Choices
We (Must) Make For Ourselves: Women and Transnational Media
by Lynne Muthoni Wanyeki
This paper was
presented at the side panel on globalised media and ICT systems and
structures and their interrelationship with fundamentalism and militarism
organised by Isis International-Manila during the WSIS in Geneva, Switzerland
in December 2003.
At the annual session
of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW) in March
2003, one of the themes under discussion was women, the media and ICTs.
The conclusions arising from these discussions were to be fed into the
process leading up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
All the major transnational
media companies had mobile units parked outside. The lines to get into
the UN building were inordinately long. Never before had I seen the
corridors of the UN filled with that many journalists. But they were
not present to hear what governments and member states thought about
media’s representation of women, or the position of women within the
media, or whether these have changed with the advent of new information
and communication technologies (ICTs). No. Dr. Hans Blix had just presented
his mission’s report to the UN Security Council concluding that evidence
of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was insufficient
to justify multilateral intervention. The UN was under siege by the
media because the Security Council was about to decide whether or not
to accept the report’s conclusion—and thus, whether or not to go to
war with Iraq.
American television
made a mockery of the process of international decision-making as the
Security Council resolution was negotiated. Non-permanent council members,
whose diplomats were under pressure to support the American position,
were vilified. One report flashed a senior American politician bemoaning
the fact that an African state he could not locate on a map was in a
position to determine what his government should or should not do.
Deception by
Omission
It became clear that American TV was prepared to go with whatever the
Bush administration decided, regardless of the outcome of the Security
Council’s resolution. And, more importantly, regardless of the sentiments
of American citizens. For the UN was, at that time, also the site of
daily demonstrations protesting the proposed offensive. Because demonstrators
are not allowed to stand outside the UN building, the demonstrators
adopted innovative methods, including the rental of bicycles upon which
they mounted anti-war banners and posters and rode around and around
the UN headquarters. None of these American demonstrations made it onto
TV news except, on rare occasions, fleetingly, without analysis or commentary.
Yet these anti-war demonstrations, the media would eventually admit,
were the largest since the Vietnam War.
American television
channels—particularly the Cable News Network—are beamed by satellite
across the world. Thus, by their news coverage, the impression transmitted
to the rest of the world was that American citizens were solidly behind
the decision of the Bush administration to ignore the Security Council’s
resolution and pursue the military offensive against Iraq. By failing
to note that this decision was against international law, the impression
also given was that the Bush administration was acting legally. There
was also insufficient attention paid to the so-called intelligence reports
that the Bush and Blair administrations used to justify the offensive.
At the end of this
shameful year for multilateralism, history does not seem to be on the
side of George Bush Junior and Tony Blair. No weapons of mass destruction
have been found. The intelligence reports that claimed there would be
are the subject of inquiries in both the United States and the United
Kingdom. It is now clear that the Bush and Blair administrations knowingly
and deliberately exaggerated the claims of these reports. Osama Bin
Laden, the target of the illegal military offensive, remains missing.
And the Iraqi people, far from being grateful for their ‘liberation,’
are mounting daily (deadly) attacks against those they see as illegal
occupants of their state. The transnational media companies seem unable
to admit and interrogate this possibility, ascribing the attacks to
members of Hussein’s Baath party or to the influx of non-Iraqi Islamists
into Iraq or both.
Meanwhile, many
of the women present at the UN CSW in New York moved to Geneva for the
WSIS, hoping that the Declaration and Programme of Action to emerge
from this conference would reflect the concerns raised earlier this
year. But, as a woman put it during one of the Gender Caucus’ critical
dialogues: “Should we mainstream gender into a flawed information society
or should we create a new information society?”
Placing Women
in the Frame
I was in Beirut in November 2002 for an experts’ group meeting to put
together a report, complete with recommendations, to inform that UNCSW
session eclipsed by the Security Council resolution on Iraq (that would
also be ignored anyway by the real arbiters of war and peace today:
the Bush-Blair tandem). During the meeting’s formal opening, the Lebanese
Minister of Information spoke on the Palestinian cause and the media’s
coverage of terrorism. Referring to Israeli terrorism against the Palestinian
people, he noted the common media representation of a Palestinian mother
now—that of a woman who orders her sons on suicide bombing missions.
He called attention to the widespread, unquestioning acceptance of this
image and wondered why media could be so uncritical when this image
is so different from the usual portrayal of mothers’ relationships to
their children. Why have media not attempted to analyse or contextualise
this profound departure from the typical portrayal of mothers as women
who love their children and wish for their long lives, he asked. His
thesis was that, post-September 11, the women’s cause has been used
to undermine the legitimate concerns of the Arab world—for who in the
world, besides women, cared about women’s treatment by the Taliban in
Afghanistan until it was convenient and strategic to do so?
The minister’s argument
is an old and tired one. Yes, the representation of Arab and Muslim
women by transnational media companies is stereotypical. Yes, the transnational
media companies have failed to present Arab and Muslim women as anything
more than shrouded victims. Yes, such representation, of course, concurs
with American interests at this time.
This also applies
to Arab or Muslim-owned transnational media companies because satellite
TV is to the Magreb and Mashreq what radio is in sub-Saharan Africa—the
major source of information. And Arab and Muslim feminists have for
long decried the contradictions in the portrayal on Arab or Muslim-owned
satellite television channels of women—as being either sexualised or
maternal and pious.
But all other societies
under pressure, not only Arab and Muslim societies, must take responsibility
for the situation. The supposed choices presented to women in such situations
are false. There should be no contradiction, no schizophrenia about
choosing to be both feminist and nationalist (for lack of better words).
Arab and Muslim women who speak up for their interests and rights as
women within the Arab and Muslim world should not be made to feel that
they are undermining the collective Arab and Muslim cause. In any case,
that cause—the cause of Palestine and the anti-war cause—is universal
and should be the cause of anyone with a conscience. The idea that we
must choose is ridiculous, regardless of how often we are accused of
dancing to the tune of those ubiquitous ‘foreign masters.’ We do what
we have to at home, and we do what we have to outside. These false choices
do no one any good, succeeding only in limiting the depth and quality
of the compromises that we all must make to move toward our common goals.
A New Information
Society
If the transnational media companies cannot reflect and interpret the
feelings of ordinary citizens accurately, who can?
Many examples exist.
For example, in collaboration with women’s community based organisations,
community radio stations in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo
are documenting the human rights violations against Congolese women.
One case involved the cutting off of a woman’s breasts for her to eat.
When she refused, her genitals were cut off. When she again refused
to eat them, her abdomen was slit open and she was left to die. She
did not. Her story, needless to say, did not make it to the transnational
media channels. Neither did the documentation of stories such as hers
in preparation for a post-conflict truth and justice process.
The need for timely
strategic information to enhance women’s development, equality and human
rights is critical. This is because information plays an important role
in building on the successes and failures of women seeking to involve
ourselves in development and peace processes across the world.
Yet, even within
organised civil society, women still lack the means to share strategic
information on the various initiatives they have taken. For example,
women are working on conflict from the Horn, to the Great Lakes, to
the Mano River in Africa, yet the exchange of lessons learned in the
course—from the community to the diplomatic level—is seldom. Similarly,
the flow of strategic information between communities and civil society
on the one hand, and the state and intergovernmental organisations on
the other, is needed.
The provision of
content—from communities up to the diplomatic level, and capacity-building
in this are also necessary. Where information on women’s development,
equality and human rights is available, inadequate distribution limits
reception. And, most important, the ability to produce such content
in a decentralised manner is still weak. The net result of these problems
is the limited potential for collective action by and among development
and peace workers, policy makers and programme developers and implementers.
For a variety of
reasons, women within civil society have yet to fully incorporate communication
into our work. A key challenge is how to enable the production and dissemination
of strategic information on women’s development, equality and human
rights. The use of participatory communication to advance the concerns
and solutions of women is necessary because participatory communication
is grounded in the belief that we can generate our own interpretations
and solutions for development and peace. Participatory communication
allows for two-way dialogues between civil society and the women in
the communities for effective interventions in national, regional and
international decision making. A combination of traditional and new
ICTs is critical to this process.
Knowing we are either
excluded from, or distorted within the frame of globalised media and
ICTs, and realising that the only effect of such exclusion is narrowed
identity and political choices, we need a new information society.
Lynne Muthoni
Wanyeki is the Executive Director of the African Women’s Development
and Communication Network (FEMNET).
Also in this issue:
Globalisation and Media: Making Feminist Sense
IT in India: Social Revolution or Approaching
Implosion?
When Technology, Media and Globalisation Conspire:
Old Threats, New Prospects
False and Real Differences:Alternative and Mainstream
Media in Latin America
Media and ICT Systems, Globalisation, Militarism
and Fundamentalisms
Knowledge Economy: Does It Come with a Knowledge
Society?
Recalling the Past, Looking to the Future
Common Agenda, Different Methods: Women’s Use of
ICTs in Conflict Situations
WILMA: Making a Difference
we'd
like to hear from you
write to the Editors: communications@isiswomen.org
or the Webteam: webteam@isiswomen.org
Not all the titles in the print form of Women
In Action are available in this site though. For the full print
version, you may subscribe or, if you are also publishing women-focused
reading materials, arrange for an exchange of publications.