Communication Rights
Background
With the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international community recognised the inherent dignity of all members of the human family by providing everyone with equal and inalienable rights. Communication rights are intrinsically bound up with the human condition and are based on a new, more powerful understanding of the implications of human rights and the role of communications. Without communication rights, human beings cannot live in freedom, justice, peace and dignity. The recognition of this universal human need has inspired us to set out a statement on communication rights based upon the key principles of Freedom, Inclusiveness, Diversity and Participation.
...
Communication rights remain for most of the world’s people a vision and an aspiration. They are not a reality on the ground. On the contrary, they are frequently and systematically violated. Governments must be constantly reminded that they are legally required under the human rights treaties they have ratified to implement, promote and protect communication rights. Communication rights are the expression of fundamental needs. The satisfaction of these needs requires a strong political will and the allocation of substantial resources. Lack of commitment to such resources serves only to deepen the global distrust of political institutions.
At the same time, full implementation of communication rights cannot depend only upon governments. Civil society has a key role to play in terms of advocacy for rights, in terms of monitoring and exposing rights abuse and in terms of educating and popularising rights.
Encouraging and facilitating people to assert these rights through different types of social action and to use them to realize the enormous potential of both the old and new technologies of media and communication, are vital tasks for all concerned people.
Excerpt from the Statement on Communication Rights.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
FUNDING GRANTS COMMUNITY ACCESS TV
Funding
GRANT SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION STATIONS
"A federal grant is an award of financial assistance from a federal agency to a recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States. Federal grants are not federal assistance or loans to individuals. Non-profit organizations, and government organizations like state governments, local governments, city or township governments, and special district governments are eligible to apply for government grants". (Grants.gov)
PEG Channels rely on grants to purchase capital expenditures for new equipment, and capital expenditures necessary to provide programming. "Successful grant writing involves the coordination of several activities, including planning, searching for data and resources, writing and packaging a proposal, submitting a proposal to a funder, and follow-up". (CPB Grant Proposal Writing Tips).
LIST OF TELEVISION GRANT PROVIDERS
• Grants.gov is your source to find and apply for federal government grants. Today, Grants.gov is a central storehouse for information on over 1,000 grant programs and provides access to approximately $400 billion in annual awards.
• Corporation For Public Broadcasting television grants are open to any station, person, or entity. The Greenhouse Fund competitively awards grants for industry training and professional development projects for public television professionals and independent producers.
• COS Funding Opportunities is a comprehensive database of more than 25,000 records representing over $33 billion in funding. Sponsors include private foundations, public agencies, national and local governments, corporations and more. Funding is offered for many purposes such as research, collaborations, travel, curriculum development, conferences, fellowships, postdoctoral positions, equipment acquisitions, capital or operating expenses.
• The Foundation for Technology Education (FTE) was established in 1986 as a nonprofit 501 (c )(3) organization, initiated a program of giving in 1993, in which awards are presented during the ITEA Annual Conference. FTE awards support programs that will: make our children technologically literate; transfer industrial and corporate research into our schools; produce models of excellence in technology teaching; create public awareness regarding the nature of technology education; and help technology teachers maintain a competitive edge in technology.
• The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation is a nonprofit, section 501(c)(3) philanthropic organization that seeks opportunities that can transform both communities and journalism, and help them reach their highest potential. The Knight Foundation wants to ensure that each community's citizens get the information they need to thrive in a democracy. The organization asks, as they evaluate opportunities and grants, "Is this truly transformational?" Nothing big happens without a big idea, and nothing new without a new idea.
• New Voices is a pioneering program to seed innovative community news ventures in the United States. Through 2008, New Voices is helping to fund the start-up of 40 micro-local news projects with $12,000 grants; support them with an educational Web site, and help foster their sustainability through $5,000 second-year matching grants. New Voices is administered by J-Lab at the University of Maryland and supported by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
• National Association of Broadcasters grant program is intended to fund research on economic, business, social, and policy issues important to station managers and other decision-makers in the U.S. commercial broadcast industry. To that end, NAB recently offered $25,000 in research grants to academics, graduate students and senior undergraduates undertaking studies to further the broadcast industry. Grant consideration is given to research proposals focusing on economic, business, social or policy issues important to U.S. radio and television stations.
• National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications (OTIA) assists public and non-profit entities in effectively using telecommunications and information technologies to better provide public services and advance other national goals. In addition, the office is administering programs that are helping the nation's transition to digital television.
• The Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) is a competitive grant program that helps public broadcasting stations, state and local governments, Indian Tribes, and nonprofit organizations construct facilities to bring educational and cultural programs to the American Public using broadcast and non-broadcast telecommunications technologies.
• Sony's company-wide philanthropic efforts reflect the diverse interests of their core businesses and focus on several distinct areas: arts education, arts and culture, health and human services, civic and community outreach, education, and volunteerism. While positive consideration is given to efforts that promote literacy and basic educational competency, the company also seeks to apply its financial, technological, and human resources to the encouragement of the creative, artistic, technical, and scientific skills required of tomorrow's workforce
Provided by PEGHUB.COM
GRANT SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY ACCESS TELEVISION STATIONS
"A federal grant is an award of financial assistance from a federal agency to a recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States. Federal grants are not federal assistance or loans to individuals. Non-profit organizations, and government organizations like state governments, local governments, city or township governments, and special district governments are eligible to apply for government grants". (Grants.gov)
PEG Channels rely on grants to purchase capital expenditures for new equipment, and capital expenditures necessary to provide programming. "Successful grant writing involves the coordination of several activities, including planning, searching for data and resources, writing and packaging a proposal, submitting a proposal to a funder, and follow-up". (CPB Grant Proposal Writing Tips).
LIST OF TELEVISION GRANT PROVIDERS
• Grants.gov is your source to find and apply for federal government grants. Today, Grants.gov is a central storehouse for information on over 1,000 grant programs and provides access to approximately $400 billion in annual awards.
• Corporation For Public Broadcasting television grants are open to any station, person, or entity. The Greenhouse Fund competitively awards grants for industry training and professional development projects for public television professionals and independent producers.
• COS Funding Opportunities is a comprehensive database of more than 25,000 records representing over $33 billion in funding. Sponsors include private foundations, public agencies, national and local governments, corporations and more. Funding is offered for many purposes such as research, collaborations, travel, curriculum development, conferences, fellowships, postdoctoral positions, equipment acquisitions, capital or operating expenses.
• The Foundation for Technology Education (FTE) was established in 1986 as a nonprofit 501 (c )(3) organization, initiated a program of giving in 1993, in which awards are presented during the ITEA Annual Conference. FTE awards support programs that will: make our children technologically literate; transfer industrial and corporate research into our schools; produce models of excellence in technology teaching; create public awareness regarding the nature of technology education; and help technology teachers maintain a competitive edge in technology.
• The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation is a nonprofit, section 501(c)(3) philanthropic organization that seeks opportunities that can transform both communities and journalism, and help them reach their highest potential. The Knight Foundation wants to ensure that each community's citizens get the information they need to thrive in a democracy. The organization asks, as they evaluate opportunities and grants, "Is this truly transformational?" Nothing big happens without a big idea, and nothing new without a new idea.
• New Voices is a pioneering program to seed innovative community news ventures in the United States. Through 2008, New Voices is helping to fund the start-up of 40 micro-local news projects with $12,000 grants; support them with an educational Web site, and help foster their sustainability through $5,000 second-year matching grants. New Voices is administered by J-Lab at the University of Maryland and supported by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
• National Association of Broadcasters grant program is intended to fund research on economic, business, social, and policy issues important to station managers and other decision-makers in the U.S. commercial broadcast industry. To that end, NAB recently offered $25,000 in research grants to academics, graduate students and senior undergraduates undertaking studies to further the broadcast industry. Grant consideration is given to research proposals focusing on economic, business, social or policy issues important to U.S. radio and television stations.
• National Telecommunications and Information Administration's Office of Telecommunications and Information Applications (OTIA) assists public and non-profit entities in effectively using telecommunications and information technologies to better provide public services and advance other national goals. In addition, the office is administering programs that are helping the nation's transition to digital television.
• The Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) is a competitive grant program that helps public broadcasting stations, state and local governments, Indian Tribes, and nonprofit organizations construct facilities to bring educational and cultural programs to the American Public using broadcast and non-broadcast telecommunications technologies.
• Sony's company-wide philanthropic efforts reflect the diverse interests of their core businesses and focus on several distinct areas: arts education, arts and culture, health and human services, civic and community outreach, education, and volunteerism. While positive consideration is given to efforts that promote literacy and basic educational competency, the company also seeks to apply its financial, technological, and human resources to the encouragement of the creative, artistic, technical, and scientific skills required of tomorrow's workforce
Provided by PEGHUB.COM
Sunday, April 11, 2010
A FOREIGN APPROACH TO COMMUNITY
I thought this article showed how the mainstream media operates in different countries and what restrictions they have to deal with thus having great effects on the communities both by building or destroying communities.
The United Nations’ role in Arab media
A voice for the community?
The United Nations has always demonstrated an interest in the Arab world and emphasised the need to find solutions for the political and social issues related to the area. The recent report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Arab Human Development Report 2003 (AHDR), is a reflection of this. According to this report, ‘[i]n most Arab countries, the media operate in an environment that sharply restricts freedom of the press and freedom of expression and opinion ... Censorship is rife and newspapers and television channels are sometimes arbitrarily closed down. Most media institutions are state-owned, particularly radio and television’ (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.3). The AHDR focuses on the lack of freedom in the Arab information environment.
Other reports also emphasise the need for the development of Arab media to promote and practice democracy, such as The Sana’a Declaration 2004, which was issued by the Inter-Governmental Regional Conference on Democracy, Human Rights and the Role of the International Criminal Court, held in Sana’a, Yemen, on 10-12 January 2004. The declaration stipulates that:
A free and independent media is essential for the promotion and protection of democracy and human rights. Pluralism in the media and its privatization are vital for contributing to the dissemination of human rights information, facilitating informed public participation, promoting tolerance and contributing to governmental accountability. The media should contribute effectively and responsibly towards the strengthening of democracy and human rights knowledge.
This report came as a continuation to The Sana’a Declaration 1999, which was issued at the end of the Emerging Democracies Forum held in Sana’a in July 1999, and which states that ‘[p]ublic participation in democratic decision making is enhanced by providing for private ownership of media and ensuring the impartiality of state-owned media through independent boards or other means’.
In light of these declarations, there clearly is awareness for the need to reform current Arab media practices to ensure that the media serve the people and in turn the people’s voice is heard. However there are no clear directions on how this reform is to be achieved and what form of media policy needs to be implemented.
Although there is a noticeable emerging public sphere as a result of new media technologies, there remains a significant digital divide. The internet ‘has created a small but important space for open debate. Of course the readers of … [the internet] represent the more educated sectors and are not fully representative of whole Arab societies’ (Hamzawy 2005, p.B07). The AHDR states that ‘the low number of Internet users in Arab countries is due to a number of factors, the most important of which are: computer and Internet illiteracy, the high cost of the lines used and high personal computer prices and access fees’ (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.64). Media channels need to be accessible to the majority of the people regardless of their social conditions.
There is a need for creating a space in the Arab media environment for a third media player, alongside government and commercial media, as a licensed community based broadcaster and press. It is worth considering therefore the Arab media setting and the possibility of the emergence of a third tier of media, where the community can freely aspire to freedom of speech that the AHDR requests. Third-sector media organisations, with the support of the community, can rise to fill a gap in the local Arab information environment. The economist Burton Weisbrod notes that not-for-profit organisations are funded by people who want more of a particular product or a different feature, and are prepared to pay for it (Weisbrod 1997). When the community owns the media, this logically leads to democracy. Community media are the citizens’ media.
However, before the question of the emergence of community media in the Arab world is raised, it is necessary to comprehend the current Arab media landscape in the face of a rapidly changing media environment.
Liberty of expression
The Arab media landscape has changed dramatically in the past 10 years, with particular emphasis on the growth of television satellite channels. Mamoun Fandy believes that despite the emergence of modern means of communication, there is still a disjunction between this phenomenon and the reality of Arab politics and societies (Fandy 2000, p.379). Naomi Sakr emphasises that Arab media are highly politicised and that accordingly government-controlled local media makes the coverage of local issues limited. Sakr states that ‘[s]atellite channels are aimed at the widest possible audience. They cannot do what the national terrestrial media should be doing. To sum up: the Arab media landscape has been revitalised but some more new elements, which are essential to free expression, have yet to emerge’ (Sakr 2003).
According to the AHDR, the media in the Arab world does not hold independent sources of information due to the media depending mainly on foreign sources of information. They rely on western news agencies, as news agencies in the Arab world are ‘stateowned and oriented to serve and promote state policies’ (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.60). Another issue that the AHDR highlights is the fact that:
[N]ews reports themselves tend to be narrative and descriptive, rather than investigative or analytic, with a concentration on immediate and partial events and facts. This is generally true of newspapers, radio bulletins and televised news. The news is often presented as a succession of isolated events, without in-depth explanatory coverage or any effort to place events in the general, social, economic and cultural context. (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.61)
These are common issues that mark the media in the Arab world and tend to lead to a media landscape that lacks the ability at this stage to provide a liberal, independent and local form of broadcasting. Although there is a growing phenomenon of privately owned media outlets, most Arab media institutions remain state-owned. Nevertheless any operating media enterprise is subject to state control, an issue that jeopardises freedom of thought and reasoning. In an area of high political activity this is crucial.
According to Edward Said, ‘[n]o society is entirely free of control over thought and expression, though not all such control is instituted and maintained by the government’ (Said 1996). Nevertheless, liberalism has defied the degree of government control and relied on the concept of civil society. The term ‘civil society’ often ‘refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market …’ (What is Civil Society? 2005). Community broadcasting, as a third tier in the international media landscape, has become the voice of the people independent of private or state-owned media.
International Models of Community Media
In developing countries, community radio is seen as a powerful tool for conflict management and resolution. It acts as a potential agent for social change, and is perceived as an engine for democratisation. It is also an important tool for development. With a high rate of illiteracy in many developing regions, radio is in many circumstances the only affordable medium reaching large audiences. A distrust of government or state-owned public media in some countries has sanctioned the emergence of local community radio stations. In the West, community radio plays a smaller role in the wide media landscape, but it aims to realise targeted needs of certain community groups (Community Radio 2004).
Around the globe, grass-roots establishments have formed their own means of communication where the needed financial means could be obtained (World Broadcasting 2002). Community radio can thus be seen as part of a broader struggle for access to communications media. The idea of a right to communicate has gained support in the past 25 years and ‘includes the principles of access, participation and self-management in communications’ (Lewis 1984, p.17), which is based on a conception of media as instruments for social groups to reproduce and represent cultural identity, to voice social and economic demands and to create new social relations.
Until relatively recently South Africa had a tightly controlled broadcasting environment that was monopolised by the state-controlled South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). In 1988 the Film and Allied Workers Organization (FAWO) was formed to focus on how to free the broadcasting environment from the effects of apartheid and to encourage a progressive broadcasting culture that offers a diversity of voices from a broad range of communities (Dowmunt 1993, p.90). Since the early 1990s, following the democratisation of the Republic of South Africa, the airwaves have been opened up. Community radio is rapidly being recognised as playing an important role in the development of civil society in South Africa by widely reaching the poor (ICASA 2003).
In Ireland community radio was a product of a pilot project that was established by the Irish Radio and Television Commission (IRTC) in 1994. This resulted in the licensing of 11 stations that were originally only allowed to broadcast until the end of 1996 but were then granted a one-year extension. The project led to the conclusion by the IRTC that community radio is a vital sector of Irish broadcasting (Price-Davies & Tacchi 2001, pp.38-40).
Italy’s Radio Popolare is an interesting model of community-based media due to its early experience in the democratisation of broadcasting. Radio Popolare began broadcasting in 1976 in Milan. During the 1980s the station moved away from its links to left organisations and trade unions to adopt a more independent stance. It was born of the convergence of interests between the broad and extreme left and the parliamentary left, in the autonomy of information (La Storia 2002). It is now considered to be one of the most important independent sources of information in the country.
As a result of its commitment to the public interest, Radio Popolare functions as a community radio station despite operating on a commercial licence, as all profit made is returned to the station; it is thus acting as a non-profit organisation. Radio Popolare started off as commercial radio, but, not wanting to rely on advertising alone, the station called on its audience to support Popolare by buying shares. Shares were issued to create a democratic structure in which the shareholders of Radio Popolare would have a say in the policy of the station (Laureys 2002). Starting from the early 1990s, Radio Popolare became controlled by the cooperation of workers and collaborators. Around 12,000 shareholders own 40,000 stocks of the company; this is an indication of the importance of listener support for the station.
Based on an interview conducted by Francois Laureys with the station director Marcello Lorrai in January 1999, one of the most popular programs broadcast on Popolare since 1976 is Microfono Aperto (Open Microphone), in which listeners respond via talkback to specific themes related to the news, involving the community at a time when talkback radio was not common.
In 1981 Radio Popolare established a network to exchange news programs with other radio stations elsewhere in Italy. This service started out with radio stations around Milan, and since 1995 the network has expanded via satellite to most of the major cities in north and central Italy. Currently 20 Italian radio stations make up the Popolare network, in Rome, Florence, Bologna, Venice, Verona, Torino and Bari. Stations from southern Italy were not included as there were fewer in quantity and most had extremely low budgets. However, Popolare aims to expand the network both geographically and in terms of input by raising the quantity and quality of regional news (Laureys 2002). Radio Popolare could serve as an example of the development of community radio on a commercial-based licence.
Yet there are some community stations that are continuously struggling in the face of government control. According to an article entitled Community Radio Muzzled by Stefania Milan, a Brazilian community radio station called Radio Restinga was shutdown in 2004 in Porto Alegre. In March 2004 only one frequency for community broadcasting was allocated in Brazil by a federal resolution. From around 5,500 and 10,000 community radios in Brazil, Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) only recognises 2,620 active radio channels, which include community radio stations (Community Radio Network 2005). According to Stefania Milan, the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) is preparing a campaign for the government to grant the Brazilians the right to communicate (Community Radio Network 2005).
As part of The Milan Declaration 1998, AMARC calls for ‘[i]nternational recognition of the community broadcasting sector as an essential form of public service broadcasting and a vital contributor to media pluralism and freedom of expression and information’. It is vital that freedom of expression in the form of community broadcasting continues to be encouraged and supported by the international community.
Australian/Arab Community Media
The establishment of Arabic community-based programming can be seen in the example of ethnic community radio in Australia, where, by comparison, there are fewer restrictions on programming content and more opportunity for a democratic outlook. There have been successful examples of Arabic community broadcasting in Australia, such as Melbourne Ethnic Community Radio – 3ZZZ.
As an ethnic community radio station, 3ZZZ services 58 ethnic communities with specialist programming. 3ZZZ started broadcasting on a regular basis in June 1989. Working from studios in the Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy, the station broadcasts 24 hours a day. It is estimated that more than 400,000 people listen to 3ZZZ every week (3ZZZ 2002).
Ethnic broadcasting in Australia goes back to 1973. The ethnic communities began to work together with sections of the wider Australian community, and threw their considerable strength and influence into the campaigns for access to the nation’s airwaves. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had been encouraged by the Whitlam Government to open an ethnic ‘access’ station in Melbourne in 1975. The community access radio 3ZZ came into existence, owned and assisted by the ABC, with 20 ethnic communities being the first to broadcast in their ethnic languages (Dugdale 1979, p.37). In 1977 the Fraser Government closed down 3ZZ and eventually set up the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), 12 years after 3ZZ’s closure. In August 1989, 3ZZZ, a community offshoot of 3ZZ, obtained its licence.
Many other community stations now provide ethnic access programming. According to the Community Broadcasting Foundation (CBF), ‘[t]here are 75 stations (35 metropolitan and 40 regional stations) in Australia that provide in excess of 1,200 hours per week of local programming in 86 languages. Over 2,500 volunteer broadcasters are involved in ethnic community radio in Australia’ (CBF 2002, p.2).
At 3ZZZ, up to 400 volunteers broadcast in 58 community languages. Some of these volunteer announcers have been with 3ZZ since its beginnings, hence representing the older generation. Some ethnic language groups have tried to accommodate a younger generation of broadcasters into their programs within their youth programming sections. Ethnic community stations are also providing an essential service to the new wave of migrants to Australia (Forde, Meadows & Foxwell 2002, p.ii).
The 16-member Council of the Ethnic Public Broadcasting Association of Victoria (EPBAV) is the governing body of 3ZZZ. A minimum of 25 people from an ethnic community can form an ethnic community broadcasting group at 3ZZZ, but groups need to have at least 40 financial members to be eligible for an hour of airtime. To comply with funding guidelines, ethnic programming must be mainly in a language other than English, contain no more than 50 percent music content, have a spoken word content of no more than 25 percent religious material or references, be locally produced under the auspices of a recognised local ethnic community language group, and broadcast between 6am and midnight (Ethnic Grant Funding 2002).
There are around seven Arabic language programs broadcasting on 3ZZZ; these are structured to provide Australian Arabs with news from their countries and also provide news to help them in their stay in Australia. The example of Arabic community broadcasting has been successful, allowing for an analytical approach to political events and social issues. The Australian government has also supported broadcast training to allow for new migrant groups to form localised language programs. Therefore, the possibility of having community based Arabic programming in the Arab world is not foreign, however a legal and legislative framework would need to be developed to work in accordance with the current media landscape in the Arab world.
Conclusion
There is a dire need for the creation of a legalised third tier in the Arab world where local communities can operate their own media that in turn would allow them to generate a public sphere that is necessary at this stage of development in the area. As the AHDR stipulates:
The conditions governing media ownership in Arab countries raise many questions about the real opportunities available to Arab citizens for exercising their right to issue newspapers, attain information, express thoughts and opinions and monitor government institutions. Another point of concern is the selective homogeneity of Arab media content, considering that diversity of information is an important prerequisite. (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.65)
Alternative media gives way for diverse voices to be heard. John Downing explains that, ‘[w]hen the mainstream media misrepresent social and political realities, then, again, alternative media come into their own. They provide an alternative public forum … to the official forum and the official story’ (Downing 1995, p.250). However, the extent to which the current legal and legislative media framework in the Arab world would allow for the development of community media remains a valid question.
Abdelwahab El-Affendi states that, ‘[n]ot only must independent media organizations be permitted, but they should be encouraged by unconditional government financial support, preferably dispensed through impartial institutions in accordance with agreed criteria and safeguards’ (El-Affendi 1993). This could be a valid transitional step for the emergence of community media; community media is a necessary stage in the development of Arab knowledge.
The establishment of community media falls under the final recommendation in the AHDR of the ‘five pillars of the knowledge society’, in which it is stated that there is a need for ‘[e]stablishing an authentic, broadminded and enlightened Arab general knowledge model’ (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.180). The media has a major role to play in the building of knowledge societies. The creation of a third tier could be that model, the model of community broadcasting.
The United Nations plays and continues to a play a vital role in the education of Arab nations for the sake of political, social and religious freedoms, which would normally be vented through various information channels. In the case of the Arab world, the Arab Human Development Report could become a basis for this aspiration.
Saba ElGhul-Bebawi has worked in the Arab world as a radio broadcaster and journalist, working for the English Service of Radio Jordan and freelancing for CNN. She has also worked as an administrator, broadcaster and trainer in various community radio stations in Australia. She completed her first MA on community radio analysis at Monash University, in Melbourne, and her second MA thesis on community media policy at Queensland University of Technology. She is a lecturer in Journalism and Communications at Monash University.
references
3ZZZ (2002) History, 3ZZZ Online (homepage of 3ZZZ Melbourne Ethnic Community Radio), www.3zzz.com.au/, accessed 7 October 2002.
Arab Human Development Report 2003, Building a Knowledge Society, United Nations Development Programme, Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development.
CBF (2002) Annual Report 2000/2001, www.cbf.com.au/publications.htm, accessed 2 October 2002.
Community Radio (2004) (homepage of Radio Netherlands), accessed 15 November 2004.
Community Radio Network (2005), accessed 20 February 2005.
Dowmunt, T. (1993) Channels of Resistance: Global Television and Local Empowerment, London: British Film Institute.
Downing, J. (1995) ‘Alternative media and the Boston Tea Party’, in J. Downing, A. Mohammadi & A. Sreberny-Mohammadi (eds) Questioning the Media: A Critical Introduction (2nd ed), California: Sage Publications, pp. 238-252.
Dugdale, J. (1979) Radio Power: A History of 3ZZ Access Radio, Melbourne: Hyland House.
El-Affendi, A. (1993) ‘Eclipse of reason: The media in the Muslim world’, Journal of International Affairs, New York, Summer, vol.47, iss.1, p.136, 31pp.
Ethnic Grant Funding (2002) CBF Online (homepage of Community Broadcasting Foundation), www.cbf.com.au/ethnic.htm, accessed 6 December 2002.
Fandy, M. (2000) ‘Information technology, trust, and social change in the Arab world’, The Middle East Journal, Washington, Summer, vol.54, iss.3, p.379, 17 pp.
Forde, S., Meadows, M. & Foxwell, K. (2002) Commitment Community: The Australian Community Radio Sector, Brisbane: Griffith University.
Hamzawy, A. (2005) ‘The real “Arab Street”,’ Washington Post, 6 February, p.B07.
ICASA (2003) Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Broadcasting Act, Chapter VI, Community Broadcasting, ICASA Online (homepage of Independent Communications Authority of South Africa) www.icasa.org.za/Default.asp?FromHome=1&Cmd=ViewContent&
ContentID=169, accessed 21 January 2003.
La Storia (2002), Radio Popolare Online (homepage of Radio Popolare), www.radiopopolare.it/, accessed 17 July 2002.
Laureys, F. (2002) Radio Popolare Milan, www.rnw.nl/realradio/community/html/popolare290199.html, accessed 28 April 2002.
Lewis, P. (1984) Media for People in Cities: A Study of Community Media in the Urban Context, Paris: UNESCO.
Price-Davies, E. & Tacchi, J. (2001) Community Radio in a Global Context: A Comparative Analysis, UK: Community Media Association.
Said, E. (1996) ‘The theory and practice of banning books and ideas’, Courier International, 17 October.
Sakr, N. (2003) ‘Specialist, Media and Development in the Middle East’, www.wemfmedia.org/documents/speech_sakr.PDF, accessed 29 January 2005.
The Milan Declaration 1998, 29 August, http://obsmedia.amarc.org/page.php?topic=
The+Milan+Declaration&wiki=amarc, accessed 20 January 2005.
The Sana’a Declaration 1999, www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/sanaa.htm, accessed 10 February 2005.
The Sana’a Declaration 2004, www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/reform/sanaa2004.htm, accessed 8 February 2005.
Weisbrod, B (1997) ‘The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Hoboken, Fall, vol.16, iss.4, p.541.
What is Civil Society? (2005) (homepage of Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics and Political Science), www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/what_is_civil_society.htm, accessed 11 February 2005.
World Broadcasting (2002) UNESCO Online (homepage of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, www.unesco.org/webworld/com/broadcasting.html, accessed 18 August 2002.
The United Nations’ role in Arab media
A voice for the community?
The United Nations has always demonstrated an interest in the Arab world and emphasised the need to find solutions for the political and social issues related to the area. The recent report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Arab Human Development Report 2003 (AHDR), is a reflection of this. According to this report, ‘[i]n most Arab countries, the media operate in an environment that sharply restricts freedom of the press and freedom of expression and opinion ... Censorship is rife and newspapers and television channels are sometimes arbitrarily closed down. Most media institutions are state-owned, particularly radio and television’ (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.3). The AHDR focuses on the lack of freedom in the Arab information environment.
Other reports also emphasise the need for the development of Arab media to promote and practice democracy, such as The Sana’a Declaration 2004, which was issued by the Inter-Governmental Regional Conference on Democracy, Human Rights and the Role of the International Criminal Court, held in Sana’a, Yemen, on 10-12 January 2004. The declaration stipulates that:
A free and independent media is essential for the promotion and protection of democracy and human rights. Pluralism in the media and its privatization are vital for contributing to the dissemination of human rights information, facilitating informed public participation, promoting tolerance and contributing to governmental accountability. The media should contribute effectively and responsibly towards the strengthening of democracy and human rights knowledge.
This report came as a continuation to The Sana’a Declaration 1999, which was issued at the end of the Emerging Democracies Forum held in Sana’a in July 1999, and which states that ‘[p]ublic participation in democratic decision making is enhanced by providing for private ownership of media and ensuring the impartiality of state-owned media through independent boards or other means’.
In light of these declarations, there clearly is awareness for the need to reform current Arab media practices to ensure that the media serve the people and in turn the people’s voice is heard. However there are no clear directions on how this reform is to be achieved and what form of media policy needs to be implemented.
Although there is a noticeable emerging public sphere as a result of new media technologies, there remains a significant digital divide. The internet ‘has created a small but important space for open debate. Of course the readers of … [the internet] represent the more educated sectors and are not fully representative of whole Arab societies’ (Hamzawy 2005, p.B07). The AHDR states that ‘the low number of Internet users in Arab countries is due to a number of factors, the most important of which are: computer and Internet illiteracy, the high cost of the lines used and high personal computer prices and access fees’ (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.64). Media channels need to be accessible to the majority of the people regardless of their social conditions.
There is a need for creating a space in the Arab media environment for a third media player, alongside government and commercial media, as a licensed community based broadcaster and press. It is worth considering therefore the Arab media setting and the possibility of the emergence of a third tier of media, where the community can freely aspire to freedom of speech that the AHDR requests. Third-sector media organisations, with the support of the community, can rise to fill a gap in the local Arab information environment. The economist Burton Weisbrod notes that not-for-profit organisations are funded by people who want more of a particular product or a different feature, and are prepared to pay for it (Weisbrod 1997). When the community owns the media, this logically leads to democracy. Community media are the citizens’ media.
However, before the question of the emergence of community media in the Arab world is raised, it is necessary to comprehend the current Arab media landscape in the face of a rapidly changing media environment.
Liberty of expression
The Arab media landscape has changed dramatically in the past 10 years, with particular emphasis on the growth of television satellite channels. Mamoun Fandy believes that despite the emergence of modern means of communication, there is still a disjunction between this phenomenon and the reality of Arab politics and societies (Fandy 2000, p.379). Naomi Sakr emphasises that Arab media are highly politicised and that accordingly government-controlled local media makes the coverage of local issues limited. Sakr states that ‘[s]atellite channels are aimed at the widest possible audience. They cannot do what the national terrestrial media should be doing. To sum up: the Arab media landscape has been revitalised but some more new elements, which are essential to free expression, have yet to emerge’ (Sakr 2003).
According to the AHDR, the media in the Arab world does not hold independent sources of information due to the media depending mainly on foreign sources of information. They rely on western news agencies, as news agencies in the Arab world are ‘stateowned and oriented to serve and promote state policies’ (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.60). Another issue that the AHDR highlights is the fact that:
[N]ews reports themselves tend to be narrative and descriptive, rather than investigative or analytic, with a concentration on immediate and partial events and facts. This is generally true of newspapers, radio bulletins and televised news. The news is often presented as a succession of isolated events, without in-depth explanatory coverage or any effort to place events in the general, social, economic and cultural context. (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.61)
These are common issues that mark the media in the Arab world and tend to lead to a media landscape that lacks the ability at this stage to provide a liberal, independent and local form of broadcasting. Although there is a growing phenomenon of privately owned media outlets, most Arab media institutions remain state-owned. Nevertheless any operating media enterprise is subject to state control, an issue that jeopardises freedom of thought and reasoning. In an area of high political activity this is crucial.
According to Edward Said, ‘[n]o society is entirely free of control over thought and expression, though not all such control is instituted and maintained by the government’ (Said 1996). Nevertheless, liberalism has defied the degree of government control and relied on the concept of civil society. The term ‘civil society’ often ‘refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market …’ (What is Civil Society? 2005). Community broadcasting, as a third tier in the international media landscape, has become the voice of the people independent of private or state-owned media.
International Models of Community Media
In developing countries, community radio is seen as a powerful tool for conflict management and resolution. It acts as a potential agent for social change, and is perceived as an engine for democratisation. It is also an important tool for development. With a high rate of illiteracy in many developing regions, radio is in many circumstances the only affordable medium reaching large audiences. A distrust of government or state-owned public media in some countries has sanctioned the emergence of local community radio stations. In the West, community radio plays a smaller role in the wide media landscape, but it aims to realise targeted needs of certain community groups (Community Radio 2004).
Around the globe, grass-roots establishments have formed their own means of communication where the needed financial means could be obtained (World Broadcasting 2002). Community radio can thus be seen as part of a broader struggle for access to communications media. The idea of a right to communicate has gained support in the past 25 years and ‘includes the principles of access, participation and self-management in communications’ (Lewis 1984, p.17), which is based on a conception of media as instruments for social groups to reproduce and represent cultural identity, to voice social and economic demands and to create new social relations.
Until relatively recently South Africa had a tightly controlled broadcasting environment that was monopolised by the state-controlled South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). In 1988 the Film and Allied Workers Organization (FAWO) was formed to focus on how to free the broadcasting environment from the effects of apartheid and to encourage a progressive broadcasting culture that offers a diversity of voices from a broad range of communities (Dowmunt 1993, p.90). Since the early 1990s, following the democratisation of the Republic of South Africa, the airwaves have been opened up. Community radio is rapidly being recognised as playing an important role in the development of civil society in South Africa by widely reaching the poor (ICASA 2003).
In Ireland community radio was a product of a pilot project that was established by the Irish Radio and Television Commission (IRTC) in 1994. This resulted in the licensing of 11 stations that were originally only allowed to broadcast until the end of 1996 but were then granted a one-year extension. The project led to the conclusion by the IRTC that community radio is a vital sector of Irish broadcasting (Price-Davies & Tacchi 2001, pp.38-40).
Italy’s Radio Popolare is an interesting model of community-based media due to its early experience in the democratisation of broadcasting. Radio Popolare began broadcasting in 1976 in Milan. During the 1980s the station moved away from its links to left organisations and trade unions to adopt a more independent stance. It was born of the convergence of interests between the broad and extreme left and the parliamentary left, in the autonomy of information (La Storia 2002). It is now considered to be one of the most important independent sources of information in the country.
As a result of its commitment to the public interest, Radio Popolare functions as a community radio station despite operating on a commercial licence, as all profit made is returned to the station; it is thus acting as a non-profit organisation. Radio Popolare started off as commercial radio, but, not wanting to rely on advertising alone, the station called on its audience to support Popolare by buying shares. Shares were issued to create a democratic structure in which the shareholders of Radio Popolare would have a say in the policy of the station (Laureys 2002). Starting from the early 1990s, Radio Popolare became controlled by the cooperation of workers and collaborators. Around 12,000 shareholders own 40,000 stocks of the company; this is an indication of the importance of listener support for the station.
Based on an interview conducted by Francois Laureys with the station director Marcello Lorrai in January 1999, one of the most popular programs broadcast on Popolare since 1976 is Microfono Aperto (Open Microphone), in which listeners respond via talkback to specific themes related to the news, involving the community at a time when talkback radio was not common.
In 1981 Radio Popolare established a network to exchange news programs with other radio stations elsewhere in Italy. This service started out with radio stations around Milan, and since 1995 the network has expanded via satellite to most of the major cities in north and central Italy. Currently 20 Italian radio stations make up the Popolare network, in Rome, Florence, Bologna, Venice, Verona, Torino and Bari. Stations from southern Italy were not included as there were fewer in quantity and most had extremely low budgets. However, Popolare aims to expand the network both geographically and in terms of input by raising the quantity and quality of regional news (Laureys 2002). Radio Popolare could serve as an example of the development of community radio on a commercial-based licence.
Yet there are some community stations that are continuously struggling in the face of government control. According to an article entitled Community Radio Muzzled by Stefania Milan, a Brazilian community radio station called Radio Restinga was shutdown in 2004 in Porto Alegre. In March 2004 only one frequency for community broadcasting was allocated in Brazil by a federal resolution. From around 5,500 and 10,000 community radios in Brazil, Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (Anatel) only recognises 2,620 active radio channels, which include community radio stations (Community Radio Network 2005). According to Stefania Milan, the World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters (AMARC) is preparing a campaign for the government to grant the Brazilians the right to communicate (Community Radio Network 2005).
As part of The Milan Declaration 1998, AMARC calls for ‘[i]nternational recognition of the community broadcasting sector as an essential form of public service broadcasting and a vital contributor to media pluralism and freedom of expression and information’. It is vital that freedom of expression in the form of community broadcasting continues to be encouraged and supported by the international community.
Australian/Arab Community Media
The establishment of Arabic community-based programming can be seen in the example of ethnic community radio in Australia, where, by comparison, there are fewer restrictions on programming content and more opportunity for a democratic outlook. There have been successful examples of Arabic community broadcasting in Australia, such as Melbourne Ethnic Community Radio – 3ZZZ.
As an ethnic community radio station, 3ZZZ services 58 ethnic communities with specialist programming. 3ZZZ started broadcasting on a regular basis in June 1989. Working from studios in the Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy, the station broadcasts 24 hours a day. It is estimated that more than 400,000 people listen to 3ZZZ every week (3ZZZ 2002).
Ethnic broadcasting in Australia goes back to 1973. The ethnic communities began to work together with sections of the wider Australian community, and threw their considerable strength and influence into the campaigns for access to the nation’s airwaves. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) had been encouraged by the Whitlam Government to open an ethnic ‘access’ station in Melbourne in 1975. The community access radio 3ZZ came into existence, owned and assisted by the ABC, with 20 ethnic communities being the first to broadcast in their ethnic languages (Dugdale 1979, p.37). In 1977 the Fraser Government closed down 3ZZ and eventually set up the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), 12 years after 3ZZ’s closure. In August 1989, 3ZZZ, a community offshoot of 3ZZ, obtained its licence.
Many other community stations now provide ethnic access programming. According to the Community Broadcasting Foundation (CBF), ‘[t]here are 75 stations (35 metropolitan and 40 regional stations) in Australia that provide in excess of 1,200 hours per week of local programming in 86 languages. Over 2,500 volunteer broadcasters are involved in ethnic community radio in Australia’ (CBF 2002, p.2).
At 3ZZZ, up to 400 volunteers broadcast in 58 community languages. Some of these volunteer announcers have been with 3ZZ since its beginnings, hence representing the older generation. Some ethnic language groups have tried to accommodate a younger generation of broadcasters into their programs within their youth programming sections. Ethnic community stations are also providing an essential service to the new wave of migrants to Australia (Forde, Meadows & Foxwell 2002, p.ii).
The 16-member Council of the Ethnic Public Broadcasting Association of Victoria (EPBAV) is the governing body of 3ZZZ. A minimum of 25 people from an ethnic community can form an ethnic community broadcasting group at 3ZZZ, but groups need to have at least 40 financial members to be eligible for an hour of airtime. To comply with funding guidelines, ethnic programming must be mainly in a language other than English, contain no more than 50 percent music content, have a spoken word content of no more than 25 percent religious material or references, be locally produced under the auspices of a recognised local ethnic community language group, and broadcast between 6am and midnight (Ethnic Grant Funding 2002).
There are around seven Arabic language programs broadcasting on 3ZZZ; these are structured to provide Australian Arabs with news from their countries and also provide news to help them in their stay in Australia. The example of Arabic community broadcasting has been successful, allowing for an analytical approach to political events and social issues. The Australian government has also supported broadcast training to allow for new migrant groups to form localised language programs. Therefore, the possibility of having community based Arabic programming in the Arab world is not foreign, however a legal and legislative framework would need to be developed to work in accordance with the current media landscape in the Arab world.
Conclusion
There is a dire need for the creation of a legalised third tier in the Arab world where local communities can operate their own media that in turn would allow them to generate a public sphere that is necessary at this stage of development in the area. As the AHDR stipulates:
The conditions governing media ownership in Arab countries raise many questions about the real opportunities available to Arab citizens for exercising their right to issue newspapers, attain information, express thoughts and opinions and monitor government institutions. Another point of concern is the selective homogeneity of Arab media content, considering that diversity of information is an important prerequisite. (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.65)
Alternative media gives way for diverse voices to be heard. John Downing explains that, ‘[w]hen the mainstream media misrepresent social and political realities, then, again, alternative media come into their own. They provide an alternative public forum … to the official forum and the official story’ (Downing 1995, p.250). However, the extent to which the current legal and legislative media framework in the Arab world would allow for the development of community media remains a valid question.
Abdelwahab El-Affendi states that, ‘[n]ot only must independent media organizations be permitted, but they should be encouraged by unconditional government financial support, preferably dispensed through impartial institutions in accordance with agreed criteria and safeguards’ (El-Affendi 1993). This could be a valid transitional step for the emergence of community media; community media is a necessary stage in the development of Arab knowledge.
The establishment of community media falls under the final recommendation in the AHDR of the ‘five pillars of the knowledge society’, in which it is stated that there is a need for ‘[e]stablishing an authentic, broadminded and enlightened Arab general knowledge model’ (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p.180). The media has a major role to play in the building of knowledge societies. The creation of a third tier could be that model, the model of community broadcasting.
The United Nations plays and continues to a play a vital role in the education of Arab nations for the sake of political, social and religious freedoms, which would normally be vented through various information channels. In the case of the Arab world, the Arab Human Development Report could become a basis for this aspiration.
Saba ElGhul-Bebawi has worked in the Arab world as a radio broadcaster and journalist, working for the English Service of Radio Jordan and freelancing for CNN. She has also worked as an administrator, broadcaster and trainer in various community radio stations in Australia. She completed her first MA on community radio analysis at Monash University, in Melbourne, and her second MA thesis on community media policy at Queensland University of Technology. She is a lecturer in Journalism and Communications at Monash University.
references
3ZZZ (2002) History, 3ZZZ Online (homepage of 3ZZZ Melbourne Ethnic Community Radio), www.3zzz.com.au/, accessed 7 October 2002.
Arab Human Development Report 2003, Building a Knowledge Society, United Nations Development Programme, Arab Fund for Social and Economic Development.
CBF (2002) Annual Report 2000/2001, www.cbf.com.au/publications.htm, accessed 2 October 2002.
Community Radio (2004) (homepage of Radio Netherlands), accessed 15 November 2004.
Community Radio Network (2005), accessed 20 February 2005.
Dowmunt, T. (1993) Channels of Resistance: Global Television and Local Empowerment, London: British Film Institute.
Downing, J. (1995) ‘Alternative media and the Boston Tea Party’, in J. Downing, A. Mohammadi & A. Sreberny-Mohammadi (eds) Questioning the Media: A Critical Introduction (2nd ed), California: Sage Publications, pp. 238-252.
Dugdale, J. (1979) Radio Power: A History of 3ZZ Access Radio, Melbourne: Hyland House.
El-Affendi, A. (1993) ‘Eclipse of reason: The media in the Muslim world’, Journal of International Affairs, New York, Summer, vol.47, iss.1, p.136, 31pp.
Ethnic Grant Funding (2002) CBF Online (homepage of Community Broadcasting Foundation), www.cbf.com.au/ethnic.htm, accessed 6 December 2002.
Fandy, M. (2000) ‘Information technology, trust, and social change in the Arab world’, The Middle East Journal, Washington, Summer, vol.54, iss.3, p.379, 17 pp.
Forde, S., Meadows, M. & Foxwell, K. (2002) Commitment Community: The Australian Community Radio Sector, Brisbane: Griffith University.
Hamzawy, A. (2005) ‘The real “Arab Street”,’ Washington Post, 6 February, p.B07.
ICASA (2003) Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Broadcasting Act, Chapter VI, Community Broadcasting, ICASA Online (homepage of Independent Communications Authority of South Africa) www.icasa.org.za/Default.asp?FromHome=1&Cmd=ViewContent&
ContentID=169, accessed 21 January 2003.
La Storia (2002), Radio Popolare Online (homepage of Radio Popolare), www.radiopopolare.it/, accessed 17 July 2002.
Laureys, F. (2002) Radio Popolare Milan, www.rnw.nl/realradio/community/html/popolare290199.html, accessed 28 April 2002.
Lewis, P. (1984) Media for People in Cities: A Study of Community Media in the Urban Context, Paris: UNESCO.
Price-Davies, E. & Tacchi, J. (2001) Community Radio in a Global Context: A Comparative Analysis, UK: Community Media Association.
Said, E. (1996) ‘The theory and practice of banning books and ideas’, Courier International, 17 October.
Sakr, N. (2003) ‘Specialist, Media and Development in the Middle East’, www.wemfmedia.org/documents/speech_sakr.PDF, accessed 29 January 2005.
The Milan Declaration 1998, 29 August, http://obsmedia.amarc.org/page.php?topic=
The+Milan+Declaration&wiki=amarc, accessed 20 January 2005.
The Sana’a Declaration 1999, www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/sanaa.htm, accessed 10 February 2005.
The Sana’a Declaration 2004, www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/reform/sanaa2004.htm, accessed 8 February 2005.
Weisbrod, B (1997) ‘The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Hoboken, Fall, vol.16, iss.4, p.541.
What is Civil Society? (2005) (homepage of Centre for Civil Society, London School of Economics and Political Science), www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/what_is_civil_society.htm, accessed 11 February 2005.
World Broadcasting (2002) UNESCO Online (homepage of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, www.unesco.org/webworld/com/broadcasting.html, accessed 18 August 2002.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
WEB 2.0
Background on Web 2.0
What is Web 2.0?
There has been a lot of chatter about Web 2.0, as if the Internet is a versioned software application.
So what is Web 2.0?
Simply put, Web 2.0 is a perceived transition of the web to web applications. Web 2.0 is the next generation of technology solutions where interactive content is the norm. There is no agreement on exactly what Web 2.0 means, depending on who you are speaking with, you may receive different explanations. At it's heart, Web 2.0 is about the maturity of the Web and businesses that are thriving online. While many refer to Web 2.0 as companies that employ powerful web technologies, the key components of the new web are said to include: the web as a platform, collaboration, and syndication.
The Evolution of the Internet
The commercial web began as static html pages, and has progressed to well established sites created from content management systems. Most large websites contain dynamic content that is constantly changing, often the information provided is interactive or user specific. Amazon's recommended products is an excellent example of the future, where web surfers receive personalized content based on their past surfing habits.
Web 2.0 is said to be the technological evolution. O'Reilly indicates that the dot-com bubble burst signified the beginning of Web 2.0 and a new generation of technology applications. The shakeout from the dot-com collapse pre-empted the technological revolution of Web 2.0. The dot-com companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have a few things in common. The first primary principle that the Web 2.0 companies share is that they use the power of the web to collaborate and grow. O'Reilly further defines Web 2.0 as a set of core principles and practices, with the primary principle being a thought process that the web is a platform.
Web 2.0 companies are said to not be constrained by traditional business models and philosophies. The hidden web, which is a fancy way of saying the technology behind the content that the web surfer sees, is becoming more and more powerful. Scripting languages that allow webmasters to employ technology and interact with users based on personal decisions or responses has personalized the Internet. While O'Reilly clearly outlines elements and components of Web 2.0, I think the general meaning that Web 2.0 is synonymous with the new generation of the Web.
While the techie types "got it", many casual web surfers have not grasped the fact that the Internet is not versioned software. Which in effect has meant that Web 2.0's meaning is limited to the evolution of the Internet and online business. Whether that means personalized content and user choice, or dynamically generated content that is ranked by weighing the websites popularity, the Internet is growing up.
What is Web 2.0?
There has been a lot of chatter about Web 2.0, as if the Internet is a versioned software application.
So what is Web 2.0?
Simply put, Web 2.0 is a perceived transition of the web to web applications. Web 2.0 is the next generation of technology solutions where interactive content is the norm. There is no agreement on exactly what Web 2.0 means, depending on who you are speaking with, you may receive different explanations. At it's heart, Web 2.0 is about the maturity of the Web and businesses that are thriving online. While many refer to Web 2.0 as companies that employ powerful web technologies, the key components of the new web are said to include: the web as a platform, collaboration, and syndication.
The Evolution of the Internet
The commercial web began as static html pages, and has progressed to well established sites created from content management systems. Most large websites contain dynamic content that is constantly changing, often the information provided is interactive or user specific. Amazon's recommended products is an excellent example of the future, where web surfers receive personalized content based on their past surfing habits.
Web 2.0 is said to be the technological evolution. O'Reilly indicates that the dot-com bubble burst signified the beginning of Web 2.0 and a new generation of technology applications. The shakeout from the dot-com collapse pre-empted the technological revolution of Web 2.0. The dot-com companies that had survived the collapse seemed to have a few things in common. The first primary principle that the Web 2.0 companies share is that they use the power of the web to collaborate and grow. O'Reilly further defines Web 2.0 as a set of core principles and practices, with the primary principle being a thought process that the web is a platform.
Web 2.0 companies are said to not be constrained by traditional business models and philosophies. The hidden web, which is a fancy way of saying the technology behind the content that the web surfer sees, is becoming more and more powerful. Scripting languages that allow webmasters to employ technology and interact with users based on personal decisions or responses has personalized the Internet. While O'Reilly clearly outlines elements and components of Web 2.0, I think the general meaning that Web 2.0 is synonymous with the new generation of the Web.
While the techie types "got it", many casual web surfers have not grasped the fact that the Internet is not versioned software. Which in effect has meant that Web 2.0's meaning is limited to the evolution of the Internet and online business. Whether that means personalized content and user choice, or dynamically generated content that is ranked by weighing the websites popularity, the Internet is growing up.
SEATTLE COMMUNITY NETWORK
I'm not sure what it is about Seattle, but again for this weeks blog I head west in search of a community network set-up that works. A major reason for a successful community network center is commitment, as you will see below:
Seattle Community Network
Principles
The Seattle Community Network (SCN) is a free public-access computer network for exchanging and accessing information. Beyond that, however, it is a service conceived for community empowerment. Our principles are a series of commitments to help guide the ongoing development and management of the system for both the organizers and participating individuals and organizations.
Commitment to Access
Access to the SCN will be free to all
· We will provide access to all groups of people particularly those without ready access to information technology.
· We will provide access to people with diverse needs. This may include special-purpose interfaces.
· We will make the SCN accessible from public places.
Commitment to Service
The SCN will offer reliable and responsive service
· We will provide information that is timely and useful to the community.
· We will provide access to databases and other services.
Commitment to Democracy
The SCN will promote participation in government and public dialogue
· The community will be actively involved in the ongoing development of the SCN.
· We will place high value in freedom of speech and expression and in the free exchange of ideas.
· We will make every effort to ensure privacy of the system users.
· We will support democratic use of electronic technology.
Commitment to the World Community
In addition to serving the local community, we will become part of the regional, national and international community
· We will build a system that can serve as a model for other communities.
Commitment to the Future
We will continue to evolve and improve the SCN
· We will explore the use of innovative applications such as electronic town halls for community governance, or electronic encyclopedias for enhanced access to information.
· We will work with information providers and with groups involved in similar projects using other media.
· We will solicit feedback on the technology as it is used, and make it as accessible and humane as possible.
Seattle Community Network
Principles
The Seattle Community Network (SCN) is a free public-access computer network for exchanging and accessing information. Beyond that, however, it is a service conceived for community empowerment. Our principles are a series of commitments to help guide the ongoing development and management of the system for both the organizers and participating individuals and organizations.
Commitment to Access
Access to the SCN will be free to all
· We will provide access to all groups of people particularly those without ready access to information technology.
· We will provide access to people with diverse needs. This may include special-purpose interfaces.
· We will make the SCN accessible from public places.
Commitment to Service
The SCN will offer reliable and responsive service
· We will provide information that is timely and useful to the community.
· We will provide access to databases and other services.
Commitment to Democracy
The SCN will promote participation in government and public dialogue
· The community will be actively involved in the ongoing development of the SCN.
· We will place high value in freedom of speech and expression and in the free exchange of ideas.
· We will make every effort to ensure privacy of the system users.
· We will support democratic use of electronic technology.
Commitment to the World Community
In addition to serving the local community, we will become part of the regional, national and international community
· We will build a system that can serve as a model for other communities.
Commitment to the Future
We will continue to evolve and improve the SCN
· We will explore the use of innovative applications such as electronic town halls for community governance, or electronic encyclopedias for enhanced access to information.
· We will work with information providers and with groups involved in similar projects using other media.
· We will solicit feedback on the technology as it is used, and make it as accessible and humane as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
