Communication: a strategic debate for women

The role of the mass media (radio, television and high-circulation newspapers) in forming public opinion and disseminating ideas and values continues to expand and is becoming ever more decisive. In many cases, these media have their own interests and disseminate a particular ideology every day, which goes against their supposed neutrality and “objectivity.” At the same time, these media are controlled by either large corporations or a handful of families: major powers that do not represent the diversity of society. In this context, anyone who attempts to negate ideas (via community radio stations or blogs) is repressed, and economic obstacles are erected (to obtaining national broadcasting). Based on this analysis, the International Committee of the World March of Women engaged in a strategic discussion on the subject of communication during the meeting held on March 25-29 this year, with the participation of Bia Barbosa, an activist with the WMW and with Intervozes, a collective movement that fights for the democratization of communication media.

Bia provided facts about the communication media scene that is currently also characterized by the co modification of information, as a standardized good disseminating what is tantamount to a single message, despite the apparent plurality of media. Thus, the communication media, which should be a democratic venue for society’s free expression, are turning into an authoritarian space that disseminates and legitimates prejudices, stereotypes and social inequalities. In relation to women, when the media are not actually reinforcing a fixed place and role for women in the world, they are at least legitimizing this type of attitude.

This single message is bolstered by another characteristic shared with capitalism: global concentration. A decade ago, there were 10 major communications companies; today there are only five global conglomerates. This ensures that the single message is global and more homogenous, transmitted either through news agencies, which feed the national media, or through news channels like CNN.

This concentration also implies changes in the news production process, in which the same subject is reproduced on different media (print, television, radio and Internet). This has led to a shrinking workforce in the sector, with aggravated exploitation of remaining staff and increased control over what is being published. At the same time, we have also seen the emergence of alternative voices, like the Arab network Al Jazeera, which attempt to provide a counterpoint to mainstream networks.

Presence of women in the news
In this context of media concentration and the co modification of information, the news reporters still present a world in which men constitute the majority in all areas of human activity – even though this does not correspond to the reality. The study, Who Makes the News?”[1], published in 2010, found that, given the current rate of change, it will still take another 40 years before we achieve a balanced presence of women and men. This study, which monitors the representation of women and men in newspapers in 108 countries, is repeated every five years.

The latest edition showed that, in the printed press, only 24% of those who appear in the news are women. Between 2005 and 2010, the presence of women grew, but only in certain types of journalistic content like, for example, science and health (up from 22% to 32%), which represent a very small proportion of total news items. In general, one-third of news stories cover politics and government; in these domains, women’s presence is just 14%. Even in female-dominated disciplines, men are heard more often, such as in education, where 70% of interviewees are male professors, in health, with 69% male interviewees, and even higher figures in law and scientific research (83% and 90%, respectively). Women are only the majority in two cases: talking about home-making (72% of interviewees) and student interviews (54% women).

The study further shows that it is twice as likely that age will be mentioned, and four times as likely that family ties will be discussed, when the interviewee is a woman. Women’s images are also displayed more often than those of men: among all those interviewed, one-third of women’s photographs are published, compared with 15% for men. In general, in 16% of news stories, women are presented as victims, compared to 5% of men.
Gender inequality was covered by just 6% of global news stories; in Latin America, the news speaks more of gender inequalities than in any other part of the world (this figure tripled between 2005 and 2010). As a whole, 46% of articles reinforce, rather than challenge, stereotypes of women. This only changes in the case of female reporters, where there are more chances that women’s perspectives will be heard, and that stereotypes will be questioned.

In the debate that followed Bia’s presentation, it was added that the presence of women is, indeed, increasing, but as images, not as active protagonists. For example, in Mexico, women can be seen as entertainment critics, but always paired with a man and always in items that justify violent attitudes toward women, perceived as collateral damage. There are also serious shortcomings in terms of the use of inclusive language. These facts lead to the conclusion that the mass media reinforce a patriarchal view of women, to the extent that they show no appreciation for women’s work, which is rendered invisible, and that they reinforce the gender divide in the workplace, which is essential to the propagation of capitalism.
Democratizing communications

The increase in distrust and questioning of the mass media, and the development of a critical view of them, is only a recent phenomenon, in every country. Amongst social movements, there is an increase – albeit a slow one – in awareness of their negative role in the struggles of women and peoples, and of the need to fight to democratize them in order to see greater diversity in the form of the voices and opinions of all segments of society (black, indigenous, different sexual orientations, people with disabilities, the left-wing sectors, etc.). The rise in “alternative” media, like community radio stations and the advent of the Internet have contributed greatly to debates on ideas and to helping our message reach all of society.

Faced with the culture “industry” and the concentration of mass media outlets, the struggle to democratize of these media is gaining ground, in conjunction with the fight for freedom of expression. It is not enough to be able to bring women’s demands and perspectives into the public eye, if the freedom to express these in the media is not also fully guaranteed.

The right to communication includes three other rights: the right to knowledge, to discussions and top the transmission of content (fiction and publicity, not just journalistic news). Historically, movements organize to produce information and other content about their struggles, but this production remains limited to a specific movement or to the circle of organized civil society. In most countries, this right to transmit and broadcast specific content via the mass media - those with the most impact on forming public opinion and people’s values and culture - has not yet been won. For example, in Mali, in addition to paying for the media (whether private or State-owned) to come to cover a given activity, the media professionals also need to be fed and their transportation provided. For this reason, it is crucial to fight for the right to communication, which in some countries involves fighting for a State that will guarantee this right by means of policies on access, production and distribution and, among other issues, also entails working on this while simultaneously fighting State censorship.
For example, there is a major struggle now in Latin America to change the laws that direct and regulate the communications sector. The most recent progress was made in Argentina (photo), where the Audiovisual Law guarantees that one-third of the communication media spectrum will be dedicated to community-based communications, which will allow social movements to promote their agendas and their struggles. In other situations, such as seen frequently in Europe and North America where the right to broadcast content already exists, this means fighting to prevent backslides and to take past successes to the next level. In nations like France, England, Quebec and Switzerland, the State is providing less and less funding for public communications, leaving the function of informing and, above all, ensuring freedom of expression, to the market.

The fact was also discussed that, while movements are investing a great deal of time and energy in raising journalists’ awareness (via press releases, well-publicized press conferences, press kits, publication of studies, etc.), struggles that fight for the public interest are facing resistance from media owners, who hinder the dissemination of such agendas, either to preserve private business or to avoid conflict with other powerful groups, like religious groups that may co-own the media outlet. This happened in Pakistan, for example, where a series of efforts targeting the media and various aspects of violence against women (sexual harassment, wage gaps, etc.) led to a sensationalist program that brought rapist and rape victim face to face. In the same country, human rights organizations called a press conference on 7,000 missing persons (children and adults), with 200 women presenting their stories. The conference hosted more than one hundred journalists from various communication media, but the following day, not a single line was published: the subject had been censored by media management.

There are exceptions, though, like in the Philippines, where there is now a venue for journalists with a critical view to publish public interest articles in the mainstream media. In Brazil, there is a different, more positive approach that focuses on mass media that have a more localized reach – often with greater proximity to the women with whom we would like to engage as a priority – as opposed to targeting more national media.
Media and the criminalization of movements

The IC also commented on the role exercised by the mass media in spreading prejudice and in criminalizing the fights driven by social movements. In Quebec, for example, “trash radio” is becoming ever more common. These programs are capable of mobilizing demonstrations of 50,000 people to demand the construction of a sports stadium but, at the same time, also engage advocate and organize actions in favor of the privatization of public services, in addition to criticizing movements that demand better wages and better access to healthcare and education. They may also promote “masculinism,” such as news items about men who are the victims of violence perpetrated by their women. In addition, limits are imposed on the actions of the most critical professionals, who are censored or removed from their programs when they go against powerful interests, and are often dismissed when forced to cover higher-demand topics.

Public radio is not free from this type of influence, depending on the priorities and orientations of the political parties in power. Thus, conservative governments tend to cut resources for programs that focus on analysis and discussion, instead maintaining those that are more entertainment-oriented. Another common point among the media is the negative presentation of movements’ priorities. For example, in Quebec, they highlighted the Minister of the Status of Women (a member of the conservative party) saying that the WMW is not representative of women because, in her words, we work on violence and poverty among women, but we do not look after professional women.

Challenges for feminists
Thinking about how feminist women want to be seen in the media is a challenge. We can broadcast a message, but we have no control over how this message will be received or twisted. In general, the mainstream media seek out public figures, experts, people who stand out from the crowd - which goes against the principles of feminism and of many movements, that stress horizontality, equality and the community, in which problems are societal, rather than individual. In the end, this leads to the voluntary exclusion of feminists from these venues.
Gender inequalities are also present in the alternative and public media, which all too often reproduce non-democratic operating structures, in which neither the content nor the participation of women is any better than in the mainstream media. This goes hand in hand with a shortage of resources: typically, most of the work done in these media is voluntary, with little in the way of material and human resources, so it is difficult to maintain permanent programming and the regular production of information on formats that are accessible to the audience and capable of rivaling the mass media.

Another challenge is to pressure the media to use an inclusive language, with a gender perspective that can provide a different interpretation of the world around us. This is linked to monitoring initiatives that look at how the media treat women and analyze coverage to determine whether our vision of the world and our approaches are, in fact, represented.

But we cannot ignore the fact that, in Latin America - primarily in the 1980s - it was by working on the media and communications in general that a number of feminists switched over to institutions (with much support from North American foundations), supposedly in the interest of a more “efficient” tool than working with grassroots women, which in turn refocused agency interests on “efficiency.” And this is what the WMW changed, by placing a priority on investing in the mobilization of real women (despite the fact that the communication media, for the previously-mentioned reasons, do not give visibility to these actions).

“Take it to the streets, not to Facebook”
Increasing the use of the digital media available online (especially email, lists, blogs and Skype) is another challenge facing movements today. There is a digital division that is not merely a reality in Africa, but also in European and North American countries. Some feminists refuse to learn to use available online tools other than email.
The criticism also relates to a growing feeling that tools like social networks (mainly Twitter and Facebook) are immobilizing and tend to take the place of concrete action in the streets. Almost nothing is mentioned when a call to action via social networks fails. The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt have shown that such media cannot organize struggles on their own; they can merely serve to amplify and organize pre-existing work. The occupation of public spaces with demonstrations, graffiti, banners and noise, without authorization, gives us visibility that the electronic media never could. Thus the challenge is to make critical use of social networks, with a full understanding of their limitations and risks.

How do we move forward?
When thinking about communication, the key aspects to consider are how to expand and organize our movement, increase our forces, and continue to take action, all of which will generate our content and a multitude of new information. In this sense, communication is a fundamental part of our mobilization and our organization: it allows us to debate ideas amongst ourselves and directly with society, without the filter of the mass media.
We must continue to invest in the production of our messages and our communications, strengthening our own media (newsletters, website, distribution lists and audiovisual materials), which are part of the “alternative” media. In doing so, it is also important to promote capacity-building among women so that they can produce their own content, in different formats and in their relationships and alliances with organizations already engaged in this type of work. At the same time, we need to consider how to organize our messages, which content to produce and which format to use, with the aim of expanding our discussions with society. This means that we cannot simply forgo relations with the mass media, but we need to think about when and how to engage with them, in order to avoid wasting our time, energy and resources.

In our communication efforts, we need to think about who the priority audience is for our actions, who we want to reach, which will define differentiated action strategies for each situation, as well as the type of channel to use (Internet, radio, printed press, television, etc.). In the case of social networks, because these are networks built on individual logic, we need to collectively develop strategies in order to have an impact on them.

Moving at the pace of the slowest member is a principle that guides the internal communications at the WMW. Thus, it is not possible to enclose ourselves in a highly complex virtual structure that necessitates 24-hour Internet access, when many at the WMW do not have continuous access. The closing event of the Third International Action in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was very educational in this sense, when we had the opportunity to experience the real difficulties of women in Africa who wish to communicate with one another and the rest of the world. This has concrete implications, like the fact that, for us, for example, we do not simply send a meeting proposal by email and sit back and wait for responses: we also make telephone calls to let our members know that it is very important that they read the message, etc.

It would also be strategic for all social movements to join in the fight to democratize the communication media, which cannot succeed if limited to communications professionals and specialists. This struggle means the de-privatization of media spaces, so that they can become a public forum in which the rights of all men and women are visible and, thus, are more likely to be respected. During the Assembly on the Right to Communication during the World Social Forum in Dakar, movements from around the world reasserted a plan of action and shared commitments in this fight. Click here to read the declaration issued by the Assembly: http://www.ciranda.net/fsm-dacar-2011/article/the-right-to-inform-and-be.

Lastly, it is also important to expand our critical vision of the communication media and their democratization internally within the WMW, preparing and inspiring the National Coordinating Bodies to discuss this subject, based on the facts and information that have been presented and on their own real-life experiences. Many of the WMW’s activists do not share this mistrust of the mainstream media, including those who accepted as fact the BBC coverage that portrayed the Congolese action as the initiative of Olive Kabenge Kabila, the wife of the DRC president, rather than that of the WMW.
--------------------------------------------------------
[1] Spanish, English, French and Arabic versions available for download at: www.whomakesthenews.org.