ideas, models, problem select ion, methodologies, techniques and even research priorities continue to originate from American, British, and to some extent, French and German works.
2. There is little generation of original ideas in terms of new theoretical perspectives or schools of thought or innovations in
‘
3. There is a general neglect of local literary and philosophical traditions. This is not to say that there are no studies on local literature or philosophy. The point is that these traditions remain as objects of study and are not considered as sources of concepts in the social sciences. Furthermore, they are rarely studied by social scientists.
4. The above problems exist within the context of intellectual imperialism, that is, the intellectual domination of the Third World by the social science powers (United States, Britain, France and Germany).
Development Communication that has guided much of the development theory and practice in the development countries since World War 11.
Research and projects addressing development communication flourished during the first development decade in the 1960s. The work of Daniel Lerner (1958), Wilbur Schramm (1964), Everett Rogers (1962, 1969) and many others such as Fredrick Frey, Lucien Pye and Lakshmana.
Development‘s primary focus on economic growth has ignored other crucial non-material aspect of human needs. Further, economic development aid has contributed to much corruption and large gaps between the western and the wealthy elite and masses in the development countries.
Charges of gender bias, ethnocentrism and even racism abound in the literature of development studies and development communication as well.
Increasingly, scholars have debated the value, purpose and meaning of communication for development.
Development Communication
its people from poverty to a dynamic state of economic growth that makes possible greater social equality and the larger fulfillment of the human potential‖ (Quebral, 2006; Currin, 2002).
At each level (social, economic, political) information flow and communication play an important development role (Agunga, 1997).
Without an adequate two-way flow of information and dialogue between periphery and center-exchange of knowledge, market information, political dialogue-development is unlikely to take place. Communication can link individuals and communities, go vernme nt s and c it ize ns in part ic ipat or y and shared decision-making. As a concept, development communication stems from the belief that telephones, radio, television, the Internet, or group media can support the overall betterment of less privileged people in underdeveloped countries. In other words, development communication generally refers to the planned use of strategies and processes of communications aimed at achieving development.
This focus on development communication has led researchers to examine communication in five general areas. Agricultural communication explores ways in which governments can use the diffusion of innovation theories to promote farming techniques. Health communication includes information about health, family planning, HIV/AIDS prevention, and so on. Population, education, and environment communication utilises strategies of education on these issues. Challenging the status quo in civil society promotes the various kinds of participatory communication for the empowerment of local peoples. And challenging social structures uses similar tools to educate, for example, the lower castes in India (Srampickal J, 2006).
programmes, and so forth. They can educate people on these issues, in an appealing and convincing way (Srampickal J, 2006).
The y ca n cr eat e a des ire fo r bet t er liv es a mo ng underdeveloped people. But mass media do not work magically. In fact, a number of recent empirical studies indicate that the mass media in themselves do not help development as much as participatory media do (Hornik, 1988; Wilkins, 1999; Servaes, 1989; Jacobson &Servaes, 1999).
A fairly comprehensive review of 209 development communication studies from 1958 to 1996 (Fair & Shah, 1997) downplays the role of media in either individual modernisation or social change. In sum, the mass media provide a vast reservoir of knowledge and information, serve as tools for development, and complement other approaches (Srampickal J, 2006).
Taking a cue from the two step flow theory, several groups have realised the importance of participatory group media as the ideal tool to create awareness and lead to change of attitudes. This takes many forms. Non-formal education rooted in the culture of the people using various indigenous media like popular theater and other cultural programmes can help to create a civil consciousness and subsequent desire for development. Group media or more precisely participatory indigenous media, which allow for participant involvement in production, like street plays, puppetry, and so on, can, through participatory action, through the very process of making the presentation, help in creating an awareness that leads to action (Srampickal J, 2006).
The mass media can play a role in development by exposing governmental and other forms of corruption. But this is a two-edged sword. Normally, as Bruck and Roach observe, the media‘s tendency to pick up on the sensational, dramatic, disastrous, dangerous, or the negative in general, leads many people to become generally skeptical of, if not hostile toward, the media. And this puts the media in the position of being seen as one of the main obstacles to the creation of a culture of successful development stories (1993).
In the field of development communication we now face a critical juncture. We are inundated with enthusiastic assessments of our shift from an industrial to an information age, where global knowledge takes precedence over national development. . . . [But] serious problems such as poverty, malnutrition, over- population, inequality, and environmental degradation remain. Despite being designed to resolve these social problems through the strategic application of communication technologies and processes, develop-ment communication programmes for the most part have failed to achieve the ir object ives. . . . [T]he burdens o f glo bal commercialisation and development privatisation have weighed heavily on the potential of development communication to foster significant social change. (2000)
Development communication that claims Paulo Freire as an inspiration links awareness raising, politicisation, and organisation processes (Richards, Thomas, & Nain, 2001).
According to his more influential model (1970b), development communication can be considered as a tool that the grassroots can use to assert control through becoming aware of the various facets of the real development problems in their region; organising in order to react collectively and effectively to these problems; bringing to light the conflicts that divide the various interest groups; becoming politicised -learning to provide alternatives to problem situations and finding solutions to various problems; and becoming ―technicised‖—obtaining the necessary tools to put to concrete use the solutions provided by the community.
Development communication scholars and practitioners still tend to be split between those who view communication as an organisat io nal de livery syst em versus t ho se who view communication more broadly, as inseparable from culture and from all facets of social change.
often the process of persuasive marketing.
In contrast, critical frameworks reject marketing models that spread and support Western technologies and economic and politics values. Critical perspectives also view persuasive campaigns as relative and potentially view harmful, with inadequate attention to the culture context in which people live.
Fo r t ho s e w it h c r it ic a l p e r s p e ct ive , d eve lo p me nt communication is a process of consensus building and resistance. It is not a linear process, but must be historically grounded, culturally sensitive and multifaceted with attention to all political, economic and ideological structures and processes that comprise society.
The global consciousness needs new worldviews and frameworks that transcend older intellectual t yrannies. The Philosophy of Western development framework portrays the development communicat ion and its dynamic conceptual frameworks as a simple, linear, European development in which the rest of the globe played no role. This would be contrary to c o m mu n ic a t io n . I t is i n fa c t fa ls e c o m m u n ic a t io n .
The State
The role of elite and the state bureaucrat in developing countries has greatly enhanced the spread of this development model. Left it on its own, development would have made little headway across the globe. That it did eventually get moving was due purely to the coercive power of the new nation-state which now assumed, in addition to their earlier controlling function, a conducting function as well. Every nation-state stepped in voluntarily to force development, often with the assistance of police and magistrates (Alvares, 1992).
In addition, state-induced violence and authoritarianism is well-known fact. Scholars such as AshisNandy (1992), posit that today the coercive power of governments to control their populations or wage against others comes from the application of sophisticated scientific method.
the theory of development and progress (Nandy, 1992).
The State plays several roles in development communication. First, it can resist movements that limit the development of its people. If it abandons its economy, politics, culture, or control of information flow to global autonomies, the state has essentially surrendered itself. This need not happen. Several states (Iran, Brazil, Canada, France, Korea, Ireland) are aware of this and have thwarted total globalisation: their strategy maintains a bifocal approach that considers the multifaceted relationship between states and globalisation in studies of communication and development (Waisbord, 2003).
Second, one of the crucial tests to media‘s serving development is the government‘s attitude to media in general. If the government has allowed transnational media to come and dominate, or allowed local media institutions to take to mindless entertainment and serve the interests of the market economy, it is hard to use the very same media to serve development needs.
For instance, television started in Malaysia in 1963 with the sole purpose of transmitting development messages, like the importance of cleanliness, preserving drinking water, avoiding dangerous sicknesses, etc. But within six months the same channel began showing entertainment like ―Here is Lucy‖ for city dwellers. Here again, the people showed more interest in the Sunday feature film and avoided the educational programmes shown on the weekdays. Later Malaysian television even experimented with the entainment-education also called edu-tainment format.
But then later with the market being conquered by multinational media, the national television, too, followed the lines of market economy. In such a situation, it is almost meaningless to talk of the national media supporting development.
Some governments tried to resist or limit such cultural invasion; this formed the backdrop to the UNESCO debates of the 1970s and the MacBride report. Many governments criticised any limitation on the flow of information, arguing that it limits the freedom of the media or follows an authoritarian theory of the press.
developing countries governments have tried to init iate development programmes using the media, but they faced a medley of problems involving social, political, and religious issues.
It was no accident that these high-yielding varieties came into being. For this to happen, research institutes had to be established, scientist employed, distribution system developed and financial arranged. This network of research institutions, corporate interest and philanthropies emerged as a response to political situations. It sought to solve problems. What were these situations? How were those problems defined? What were the goals?
If we are to understand the forces that still dramatically influence agriculture, these are some of the questions that must be answered.
Definition of Decolonisation
I n a n i n t e r v i e w i n a w e b s it e n a m e d R e l i g io u s c o p e (www. religion.info) Prof Dr Syed FaridAlatas said decolonising knowledge simply stand on the premise that our minds have been colonisd in various ways. And we have to liberate our mind and its processes.
Some people, a lot of people, do not use the term decolonising knowledge, nowadays. They use other terminology, but all of them have almost the same thing in mind. Some people use decolonising knowledge in the metaphorical sense; they don't think the mind is virtually colonised. Throughout the Third world, there are various movements, speaking about developing some kind of alternative to the dominant western social sciences.
Some call it decolonisation of knowledge, others call it indigenisation. Some call it nationalisation, even some to the ex-treme called it deconstruction. In Taiwan, there was a movement to Sinicise social sciences. In some Muslim circles, it is Islamisation of knowledge, which is also about dewesternisation. Christians have developed Christian social sciences.
very vague. In many of the cases, the problem is they don't actually do indigenisation or islamisation, rather they talk about it. But what does it exactly mean? There is a need for clarity. Is it about using indigenous or Islamisation terms? Does indigenisationor Islamisationmean rejecting western social sciences or western concepts? Is it a problem that to be met in the level of epistemology or methodology or theories? These things are to be worked out by the people who talk about the need for indigenisation or Islamisation.
I would like to take an analogy to this, an analogy of agriculture in relation developmental communication, which is closely related to decolonisation.
Between the 1940s and 1960s, international crop breeding institutes were established in Mexico and the Philippines with the objectives of increasing ―food supplies as quickly and directly as possible.‖ The high-yielding varieties they produced promised a green revolution in the restless and hungry countryside of the Third World.
While the humanitarian goals of feeding are obvious, a major part of the impetus behind the promotion of green revolution lay in the desire to forestall revolutions of another colour. China was being ―lost to the communist‖. The British were fighting communists on the Malay Peninsula. There was trouble in the Philippines. The French were in the process of losing Indochina. The US-back government in Korea was dealing with rural uprising. And in Mexico, the Cardenas government had expropriated Standard Oil and become distinctly hostile to large holders.
The US government responded with military measures: troops in Korea, and military assistance in Indo-China and the Philippines. But it was recognised that these problems stemmed from rural discontent, and rural discontent stemmed from hunger. Hunger was the ally of the communists (Fowler and Mooney,1990).
Closely linked with goal of quieting political opposition in the countryside was the need to open up these rural areas to trade and development. William Myers, dean of the School of Agriculture at Cornell University and a Rockefeller Foundation trustee, return from a trip to Mexican economy was ―handicapped by hundreds of thousands of un-economic farm units…‖
In a letter to the president of the Rockefeller Foundation that year, Myers reported that ―these small farms cannot make use of improved agronomic practices because they have no surplus above family needs to sell to finance such improvements.‖
The Rockefeller Foundation, long active in Third World rural health, educational and agriculture programmess was encouraged by Myers to play a key role in developing the agriculture-oriented responses to the political crises of the 1950s and 1960s. The foundation has no interest in organising peasants or in land reform – the topics on the minds of the rural poor (Fowler and Mooney,1990).
The approach was similar in Asia. At the top of the priority list was rebuilding the College of Agriculture at the University of the Philippines. The foundation gave Cornell University a major grant for establishing a Southeast Asia. That same year (1952), the US Mutual Security Agency offered a contract to Cornell to develop the agriculture school at the University of the Philippines. Cornell had already been invited to establish agriculture colleges in Thailand. Between 1951 and 1960, over six hundred Thais were given agriculture training courtesy of the US government.
The Conceptual Basis of Development Journalism
The concept of development journalism in the Third World or the South is caught up in the historical evolution of the theory of development communication. This theory can be postulated in three historical moments, each with its own basic assumptions.
perspective (Banda, 2003). The ‗modernisation‘ approach to and socio-political culture of modernity from the developed North to the Third World.It found its coherent articulation in Everett M Rogers‘ ‗diffusion of innovations‘ perspective (Banda, 2003). The ‗modernisation‘ approach to development, described as the ‗dominant paradigm‘ by Rogers (Shah, 1996), is represented by such scholars as Walt W Rostow (1960), Everett M Rogers (1962) and Daniel Lerner (1958), who posit development communication as an engine of change from the ‗traditional‘ to the ‗modern‘ society. According to Fjes (Melkote, 1991), ―it was generally assumed that a nation became truly modern and developed when it arrived at the point where it closely resembled Western industrial nations in terms of political and economic behaviour and institu-tional attitudes towards technology and innovation, and social and psychic mobility.‖
The second historical moment is the dependency-dissociation paradigm. This approach to development communication (and therefore development journalism) is associated with the elevation of the aspirations of the newly independent nations of the Third World for political, economic and cultural self-determination and an ideological distancing from Western forms of modernisation (Servaes, 2004; Servaes, 1991; Servaes, 2002).
The model is characterised by three mechanisms for ‗modernising‘ the ‗traditional society‘: psycho -sociological, institutional and technological.
The ‗psycho-sociological‘ mechanism entails ‗empathy‘, or the capacity to see oneself in the other fellow‘s situation, which is an indispensable skill for people moving out of traditional settings. According to Lerner (1958), there is a correlation between the expansion of economic activity being equated with ‗development‘ and a set of ‗modernising‘ variables, chief among which are urbanisat ion, lit eracy, mass media use, and democrat ic participation.
the innovations espoused by change agents. It is clear that this mechanism was influenced to a large extent by the two-step flow model of media influence, with the notion of 'opinion leaders' playing a key role in bringing about modernising practices among their fellow citizens.
Secondly, the diffusion approach looks to the mass media as an ‗institutional‘ nexus of modernising practices and institutions in society, functioning as ‗watchdogs‘, ‗policymakers‘ and ‗teachers for change and modernisation‘ (Shramm, 1964). This approach further holds that traditional societies would have to go through a five-stage model of transition from a traditional economy to a modern industrial complex: the traditional society, preconditions for take-off, take-off, drive to maturity, and the age of high mass consumption (Rostow, 1960).
Orientation was a reflection of a broader political agenda of ‗non-alignment‘ espoused by the new states in Africa and Asia. These nations shared the idea of independence from the superpowers and formed the Non-Aligned Nations. This movement, whose philosophy was to keep out of the Cold War between the West and the then Soviet Union, played an important role in the debate on a new world information and communication order (NWICO) (Servaes, 2004).
Thirdly, ‗technological‘ advances would, according to this model, assist the shift towards the modern society. Technology, in and of itself, is thus treated as another driving force for development. Technology was seen as pivotal to the growth of productive agricultural and industrial sectors and therefore the transfer of technical know-how from the developed North was seen as extremely crucial for development in the Third World nations (Melkote, 1991).
As Dr Mustafa K. Anuar said journalism as a field of study and profession in Malaysia still commands a substantial following among university students for various reasons, among which are a passion for writing, an interest in politics, a stepping stone to public relations, and, as if not to be outdone, the opportunity to rub shoulders with the powerful and the glamorous.
the state‘s policies for ‗national development‘. This implies that journalism in Malaysia ought to be taught and practised with the government‘s socio-economic development objectives in mind. Such an approach to journalism runs parallel with the view of for-mer Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed that journalism ‗should be constructive, consensual and development-oriented‘ (Loo, www.rthk.org.hk/mediadigest/md9810/oct_ 05.html).
Dr Mustafa said the government‘s perception of journalism as one of the state‘s apparatus dates back to the 1960s.
He added that the Malaysian media were, and still are, perceived as vital agents of social change and national develop-ment – or ―modernisation‖ as conceptualised by political communication scientists in the United States such as Wilbur Schramm and Daniel Lerner in the 60s. They propelled the notion that the mass media were an important tool to stimulate people in developing countries to change their attitudes and traditions, which were perceived to hinder socio-economic progress. The people of the developing world were therefore encouraged to emulate, nay empathise, with the economic ethos and lifestyle of the industrialised West.
Such was the importance accorded to the mass media, and by extension journalists, that most leaders of the newly independent countries justified their control of the media - via a combination of ambiguous media regulations, political patronage, threats of defamation suits - in the name of socio-economic development and political stability.
In addition, power of the media to influence the public and create a perception provided Malaysian political leaders with grounds to regulate the media – the common one being if the media fell into ‗the wrong hands‘, especially one that is multiethnic and multicultural. In reality,what this means is that the ruling elite would periodically monitor and exert control of the mainstream mass media to ensure that their vested interests can be served by the media particularly during political crises. The Bersih 1 and Bersih 2 demonstrations shown the political bias of media aligned with the political parties of the government.
Malaysia experienced double-digit growth rates. This is to say that the national emphasis on socio-economic development imperatives often precludes the equally crucial need to promote important issues of social justice and participatory democracy (Loh, 2002). It is generally assumed that the primary function of the mass media in Malaysia is to help the government impart information and disseminate its policies for the betterment of the population in general. This functionalist perspective is problematic as it assumes that the media, like any other social institutions, play their respective roles and also compete with each other on an equal footing without any one of them pre-dominating. The unequal power relations in most societies doesn‘t square with this simplistic assertion or expectation.
The amicable, if not compromising, relationship between the Malaysian media and the state is couched under the blanketed concept of ‗development journalism‘, which took roots in other developing countries such as the Philippines and Indonesia in the 70s (Lent, 1979). JakobOetama (1989) founder and publisher of
Indonesia‘s highest circulated daily, Kompas, points out that
development journalism involves the reporting of both the successes and failures of government projects. The reporting of failed projects, for instance, is to help the state and the people concerned reassess the realities so that the same mistake does not recur and unnecessary wastage of public funds averted.
Over the years, however, this normat ive concept of development journalism has been corrupted to serve the interests of the ruling elites, thereby giving rise to news reports that only present a glowing picture of the state, while steering clear of in-depth analysis of failed government projects or public corruption.
development imperatives often precludes the equally crucial need to promote important issues of social justice and participatory democracy (Loh, 2002).
Communication thus becomes more ―concerned with process and context, that is on the exchange of ‗meanings‘, and on the importance of this process, namely, the social relational patterns and social institutions that are the result of and are determined by the process‖ (Servaes [sa]). ‗Another communication‘ thus favours what McQuail has referred to as ‗multiplicity, smallness of scale, locality, de-institutionalisation, interchange of sender- receiver roles and horizontality of communication links at all levels of society‘ (McQuail, 1987). In a sense, this is a shift from the positivist- instrumentalist approach of the modernisation paradigm to a model that is less quantitative, and more qualitative and normative (Melkote, 1991).
Seen as an extension of Paulo Freire‘s dialogical pedagogy, p a r t ic ip a t o r y c o m mu n ic a t io n be c o me s a p r o c e s s o f ‗conscientisation‘ in which dialogue is both more receiver-centred and more conscious of social structure. Freire (1996) argues that in the traditional pedagogical systems, the receivers were supposed to be uncritical and passive, ingesting the world view of the elites and then perceiving their problems and needs in terms of the elite-dominated rationality. He called for a new dialogical peda-gogy in which the receiver would be liberated from his/her mental inertia, penetrate the ideological mist imposed by the elites and perceive the realities of his/her existence. It is within the context of this conscientisation that theory can be appropriated as praxis for social and political transformation (Habermas, 1974).
Development Journalism Defined
development journalism has the following tasks: (i) to motivate the audience to actively cooperate in development; and (ii) to defend the interests of those concerned.
The credibility of journalism is crucial for the success of this project. Journalism thus needs to be decentrally and participatively structured to counteract the metropolis-trend in the various social processes (Wimmer& Wolf, 2005).
This view of a journalism that is socially and intellectually engaged is supported by Shah (1996) who represents it as ‗emancipatory journalism‘, which he claims offers a ‗more complete and complex‘ perspective on the relationship between mass media and society in the context of the Third World. It is more complete because it provides a theoretical link between citizen access to mass media and social change that articulates a specific mechanism by which journalists can participate in social change. It is more complex because it incorporates principles of diversity and fluidity in the process of building cultural identities and communities and challenges journalistic practice by abandoning the idea of objectivity.
The foregoing notion of development journalism actually resonates with other forms of journalism invoked in academic literature. For example, one can readily detect the notion of a subjective journalistic engagement in the emergence of the so-called ‗public‘ or ‗civic‘ or citizen journalism movement in the early 1990s. This was in response to the widening gaps between government and citizens, and between news organisations and their audiences.
The declines in voters participation in political elections, and in civic participation in local community activism and issues, were cited as evidence of widespread withdrawal by citizens from democratic processes.
Steiner, 2006).
In fact, some scholars are keen to explicate the philosophical similarity between development journalism and public journalism. For example, Gunaratne (1996) argues that there is a conceptual synergy betweendevelopment journalism as championed by the International Commission on the Study of Communication Problems (the McBride Commission) and public journalism. He contends that the apparent silence on the connection between the two concepts might be due to the unwillingness by public journalism proponents to revive the debate on the NWICO which so incensed the US and Britain as to make them leave UNESCO. The point to underscore is that there is a clear conceptual harmony between the two approaches.
Development News Defined
For Shah‘s, ‗emancipatory journalism‘ perspective, sees development journalism as consisting in ‗news‘ that: should examine critically, evaluate and interpret the relevance of development plans, projects, policies, problems, and issues.
It should indicate the disparities between plans and actual accomplishments, and include comparisons with how development is progressing in other countries and regions. It also should provide contextual and background information about the development process, discuss the impact of plans, projects, policies, problems, and issues on people, and speculate about the future of development. And development news should refer to the needs of people, which may vary from country to country or from region to region, but generally include primary needs, such as food, housing, employment; secondary needs such as transportation, energy sources and electricity; and tertiary needs such as cultural diversity, recognition and dignity (Wimmer& Wolf, 2005).
He calls for ‗social development‘ - enhanced literacy, accessible and affordable health care, the empowerment of women, and the free flow of information (my emphasis) - as necessary precursors of the kind of development most economists are concerned about, namely: increase in gross national product, rise in personal incomes, industrialisation, and technological advance (Human Rights Watch, 2006).
It can be argued, therefore, that development journalism, following Sen‘s observation, should also focus on the extent to which ‗freedom‘ (of conscience, expression, assembly, media, etc.) is actualised in the lives of citizens. This will clearly be a departure from the kind of development journalism envisaged by postcolonial political elites in the Third World. But it is a fuller expression of development journalism. This holistic approach to development seems consistent with the ten proposals of development journalism posited by Galtung and Vincent (Gunaratne, 1996):
Whenever there is a reference to development, the development journalists should try to make it concrete in terms of human beings (Mustafa K. Anuar).
They should report people as subjects, actors and agents rather than as objects or victims with needs deficit.
*Development journalism should focus on more than economics because all other factors – military power, political power, cultural power, etc. – have to do with development in some way or other. Mere economic growth data will never do without accompanying dispersion data. In other words, development journalists must look at the income of the bottom 50 percent or 10 percent, as well as of the top (Mustafa K. Anuar, 2000).
*Development journalism should focus on both differences and relations within and between countries. For example, journalists should substantiate the relationship between the rich and the poor. How, for example, does a wage freeze affect wage earners in relation to business people? (Mustafa K. Anuar, 2000).
Development journalism should dwell on the dimension of democracy. Investigative journalism, for example, can serve as an aspect of the developmental role of the media (Mustafa K. Anuar, 2000).
*Development journalism should sometimes engage in ‗constructive‘ criticism, highlighting success stories, where necessary.
*Development journalism should allow for people to talk. A useful approach is for journalists to sit down with people from high to low discussing the meaning of development thereby generating an enormous range of visions, as well as how-to insights (Mustafa K. Anuar, 2000).
*Development journalism should sometimes let the people, more or less, run the media. This means giving people some media control, by, perhaps, enabling them to produce their own programmes (Mustafa K. Anuar, 2000).
*Development journalism lets people run more of society, and then reports on what happens. In other words, development journalists should report on people‘s movements and organisations, on people‘s struggles to construct, deconstruct and reconstruct social meanings for themselves. In a sense, development journalism becomes a recording of human existence, in all its manifestations (Mustafa K. Anuar, 2000).
Conclusion
There must be a rethink to rebut and decolonise or to the extreme deconstruct the concept of American development communication which has been inst itutionalised in Malaysia among the communication scholar and academicians in the local colleges and universities.
that has been determined by the contents and methodologies of American and European content. This can only work if credit be given to the locally published works by academicians for international publications.
References
Agunga, R. A. (1997).Developing the Third World: A Communication Approach. Commack, NY: Nova Science.
Currin, M. (2002). Communicating for Development: Unmediated Communication as a Vehicle for Improved Service Delivery and a Better Life for All. Retrieved April 8, 2006 from http://www.gcis.gov.za/mpcc/ini- tiative/documents/research/devcom.htm. Fisher, D. & Harms, L. S. (Eds.). (1983). TheRight to Communicate: A New Human Right.
Dublin: Boole Press.
Fowler, C & Mooney, P.(1990). Shattering: Food, Politics, and The Loss of Genetic Diversity, Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
Freire, P. (1970a).CulturalAction for Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review and Center for the Study of Development and Social Change.
Freire, P. (1970b). ThePedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Hamelink, C. (1994).ThePolitics of World Communication: A Human Rights Perspective.
Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Habermas, Jürgen and T. Burger (Translator) and F. Lawrence (Translator).(1991).The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.USA:The MIT Press.
Hornik, R. C. (1988).DevelopmentCommunication: Information, Agriculture, and Nutrition in the Third world. New York: Logan.
Jacobson, T. L. &Servaes, J. (Eds.). (1999). TheoreticalApproaches to Participatory
C o m m u n i c a t i o n . C r e s k i l l , N J : H a m p t o n .
Linden, A.(1998). Communication Policies and Human Rights in Third World Countries.Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Quebral, N.(2006). DevelopmentCommunication in a Borderless World.GlobalaTider, 3. Retrieved April 8, 2006 from http://webzone.k3.mah.se/projects/gt2 /viewarticle.aspx? articleID=40&issueID=0.
Wilkins, K.G. (1999). DevelopmentDiscourse on Gender andCommunication in Strategies for Social Change. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 46-68.
Habermas, Jürgen and T. Burger (Translator) and F. Lawrence (Translator).The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.The MIT Press.
Mustafa K. Anuar. (2000). Malaysian Media and Democracy. Media Asia and Asian Mass Communication Quarterly, 27(4): 183-189.
Melkote, S. R. (2003). Theories of Development Communication. In B. Mody (Ed.),
International and Development Communication: A 21st Century Perspective,
129-146. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Melkote, S. R &Steeves, H. L.(2001).Communication for Development in the Third World: Theory and Practice for Empowerment(2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Nandy, Ashis.(1992). Science, Hegemony and Violence: A Requiem for Modernity (ed). New York:Oxford UP.
Raju, C.K. (2011). Academic Imperialism. Penang: Multiversity and Citizens International. Richards, M., Thomas, P. N., Nain, Z. (Eds.). (2001). Communication and Development:
The Freirean Connection.Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Syed FaridAltas. (2001). Sari: Alternatives Discourses in South East Asia. Retrieved May 24, 2012 from http://www.ukm.my/penerbit/jsari19-03.pdf
Servaes, J. (1989).OneWorld, Multiple Cultures. Amersfoort: Acco.
Servaes, J. (1996a). Communication for Development in a Global Perspective: The Role of Governmental and Non-governmental Agencies. Communications, 21(4), 407-418. Servaes, J. (1996b). ParticipatoryCommunication and Research in Development Settings.In
J. Servaes, T. Jacobson, & S. A. White (Eds.), Participatory Communication for Social Change, 13-25. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Servaes, J. (1999). Communication for Development: One World, Multiple Cultures. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Servaes, J. (2000). Walking on the Other Side of the Information Highway: Communication, Culture, and Development in the 21st century. Penang: Southbound.
Servaes, J. (2001). Participatory Communication Research for Democracy and Social Change. In M. Richards, P. N. Thomas, & Z. Nain (Eds.), Communication and Development: The Freirean Connection, 13-43. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Servaes, J. (2005).Ideas and Ideologies in Development Communication: Mapping the
Paradigm Shift. Paper presented at the Department of Community Resource Management Extension, Delhi, India.
Shiva, V. (1993). Monoculture of the Mind:Perpectives of Biodiversities and Biotechnologies, Zed Books: London.
W aisbord, S.(2003). State, Development, and Communication. In B. Mody (Ed.),
International and Development Communication: A 21st Century Perspective, 147- 165. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
