Can media regulation help in the search for social equality?

The answer to these questions depends on, at least, two factors: how we understand the role played by the media (is it important enough to deserve public attention, or are they rather frivolous with little influence on society?); and the role that public deliberation can accomplish (would it be useful to subject the media to public deliberation or would it interfere with the task they must accomplish?). Furthermore, what are the concrete implications of this public deliberation? Is it necessary to set any kind of regulation regarding the media? Or is self-regulation enough?

More concretely, this article will focus on the role that media play in the fostering of gender equality. I am interested in reflecting on how media regulation can help in this field, if it is possible and necessary. The ideas presented are based on the proposals and debates that have taken place within the Veeduría Ciudadana de los Medios, a Peruvian collective of institutions of civil society that have the aim of influencing media performance in order to improve its quality and, therefore, to strengthen democracy.

Conceptualizing the media and their role in democracy and development
The proposal to place the media under public scrutiny is based on the assumption that media play a crucial role in societies and in the processes of democracy and development. The importance that culture, communication and the media have in processes of development has remained unclear as little importance has been given to them, although in recent years economists are recognizing that culture is a core element of what is called ‘social capital’ (Kliksberg, 2000). They understand that issues such as values, levels of trust, the notion of community and commonality, the quality and their capability for living together, are key elements that permit a society to work and grow together.

Furthermore, stronger emphasis has been put on the necessity of linking democracy with development (Sen, 1999b; UNDP, 2002b) as the processes of development encounter obstacles that can only be solved through the strengthening of democracy, such as inequality in the distribution of wealth, the status of women, corruption, and partisanship. Hence, the idea that the democracy and development projects are closely linked, and that democracy is both a means and an end to development, and participation of citizens and different freedoms are crucial elements of the quality of life we are looking for (Sen, 1999).

Regarding democracy and its relationship with communication, the proposal made by Habermas is crucial as it places deliberation at the centre of the decision-making processes (1999). In this model of democracy, the constitution of a public sphere where the issues of power become visible and accessible to everybody is crucial. Furthermore the ideal of a democracy based on argumentation and deliberation, where both the common good and the particular interests are taken into account, is especially important as it gives communication a crucial role. It is important to recognize, however, that as human beings we are not only guided by our reasoning, but also by our emotions and interests. There is also not just one way of understanding what ‘common good’ means. This is not a neutral notion as it depends on the specific context and the perspectives of each actor involved.

Furthermore, the different interests, needs and perspectives of different actors are equally valuable and should be taken into account. It is necessary to consider then that a falsely homogenous perception of the ‘common good’ can be very authoritarian, as the particular interests of subordinated groups may have been silenced to achieve the desired homogeneity. This is particularly important for groups such as women, who have usually been invisible and inaudible, and who, furthermore, have not necessarily developed an agenda of their own.

On the other hand, it is necessary to base both projects of democracy and development on a community that has a strong self-identity, that is, a community that perceives/imagines itself as such and shares a sense of commonality (Anderson, 1998). This is the basis for a relationship of dialogue and cooperation and is a core element in the processes of development (Kliksberg, 2000). A community does not need to imagine itself as homogenous; it rather needs to recognize what it has in common as well as its differences and process them through public dialogue (Figueroa et al., 2002). This, of course, is easier said than done.

A sense of community is destroyed by the existence of exclusions and inequalities that affect different sectors of society. Furthermore, public deliberation is not a simple process either, as the sectors that are excluded cannot take part in the public dialogue that should characterize democracies since those who are subordinated are also misrepresented: either because they are invisible or because their images are distorted. This is also true because they assume a position of silence (a ‘culture of silence’), as a way of being resilient and protecting themselves from those who are more powerful (Golding, 2001).

To understand better the role that media play in societies, it is also necessary to take into account how they contribute to the construction of trust. Giddens (1991) has pointed out the importance of trust in the functioning of modern societies, which depend so much on abstract systems. The relationship between media and their audiences is based on trust. We all experience the world through the information provided by the media. We form our opinions and make our decisions presuming that the media act honestly. In societies like Peru, where citizens presume all the public institutions are corrupt, trust and dependency on the media increase. When the relationships of trust are put in question, feelings of impotence among citizens increase, which in turn leads to apathy and weakens democracy.

We understand, then, that media play a crucial role in the functioning of democracy and in the processes of development, as they deliver information and opinions to citizens, create the public agenda, make certain issues and agents salient, and are the most visible space for public deliberation. The media are involved in the fostering of more equitable relations: empowering people by allowing them to explore where their interests lie, representing the interests of various sectors of society, allowing public scrutiny of government and other powers, and permitting social agreements on different issues (Curran, 1997: 112). In sum, they constitute one of the most important arenas where citizens, authorities, and representatives of civil society meet and constantly re-create the way they live together.

Media, gender, and identities
Regarding gender equality, what is the importance of media? From what has been previously outlined, it is clear that they are a space for gaining visibility and legitimacy. If democracy is made out of public deliberation, participating in the media is essential to take part in decision-making processes. What’s more, the media influence the construction of our own identities. Hence, they are not only important in terms of the public institutions of a country or its political system, but they also play a role in the daily life of men and women in the way they perceive and conceive of themselves and, hence, in the way they conduct their own lives. This, too, is crucial for democracy and development.

The 2002 United Nations report for Peru states that one of the problems we face is the need to strengthen the self-esteem of our fellow citizens, of ourselves (UNDP, 2002). This necessity also becomes obvious when we look at problems of inequality, such as those associated with gender, ‘race’, and ethnicity. Inequality becomes part of the formation of those identities. People in a position of subordination have difficulties in constructing a strong sense of self, one that allows them to believe in their own capabilities and to make use of the different options that are close to them (Aldana, 1997). Furthermore, it affects what Appadurai calls the ‘capacity to aspire’ (2001).

The problem of subordination, then, is the conviction of their own inferiority, a conviction that leads to impotence and apathy, which constitute one of the most important barriers to development and democracy. Democracy is closely linked with the notions of self-identity that citizens construct. In turn, the construction of self-identities is based on the experiences people have, but it is also made with the resources that a society provides to its members. One of the most important resources is discourse, especially through the media. If identity is a narrative of the self that explains who we are, where we come from and defines what we will be, this individual narration is constructed in relation to social discourse. In other words, in order to know and define who I am, I need also to answer the question of who we (women, men, black, white, etc) are. This is shown by the social discourses that reinforce, teach us who we are, what we can do and what we cannot.

These are not, of course, insurmountable barriers, but they certainly influence us (Aldana, 1997). They state what is thinkable and unthinkable for each one of us, what are the meanings associated with us (e.g. what it means to be a woman), and who has more social value because they are more visible. ‘Hate speech’ is the most extreme example of how media discourses can affect identity and autonomy construction (Brison, 2000). But extreme cases are not the only damaging ones. Research regarding media discourses and gender in Peru done by the Veeduría concluded that the main problem is the narrowness of roles played by the women portrayed in soap operas and advertising, their passivity and the position of victims (Alfaro and Quezada, 2003).

Looking at issues such as gender and ‘race’ broadens concerns regarding media and democracy: the information genre is not the only important one. It is also necessary to pay close attention to other narratives, such as advertising, humour, drama and melodrama in order to deconstruct the images of men and women that are legitimate. It is also necessary to approach the citizens/audience themselves, in order to know how they are appropriating such discourses and how they are affecting them.

Is it necessary to influence the media?
What this article affirms is that media are crucial to decision-making processes and even to our daily lives: they are of public interest. If their influence is decisive both for democracy and development, if they constitute the public sphere itself, if any distortion in their functioning distorts democracy in turn, it is imperative to make the media accountable and a matter of public debate.

In this sense, one outcome should be to define the parameters of a system of regulation. Is regulation necessary? Regulation is sometimes understood in opposition to democracy, as a constraint on freedom. But those who criticize the idea of regulation forget that most democratic countries have established regulations that organize their media. An example of this is the debate that has recently taken place in USA regarding the decisions of the FCC on media ownership. But, is a basic set of rules necessary? How can we define regulation?

Regulation implies the definition of a legal frame that establishes the minimum rules with which the media must comply. Those rules are based on what Adela Cortina calls an ‘ethic of minimums’ (la ética de los mínimos). According to this, each individual may follow a particular ethical code, as it is neither necessary nor possible for all members of society to share the same values. Each one of these ethical codes followed by individuals is defined by Cortina as an ‘ethic of maximums’. Nevertheless, it is mandatory for all members of society to share a set of values that makes living together possible. This set of ethical values is defined as the ‘ethic of minimums’. Without this set of minimum values, it is more likely that violence and intolerance will reign (in Jongitud, 2002: 13). The values included in this ethic of minimums vary from society to society.

On the other hand, Habermas states that laws cannot be drawn from ethical discourses, but rather that they result from processes of bargaining. Every law, then, is a compromise between different interests that has been achieved through deliberation. But he also recognizes that it is necessary to have ‘a network of fairly regulated bargaining processes and of various forms of argumentation including pragmatic, ethical and moral discourses, each of which relies on different communicative presuppositions and procedures’ (1999: 140). Hence, a set of minimum rules that ensure fair debate is also required for a democracy to function properly and not just as a formality.

Furthermore, as Rawls points out, it is necessary to establish rules that ensure that everybody can express themselves, as it is impossible for everybody to talk at the same time. In this way, it is crucial to emphasize that freedom of expression is a right that belongs to every citizen and not only to the media, and that its regulation is not an attack on this right (Veeduría, 2002: 12).

Hence, if democracy is a network of debates, deliberation and negotiation, it is necessary to ensure that these processes of communication are fair and that all interests are taken into account. The media are crucial agents in this process, although not the only ones. The role of regulation is to establish a set of basic rules in order to ensure the possibility of living together as a society. These questions should be answered through processes of public deliberation that must involve the broadcasters, media workers, the State, institutions of civil society and citizens.

Hence, every society needs to agree on a set of criteria that will orientate their commonality, their living-together. These criteria must be defined by as many actors as possible, including the media broadcasters and professionals, and should be done through a continuous process of debate (since societies are also continuously changing).

Regulation should be complemented by processes of self-regulation, which is more important than regulation as the latter only pays attention to what is elemental. Self-regulation is constituted by processes of internal debate and self-organization where media professionals reflect on their own work to improve their accomplishments. Self-regulation is not necessarily done in isolation, as it can improve if it incorporates dialogue with different sectors of society. It includes the creation of an ombudsman or other mechanisms. Self-regulation, then, is linked to processes of negotiation between the media and civil society.

So, from a gender perspective, what can be achieved, what should we look for? Basic aspects are those related to problems of corruption, respect for intimacy and the protection of children from violence or pornography (which can be done through regulation). Furthermore, laws can promote the creation of channels of dialogue between media and their audiences. But gender discrimination, racism, and other forms of exclusion work in a more subtle way. So subtle that sometimes it is difficult to distinguish whether discrimination is taking place or the media are simply portraying reality. In these cases it is necessary to negotiate with the media.

Society needs media that are disposed to listen to what their audiences want to say about themselves. Research is a powerful tool for this purpose: to demonstrate the main features of media discourses (which may not be conscious), to demonstrate how they are being read and appropriated by audiences. And, as in any other processes of negotiation, the presentation of proposals that are both innovative and feasible is also necessary.

Conclusions
What this article has attempted to establish is that media play a relevant role in the processes of democracy and development in societies. Furthermore, that they are also part of the recreation of different forms of discrimination, including those related to gender. Hence, their discourses are of public interest and their role should be open to public debate and scrutiny.

Although regulation has usually been seen as opposite to democratic values, it is necessary to establish a minimum set of rules that protect certain aspects that are basic for society. The content of such regulation should be defined through a continuous process of public deliberation involving the media , public institutions and citizens. But regulation is not enough. Probably the richest part of the debate will take place through processes of negotiation. In order to participate, it is necessary for those groups who are interested in fostering equality to construct their own agenda regarding the media, establish their own priorities, and prepare themselves to develop processes of negotiation with media workers and broadcasters.

References
Aldana, Celia. Racism and the conceptions of beauty: the relationship between media consumption and the definition of identity. Dissertation, 1997.
Alfaro, Rosa María and Alicia Quezada. Atrapadas sin Salida, imágenes de mujer y de pareja en las telenovelas y la publicidad. Veeduría Ciudadana de los Medios de Comunicación. Ed. Calandria. Lima, 2003.
Anderson, Benedict. ‘The Origins of National Consciousness’ in Media in Global Context: A Reader, Sreberny-Mohammadi et. al. pp. 58-66.
Appadurai, Arjun. ‘The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition’ in Culture and Public Action, Vijayendra Rao and Michael Walton eds. World Bank. July, 2001. in www.worldbank.org
Brison, Susan J., ‘Relational Autonomy and Freedom of Expression’ in Relational Autonomy: Feminist Perspectives on Autonomy, Agency and the Social Self, Catriona Mackenzie and Natalie Stoljar, eds. Oxford University Press, 2000. pp. 280-300.
Curran, James. ‘Mass Media and Democracy Revisited’ in Mass Media and Society, James Curran and Michael Gurevitch, eds. Arnold. UK, 1997. pp. 81-119.
Figueroa, Maria Elena, Lawrence Kincaid, Manju Rani and Gary Lewis Communication for Social Change: An Integrated Model fro Measuring the Process and Its Outcomes. The Rockefeller Foundation, Johns Hopkins University. USA, 2002. 42 pp.
Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self-Identity, Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press. 1991.
Golding, Peter ‘The Communications Paradox: Inequality at the National and International Levels and the Communications Media.’ In Communication and Development, The Freirean Connection, Pradip Thomas and Rohoram Nain (eds). Hampton Press. USA, 2004. pp. 33-44.
Habermas, Jürgen. ‘Three normative models of democracy: liberal, republican, procedural’ in Questioning Ethics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy, Richard Kearney and Mark Dooley, eds. Routledge, UK. 1999. pp. 135-144.
Jongitud Zamora, Jaqueline. Teorías Éticas del Desarrollo: aproximación a cuatro de ellas. 2002. Available in Internet: http://www.mundojuridico.adv.br
Kliksberg, Bernardo. ‘El rol del Capital Social y de la Cultura en el Desarrollo’ in Capital Social y Cultura: claves estratégicas para el desarrollo, Bernardo Kliksberg and Luciano Tomassini eds. Fondo de Cultura Económica. Buenos Aires, 2000. pp. 19-58.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Knopf. New York, 1999.
Sen, Amartya, ‘Democracy as a Universal Value’, in Journal of Democracy, vol. 10, number 3, pp. 3-17. The Johns Hopkins University Press and National Endowment for Democracy. July 1999b.
UNDP. Informe del Desarrollo Humano del Perú, 2002. ONU. Lima, 2002.
UNDP. Human Development Report 2002: Deepening Democracy in a Fragmented World. 2002b.
Veeduría Ciudadana de los Medios. Hacia una Nueva Ley de Telecomunicaciones y más allá de Ella: Medios de Comunicación, Ética Pública y Democracia. Ed. Calandria, Lima. 2002.