The development of a social agenda in the field of communications is
one of the challenges of the World Social Forum (WSF), as part of the
on-going process of searching for and constructing alternatives.
Since the 2002 WSF, ALAI, together with other groups committed to
democratising communication, have been putting forward a proposal to
meet this goal, with two core areas of concern.

The first concern responds to the fact that communication, being a
cutting edge industry and sector of financial speculation, is at the
centre of the very economic model that is being questioned here. For
this same reason it is an area where social resistance and the
proposal of alternatives become strategic. The second concern relates
to the need for the process of social coordination itself to establish
mechanisms of intercommunication and information flow in order to
enable the building of bridges between different sectors and
struggles, to raise awareness among new social actors and also to gain
opinion spaces that can counterbalance the hegemony of dominant
thinking.

With digitalisation the different components of communication are
increasingly interrelated. Therefore it is hard to understand or
define strategies with respect to media without situating them in the
broader context of communication, since the dividing lines between
media, electronic networks and the cultural entertainment or software
industries are becoming more and more blurred.

The development of communication has run hand in hand with the
processes of globalisation, due to the need to communicate across
distance and geographic barriers. From the telegraph to today's
modern satellites, the majority of these technological inventions
were initially reserved for the purposes of economic, political or
military power. Little by little their use was extended till it became
generalised. In the last decade, the changes have been so rapid that
even interpersonal relationships themselves are increasingly taking
place through electronic channels, while news that we receive through
the media mix the local with the global or to be more exact, can be
from any part of the globe, even when dealing with local issues. As
communication is increasingly intermediated through technology, the
conditions to institutionalise control over it have been created.

In practice this evolution has meant a double tendency, on the one
hand there are greater opportunities for participation in
communication processes, although this possibility is limited to those
who have access to the necessary resources, knowledge and
technologies.

On the other hand, the control over communication channels and media
has become more concentrated. Together with globalisation, given the
increasingly strategic character of communication, a powerful
transnational industry has emerged in this sector that is going
through a process of mergers and quasi monopolisation, making it one
of the main sectors of the globalised economy.

Media concentration has had a strong impact on the speculative
financial realm, meaning that the sense of the industry itself as
synonymous with production is being lost. The stock exchange boom at
the end of the last century, fuelled by overinvestment, exaggerated
expectations and irresponsible business management around the dot com
or mobile internet services, was followed by a chain of bankruptcies
with World Com in the lead, that left the principle of communication
as a public service in a state of oblivion.

Moreover this industry is setting itself above and beyond any
possibility of control by democratic bodies. This is serious, because
this industry not only is owner of the channels through which messages
travel, but is also grabbing a growing portion of the production and
dissemination of content, undermining plurality of sources and
diversity of perspectives. A result of these tendencies is a
progressive expropriation of the faculty of peoples to participate in
the processes of social communication that give shape to their
respective societies, with very serious consequences, since if there
is not democracy within communication there cannot be democracy within
society.

Today if we hold a range of communications options that are much
greater than in previous times, these options are increasingly
standardised and controlled by an increasingly small number of mega
corporations whose interests are essentially convergent both among
themselves, and with other large corporate sectors. We could
practically speak of an implicit consensus of the media world
comparable to the Washington consensus at the economic level. In
certain critical situations this becomes manifest even in a grotesque
way, as is happening at the moment in Venezuela where the dispute
between the different television channels has practically disappeared
to project a single discourse whose techniques have nothing to envy
brainwashing.

The Information Society

A new dimension of communications issues is the discourse around the
"information society" which is presented to us as the new paradigm of
the future society. This discourse assigns a causal role to technology
in the social order and situates it as the motor of development,
ignoring any consideration of social conflict. The force which changes
history would no longer be social struggle, but technology.

Next December, a new UN Summit will take place: the World Summit on
the Information society. Its theme is not, as in other summits, a
specific social issue, but nothing less than the society that is to be
developed with the support of new information and communication
technologies. The orientation of this summit raises great concerns
since what is urgent at present is to debate what kind of
technological development is required to respond to social needs, yet
the tendency that is being imposed is a focus orientated by
technological determinism. How else can one explain that the
organisation of the summit has been put in the hands of the
International Telecommunications Union, an eminently technical body.

Some governments, among them that of the United States, propose that
the summit should conjugate two central themes, one is security in
electronic networks, for which they are proposing the signature of an
international convention. The theme raises concerns, since beyond data
security itself, it may have implications for the security of people
and free access to information. In the name of the struggle against
terrorism the US has already eliminated several civil liberties in
their own country, affecting the right to privacy of personal
communications, and they are pressing other countries to do the same.
While these new technologies have great advantages for socialising and
sharing information they can also be lent with equal ease to
authoritarian projects of surveillance and control.

The other theme is the development of infrastructure in the so called
developing countries, that they are seeing more than anything as an
opportunity to facilitate the penetration of transnational
telecommunications operations in our countries. The agenda of the big
corporations with the aim of developing global electronic commerce in
goods and services is to ensure an adequate political framework, that
among other things contemplates the liberalisation of
telecommunications, the protection of intellectual property rights and
privacy of business communication.

With present tendencies, the future of the internet itself could be at
stake. This issue is a challenge to citizen spaces such as this, since
we cannot ignore the fact that without the Internet, the World Social
Forum and our international networks would not be what they are. We
need to remember that the character of an open, public and non
commercial space that has so far characterised much of the Internet is
mainly due to the fact that it was developed, after its military
origins, mainly in the academic realm and that of civil society.
Commercialisation came later and although it has generated great
expectations for the potential market it implies, so far commercial
projects do not easily fit into a medium where information flows and
is shared freely.

But we cannot take it for granted that the Internet will continue to
be this way. It is part of the dispute over meaning and spaces and it
is becoming a new area of social struggle. That is what we grasped as
women when we organised to facilitate intercommunication via
electronic networks in the context of the Fourth World Conference on
Women in Beijing. From 1993, understanding that beyond the UN event
itself, it was an opportunity to build our own networks at a regional
and world level, we proposed that appropriating new technologies and
developing them for our own needs was a struggle for the empowerment
of women.

Citizen Responses

We are therefore facing a complex panorama, that requires new social
responses, but we are not starting from scratch. Different groups
concerned by this theme have been for some years affirming that
communication is a basic human right that upholds other rights and a
strategic aspect for the development of a more just, democratic and
egalitarian society.

Around these proposals have converged alternative and community media,
researchers, developers of free software opposed to the Microsoft
monopoly, education and training initiatives, human rights groups,
women's organisations defending a gender perspective in communication
and many others, who have found spaces of dialogue and joint action.
This has made it possible to visualise that communication issues today
are so integrated and complex that no isolated citizen response is
enough and that the only viable way out is to join forces and
complement one another.

Following the new logic of social movements, the specific contribution
of each organisation, each particular struggle, and each institution
takes on importance above all through their linking with others to
construct a common agenda. In this framework, the question is not only
creating solidarity, but also how these different expressions of
resistance can be enriched through the experiences and the strengths
of others. The challenge is how to join forces and not subtract from
them, how to empower each other mutually, within a framework of
respect for diversity. This implies communication and as we
understand it, it is what gives its true sense to communication; that
is, not just transmitting messages, but producing a communications
fabric that articulates networks and builds communities.

But looking beyond those of us who work in the communications field,
it concerns all those movements and civic groups that aspire to build
that Other Possible World, which will not be viable if communication
is not democratised. For that reason we are proposing the need for a
social agenda in communication linked to other social struggles
present in this forum. In this sense, the World Social Forum is a
space that can catalyse connections and contribute to creating the
necessary synergies. And in turn, for the different social actors
such as the farmer movement, indigenous, afro, ecologists, women,
youth and other movements, this proposal implies adopting definitions
to effectively incorporate this struggle within their platforms and
programs.

Expressions of Resistance

Developing a social agenda in communication implies approaching this
issue through its multiple facets, seeking to decipher its logic in
order to be able to identify the most strategic aspects. It also
implies reinforcing and linking the struggles and initiatives that are
already acting at different levels in communication, establishing a
common grounding and goals and seeking to generate a force of opinion
and pressure capable of modifying the orientation of development of
the communication sector. It also means appropriating the resources,
tools, knowledge and abilities to be able to produce a different
communication.

The expressions of the movement of communication resistance are far
too diverse and numerous to be able to mention all of them here, but I
propose to underline a few, and also to recall certain challenges
that, due to the rapid changes taking place in this field, are not
always visible.

a) Alternative Media

Concerning media: in recent decades, a number of initiatives have
arisen involving independent, alternative, popular or community media
-their self-definition varies- that have given expression to people's
creativity, presented different perspectives and voices, and
questioned the reigning economic and social model. It is the
expression of an emerging movement of resistance to the dominant
system of communication, which is vital for the development of
independent thought and active social movements.

One of the obstacles they face is the tendency, sometimes present even
in social movements themselves, to dismiss alternative media as being
marginal. This position, based on a quantitative parameter of
judgement, ignores that what defines the "alternative" is not
quantity, but the sense of process linked to social interest, in
contrast to the mercantile logic.

Undoubtedly, there exists a considerable difference of size, weight
and influence of corporate media with relation to alternative or
independent media, and we are not unaware of the importance of
struggling for space within the mass media; but it is important to
visualise that this difference is due above all to a highly unequal
balance of power, and that redressing that balance is one of the
central challenges of the struggle against neoliberal globalisation
and the dictatorship of the market, and a fundamental condition of
democracy, since it implies defending the right to have plural sources
of information, independent of the interests of economic and political
power.

b) Pressure on commercial media

Another expression of resistance, with quite a long history, have been
pressure groups that have been questioning the way that the media
present reality. A significant example comes from the women's movement
that early on identified the role of media dissemination in
perpetuating discriminatory values and attitudes, as well as their
potential for changing mentalities. Beyond the question of sexist
language and negative and stereotyped images of women in the media,
they have denounced the fact that women have been made invisible as
subjects of opinion or actors of social change. Other emerging
movements have also appropriated these banners against invisibility
and discrimination, such as the indigenous and afro movements, or the
gay and lesbian movement.

Another level of action is the defence of consumers of media products
and content. From the optic of the media market, it is only in our
quality as consumers that we might have power of influence over the
media, (by touching their weak point -profit- whether it is profit
made from sale of products or of publicity). However, due to the
isolation of consumers, each one alone in front of their TV screen or
magazine, this "power" is only exerted in an individual form, through
the option of buying or the remote control. If this power were to
begin to be exercised in a collective form, the possibilities for
impact would be much greater, as has been seen in some examples of
campaigns, chain letters, pressure or boycotts of media.

The creation of media watchdogs is another form of pressure on the
media, which implicitly involves being more than just consumers, but
vigilant citizens, observing whether the media are accomplishing their
role of social service and following codes of ethics in tune with
these functions. Such watchdogs are going to take on a particular
relevance in Latin America and particularly in countries that have
recently installed governments identified with the people's concerns
and interests.

At this level we can also mention the initiatives of media literacy
which are fundamental to form a population that is critical towards
media content; also those journalistic associations that have taken on
the defence of their professional work as a social service, among
others.

c) Legislative Action and Public Policy

Creating one's own media and combating the excesses of distortion and
manipulation of information are important actions, but are not
sufficient, if we do not also address the conditions and ground rules
of how communications function. Indispensable aspects vary from
actions in favour of anti-monopoly laws, to pushing for policies of
promoting plurality in communications. How can there be democratic
communications in countries where it is prohibited to create community
radios, or where one single network is allowed to own hundreds of
media outlets?

On the level of human rights, the defence of the right to communicate
is a central banner of the movement for the democratisation of
communication. This movement considers that, beyond the rights of
information and freedom of expression already internationally
recognised, today we need a broader framework which recognises that
communication is an interactive process fundamental for the
organisation of society and participation in democratic process. The
formulation of the content of the right to communicate and its
subsequent consecration in legal instruments are aspects still
pending.

A serious obstacle for the regulation of the communications industry
is the fact that commercial media -which have a strong capacity for
pressure on political authorities- resist any form of regulation.
With the argument of press freedom, they defend the idea that the best
regulation of communications is the one that does not exist. These
same media nonetheless submit to the so-called "laws" of the market
without questioning whether this does not also violate freedom of
expression and the right of people to be adequately informed from
plural sources.

Adopting a legislative and regulatory framework that restricts
monopolies in the field of media, or implementing policies that
encourage expression of plurality and cultural diversity, does not
imply restricting freedom of expression, but rather guaranteeing the
conditions for it.

We might add that the US government defends its transnationalised
communications industry with pressure on other countries so that, in
the name of the free flow of information, they will raise any
restriction on its operations, such as measures to protect cultural
sovereignty or the defence of strategic resources in this area.

But beyond the regulatory aspects, state policies could also have a
proactive character. For example, if the goal is to broaden and
deepen democracy, policies could be put in place to encourage full
participation of citizens, plurality, creativity and the expression of
cultural diversity and the retrieval of the sense of public space.

In this framework, the proposals and initiatives that stand out are
those that attempt to articulate and develop a public communications
system. That is, one that is not subordinated to the state -much less
to the government in power- nor to private commercial initiative; a
system orientated to encouraging the broadest possible social
participation in its management and activities, in view of
strengthening the character of public service of social communication,
so as to constitute an expression