Maccbride Commission.

Introduction 

The International Commission for the Study of Communication Problems, known as the ‘MacBride Commission’, was set up in 1977 to study all manner of problems of communication in the world. One of its chief tasks was                "to analyse communication problems in their different aspects within the perspective of the establishment of a new international economic order and of the measures to be taken to foster the institution of a  “new world information order”.

Director-General M’Bow formulated the Commission’s brief terms of reference in four points 

1. to study the current situation in the fields of communication and information and to identify problems which call for fresh action at the national level and international level. The analysis of the state of communication in the world today, and particularly of information problems as a whole, should take account of the diversity of socioeconomic conditions and levels and types of development.

2. To pay particular attention to problems relating to the free and balanced flow of information in the world, as well as the specific needs of developing countries, in accordance with the decisions of the General Conference.

3. To analyse communication problems within the perspective of the establishment of a new international economic order and of the measures to be taken to foster the institution of a ‘new world information order’.

4. To define the role which communication might play in making public opinion aware of the major problems besetting the world, in sensitizing it to these problems and helping gradually to solve them by concerted action at the national and international levels.

The Commission was chaired by Irish politician, diplomat and Nobel laureate  Sean MacBride. The composition of the commission aroused much discussion from the start. Only one of the countries invited to participate declined the invitation, namely, China. The individuals were chosen on the basis of personal merits and would represent only themselves. Six of them, however, were politicians of national stature, and five others were active in politics. It is likely that these members may have regarded themselves as representatives of their respective countries. Three of the Commission were academics; two had been imprisoned for their views.

                           The MacBride Commission also engaged a number of external scholars and experts to produce specialized reports on aspects of the Commission’s work. Nothing like this on this scale had ever happened before. The studies ranged from conceptual analyses to statistical compendia, surveys of national media legislation, and bibliographies. They were reported in roughly 100 publications. Thus, the MacBride Commission had a major impact on scholarship pertaining to international communication, as well.

Hamelink defined a new international information order as: 

an international exchange of information in which states, which develop their cultural system in an autonomous way and with complete sovereign control of resources, fully and effectively participate as independent members of the international community.

The Report of the MacBride Commission:

It consisted of 16 members of different political, social, cultural and economic background. Despite this, the Commission managed to reach agreement on as many points as possible. 

The phrase, “new world information order” was replaced by, in 1978, "a new, more just and effective world information and communication order”.

These shifts are also present in the title of the Commission’s  final report:  Many  Voices,  One World. Communication and Society,  Today and Tomorrow.  Towards a New, More Just and More Efficient World Information and Communication Order, which was submitted to UNESCO’s Director-General in Spring 1980.

The volume consists of five parts. 

The first four report the findings of studies in four areas:

 1)Communication and Society (historical and contemporary perspectives and the international dimension). 

2) Communication Today (means of communication, expanding infrastructures, concentration, interaction, participants, disparities). 

3. Problems and Issues of Common Concern (flaws in communication flows, dominance in communication contents, democratization of communication, images of the world, the public and public opinion). 

4. The Institutional and Professional Framework” (communication policies, material resources, research contributions, the professional communicators, rights and responsibilities of journalists, norms of professional conduct).

5. Conclusions and Recommendations” offers some eighty policy recommendations of problems studied.

           The report treats all kinds of information and communication, from interpersonal communication to mass communication and digital communication from local, national and international points of view.

The Commission report stresses that it is not only about developing countries, but about the whole of  humanity, because unless the necessary changes are made in all parts of the world, it will not be possible to attain freedom, reciprocity or independence in the exchange of information worldwide. The Commission confirmed the persistence of imbalances in news and information flows between countries and marked inequalities in the distribution of communication resources. The Commission agreed about the necessity of change and found the current situation “unacceptable to all”.

Although it was part of the Commission’s remit, no real attempt is made to specify the links between a new world economic order and a NWICO.

International flows of information are discussed in part three of the report. Here the discussion invokes a number of concepts that already had won acceptance in UNESCO. The Commission links, for example, ‘freedom of the press’ to the principle of ‘the right to communicate’ and to the various conventions on human rights adopted by the United Nations. Links are also established to concepts like ‘balanced flow of information’ and ‘free access to the media’. In this latter connection, the report states:

Despite many disputes about the validity of such criticisms it seems irrefutable that ‘free flow’ between the strong and the weak, the haves and the havenots, has had undesirable consequences for the latter, and hence at the international level for the developing countries.

For the first time ever, a UNESCO document plainly stated that a few transnational companies controlled the international information system and that their control posed a threat to the cultural integrity and national independence of many countries. In extension, this dominance is seen to pose a threat to a new world economic order. The Commission perceives corporate dominance to be a consequence of the postwar doctrine of ‘free flow of information’. Furthermore, the report baldly describes international information flows as one-way and vertical (top-down).

A section entitled “The Technological Dilemma” discusses issues relating to new technologies. Here, the Commission did not report a single, unequivocal view. The commercialization of information is harshly criticized, as is the expansion of advertising markets.

This very brief recap of the findings of the MacBride Commission suggests that the third world’s critique of the prevailing order was heard and gained some measure of acceptance with regard to the pattern of information flows and the dominance of transnational news and media corporations as a threat to cultural integrity and national independence.

                Recommendations:

The measures the MacBride Commission recommended to bring about a “new more just and efficient world information and communication order” may be described in four points:

1. The development of third-world countries so that they become truly independent and self-reliant and develop their cultural identities.

Explanation: Proposed means to reach these goals include: tailoring national communications policies to suit the conditions in the country, building infrastructure, equitable distribution of common global communication resources, limits on the activities of transnational corporations, preferential treatment of non-commercial media, balanced flows of technical information.

2. Better international news gathering and better conditions for journalists.

Explanation: The Commission recommends ethical rules for the practice of journalism, improved journalism education, multiple news sources, observance of the Helsinki Agreement and the Geneva Convention.

3. Democratization of communication (access and participation, the right to communicate). 

Explanation: Important measures here are guarantees of human rights, acceptance of ‘the right to communicate’, abolition of censorship, editorial independence, limits on media concentration and monopolization, limits on the influence of advertisers on editorial policy/media content, attention to the communication needs of women, children and minorities, and facilitation of horizontal communication.

4. Furtherance of international cooperation. Explanation: The measures in this last category aim to effectuate previous proposals through international cooperation: development assistance, support of regional fora and collaborative projects, e.g., NANAP, collaboration between professional organizations and within the research community, an international center for research and planning of information and communication.

            

 Criticism of Recommendations:

1. The recommendations of the MacBride focused almost entirely on conventional mass media. This despite the fact that the Commission’s terms of reference were much broader in scope. The importance of traditional communication is referred to in the introductory remarks accompanying the recommendations, but none of the recommendations concern traditional forms or channels of communication. Media technology is the only aspect besides mass media to be considered.

2. The recommendations are highly structure-oriented; most of them concern media institutions and media organizations. Fewer than a handful treat media content (advertising and news).

3. The document largely bears the stamp of a development perspective. The development of the countries of the third world is seen to have a key role in the work toward a NWICO.

4. When it comes to measures relating to communication technology, the picture is more mixed and somewhat contradictory. 

5. Several of the recommendations fit in with a modernization paradigm, but a couple are more in keeping with the dependence paradigm. Neocolonialism confronts decolonization.

6. Furthermore, there are far more references to what  developing countries should do than to what  developed  countries should do.

7. Most of the recommendations are formulated on the strategic level. Some are quite concrete, but few specify any actor. The actors specified are international organs, etc

that already have a regulatory framework.

8. The forms of international cooperation outlined in the fifth part are not sufficiently specific.

9. All in all, then, the extent of implementation is weak, which definitely limits the prospects of bringing about a new information and communication order.