INTRODUCTION
This report seeks to assess some of the achievements
and limitations of electronic based communications and media strategies
employed for the 2004 ESF in London. It does not comment on the previous
ESFs based in Paris and Florence.
Communication structures and tools, websites, mailing
lists, computers, media centres, press policies, software platforms,
and licensing of media are all highly political issues, yet they were
repeatedly dismissed as low level practicalities by many involved in
the 2004 UK ESF process.
The truth is that these issues are just as political
the issues of providing good quality organic, vegetarian or halal food,
or of using ethical supply or service companies - indeed more so, since
some of these areas effect the way the social forum process is built,
and the ways people can participate in it, or not, as the case may be.
These issues cannot be seen in isolation, since they
can only be assessed within a wider political context. For example debates
over the importance of key plenary issues and speakers, or the importance
attached to the potential for positive interactions given the required
seminar merging process, all effect the requirements of any communications
strategy.
Many of the problems that are highlighted were due
to both indecision and a lack of desire on behalf of the UK Organising
Committee to address these issues. Problems with the UK process also
had the effect of limiting participation in several areas, media and
communications being one of these. This coupled with a lack of clear
priority in these areas led to a subsequent failure to gain wider participation
from groups or individuals who could have helped on a volunteer basis,
thus ensuring the provision of tools or strategies was outside of the
budget of the 2004 ESF.
If Another World IS Possible, then this should include
another technological world and another media....
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES
Much is made of the Social Forums being more than just
a conference. They are supposed to be a process - given that the actual
event only lasts a few days and passes by in a blur of packed schedules,
while the preparatory process lasts for almost a full year, this truth
should be evident.
And yet the development of communication strategies
and the tools to support them seems to have been woefully lacking. Given
that this '"movement of movements" that we're always talking
about has blossomed under concepts of decentralised networks and non-hierarchical
communication, underpinned by the opportunities afforded us through
the use of computers and the Internet, it should be clear that any ongoing
Social Forum process should place these values and tools at its heart.
Sadly with the 2004 ESF, this was not the case.
At the most basic level there should be a concerted
effort to embrace communication technologies and locate them in the
centre of the ESF organising process. This is essential both at the
European level with the preparatory process and domestically within
in the host countries.
The truth of these technologies however is that they
do suit certain types of organising more than others. It was clear that
with the London ESF there was a distinct dislike and rejection of interactive
tools that facilitate open horizontal communication and participation.
These were rejected in favour of strictly hierarchical models of communication
and information flows. For example there seemed to be a clear unwillingness
to use email lists for working groups within the organising process.
Indeed when calls for an email list to be created for the Programme
Working Group became too loud to ignore, one of the few people designated
to deal with website based issues suggested they go away and produce
a feasibility study into the advantages and disadvantages of setting
up an email list! When this was rejected, they then suggested that anyone
wanting to send a message to the entire working group could simply email
her, and she would ensure that the email was sent out to everyone who
had attended a meeting and supplied their email address. This may have
been acceptable ten years ago, but not today.
There are certainly issues with email lists, and many
examples of abuse of etiquette and of lists becoming zones of conflict.
However, dealing with these challenges is all part of living in our
modern inter-connected world and there are plenty of models available
for structuring differing levels of email lists to ensure smooth running.
Fear of loosing control is not an excuse for rejecting the benefits
offered by using these technologies.
Similarly there was an ongoing argument over the ESF
website for London 2004. Much has been written on this matter and the
private tendering and procurement process of the GLA in delivering the
£40,000 website. Essentially the e-commerce functionality was
deemed crucial to the ESF (which of course it was) and therefore the
GLA took on the role of ensuring this was delivered. However the requirements
for the other website functionality were never opened up for public
discussion, all public interactivity was rejected, and too few people
were trusted to participate and administer the site. All this was occurring
at a time when the World Social Forum was producing a bold strategy
to put electronic tools at the centre of building a better participatory
process – a lead the ESF would be well advised to follow.
In parallel a range of activists and individuals created
another website based on wiki technology (wiki is essentially an online
notepad which allows people to easily add and edit text on a webpage).
For a while, this website (www.esf2004.net) became the best source of
information about the 2004 ESF, carrying reports, notes, minutes, discussions
and notices of meetings, many of which were lacking from the official
website – all constructed collaboratively. While it is true that
many projects that were critical of the ESF processes found a home on
this website, it did show the wider potential of these tools, and provided
a space for communication and collaboration which was sadly lacking
within the official organising structures. Indeed several initiatives
were set up outside of the main ESF organising process, including web
facilities, to demonstrate just how easy it is to create appropriate
electronic tools to aid memory reporting and archiving efforts.
Indeed several meetings took place in the Autonomous
Spaces during the ESF that discussed communication tools and memory
projects in relation to the Social Forums. Two of these were held at
the European Forum of Communications Rights and Indymedia Centre which
was a collaboration between various progressive electronic media networks,
community media
groups and lobbying campaigns. The existence of these meetings outside
of the main ESF clearly demonstrates the interest in these areas, but
also underlines the perceived failure of the ESF to properly address
them.
One positive development during the ESF 2004 preparatory
process was the agreement at a European Assembly meeting to set up an
ongoing European working group on web technologies, to try and ensure
some continuity from one year to the next, to develop appropriate tools
to support the ESF process, and to offer advice within these areas.
It’s certainly true that there have been many problems in continuity,
for example the handing over of the fse-esf website from one country
to another. Related to this is the area of intellectual property and
concept of ownership of information gathered, from email addresses to
written reports and audio and video material. Problems have already
been encountered with such data since there are laws and different frameworks
to govern their usage. While attempts were made in London to avoid similar
problems occurring again, for example with opt in permission for email
addresses to be used in the future for ESF related contacts, this was
a result of dealing with specific problems as they arose and not of
a political recognition that these issues are part of our struggle for
another world. This is an area that campaigners are working on globally
to develop alternatives, both in practice and at a government and international
institutional lobbying level, and certainly should be an area embraced
by the ESF.
This move coupled with the now ongoing attempt to ‘systematise’
information and communication strategies together with the various ‘memory’
initiatives should strengthen the Social Forums concepts of themselves
– something which is urgently needed to aid self-reflection, a
process that the ESF is now supposed to be engaged in given the issues
in London and the fact that the next forum has been scheduled for 2006
and not 2005. As part of this, it is essential to look closely at the
pioneering work being done by the World Social Forum in its efforts
to deploy NOMAD, the DIY simultaneous translation infrastructure, and
to place free software and communication tools at its heart.
MEDIA
The 2004 ESF received significant mainstream media
/ press coverage in the UK. However this was well below previous ESF
levels of national coverage. While it can be argued that this is due
to the fact that "the UK press was not interested," it is
clear there were other factors. Even the Guardian newspaper, brought
onboard as the "official ESF media partner," provided scant
coverage compared to that which should be expected.
Proposals for a Press Officer with a complimentary
Media Team were presented to the UK Organising Committee several months
in advance of the Forum. However no action was taken on this until very
close to the event itself, despite some discussions having taken place.
In the end only one person was employed with payment by the ESF Company
(NB. unlike Babels or other office staff this person was appointed without
advertising the position or equal opportunities) to fulfill the role
of Press Officer.
It is clear that a larger team, in place earlier, and
working with volunteers, is needed for future forums.
Obviously the area of press, media and public relations
is one that can cause great concern where there is conflict over the
wider political motivations and goals around the ESF. There are concerns
over representation, not only regarding the whole ESF project, but also
over the prominence given to different issues and campaigns, as well
as to individual speakers. This is why policies or guidelines in these
areas are essential. These issues were raised at the UK Organising Committee
early in the year - recommendations were made that a series of press
policies should be developed with a broad range of participants working
in partnership with progressive media networks, and that these should
include policies to ensure an equitable and clear access to the press,
as well as a fair and transparent system for fielding and directing
enquiries from the press.
Because of the many problems of the UK process, organisations
and networks who would have been expected to bolster any effort to gain
press / media coverage did not engage in a publicity campaign. This
meant that whole sectors of organisations failed to add their public
weight behind the ESF. This failure should be seen as an important indicator
of the attitude of many organisations towards the ESF - they may have
participated in the Forum, but they didn't publicise it! Indeed many
organisations even failed to link to the fse-esf website from their
own websites.
One crucial factor for the ESF should be the involvement
of the "Media of the Movements" – i.e. the progressive
community media which is based in our constituency. However for the
2004 ESF these were treated as inferior cousins of the mainstream corporate
press. There was an assumption that they would just provide coverage
anyway. So instead of any campaign to involve them, there was little
public encouragement given, until the very last minutes when some telephone
calls were made to journalists of all types who attended the Paris ESF
to encourage them to come to London. Press passes for the ESF were to
be available to 'proper' journalists with National Press Cards, but
while assurances had been given to media activists in London that community
media would be able to gain press passes and access to the ESF media
centre, this was never officially stated via the ESF website. Indeed
during the preparatory process the media centre had been treated by
many as "non-political" - as a purely practical issue disconnected
from any political discourse. Some people even going as far as to ask
how we can deal with ‘this problem of IndyMedia people and community
media wanting to use the media centre’!
Indeed the ESF media centre was the only space available
at Alexandra Palace with computers and internet access. That the biggest
progressive political meeting in Europe should go ahead without any
publicly available internet access is little more than a disgrace. While
budget constraints were the main reason given, it was clear that these
requirements had in fact been ignored for much of the preparatory process,
since despite months of lobbying by media activists it was announced
in August that there had been no ESF budget planned for any IT during
the event, or even for a media centre! At least however it was agreed
that the computers in the ESF media centre should run on open source
software platforms. On the flip side, an alternative Indymedia Media
Centre was set up in the Bloomsbury area by volunteers with over 70
computers available for use. One of the saddest failures was that AMARC
(the world association of community radio broadcasters) and the UK's
Community Media Association made an application to web stream live radio
from Alexandra Palace - in the end all they were given permission to
do was park their vehicle in the car park. They were given no power
feed (and so had to bring their own generator) and were not given any
internet connection, so the radio stream was impossible.
If another world is possible, then this includes another
media. There are many existing organisations and networks engaged in
producing alternatives now, on a daily basis, and it is crucial for
the ESF to ensure their participation, both to help develop communication
channels, to promote the forums in advance, and to help in documenting
them. The synergies that can be created through the combined efforts
of different initiatives that includes NOMAD and other archiving, reporting
and research projects are just the kind of practical collaborations
and concrete projects we need if we are to progress anywhere at all
in our quest for another world.
Dave Jones