1. From sending messages to reflecting diversity: Media and preventing violent extremism James Deane UNDP Preventing Violent Extremism Conference, Oslo, March 2016

2. Media and Fragile States: some trends

3. The Analysis: Seven media trends shaping fragility 1. Explosion in access to information – fragile states seeing among the fastest growth of mobile telephony and social media. 2. Appropriation of media by people with ability to organise, form new networks (progressive and extreme) and forge new (or reformulate old) identities 3. Fragmentation of media environments: explosion in number of traditional as well as social media. In Afghanistan, number of media (mainly radio and TV ) outlets increased by 20% per year from 2006. 4. Fracturing of media environments: traditional as well as online media catering for specific linguistic, ethnic and religious communities/ identities. National media often in decline/lacks credibility. 5. Growing co-option of traditional media by political, commercial, religious, ethnic and other factional interests. Increasingly sophisticated extremist exploitation of online/social media. Media increasingly exists to persuade, rather than inform. 6. Increasingly young, educated – and often politically and economically frustrated citizenries; 7. Governments are clamping down on media, closing democratic space for democratic dialogue.

4. Strategies that won’t work ► Controlling media in name of preventing terrorism ► Corruption a principal driver of radicalisation; ► Independent media strongly correlated with reduced corruption - few other strategies are; ► Controlling media enables corruption which fosters radicalisation; ► Counter narratives or counter propaganda: where is the evidence? ► Strategies that seek to persuade rather than reflect opinion and diverse (including angry) voices.

5. Introduction to an Afghanistan 2012 public engagement strategy: Who said this? “The lack of transparency in government institutions poses one of the most serious threats to the constitutional rights of Afghan citizens and damages healthy social norms and principles. This threat, coupled with a corrosive culture of impunity enforced by criminal patronage networks and predatory elements in the government and the private sector have frequently left ordinary citizens disenfranchised and increasingly caught between two “bads” – a corrupt public system and the deadly threats posed by insurgents.” ????

6. An Afghanistan public engagement strategy: Whose principles are these? “Seek to first understand Afghan civil society and act in support of their plans, rather than provide our solutions for their issues: The Afghan people are the best source of solutions to problems in Afghanistan. Build authentic relationships with Afghan people, don’t merely “message” or “target” them; Empower Afghan civil society leaders through listening: bridge the trust gap by becoming a consistent and credible partner. If ISAF can better reflect the views of the Afghan people in everything we do, then the effects we create will have a much greater likelihood of success.”

7. From sending messages to reflecting views ► Don’t focus on “messaging”, “counter- narratives” or even advocacy; ► Most effective media support strategies against violent extremism similar to those that underpin effective governance - a free, independent media that: ► Serves publics, builds trust & reflects diverse perspectives; ► is capable of acting as a check on power and deterring corruption; ► can enable independent dialogue and debate, especially across fracture points in society; ► can adapt to 21 st century communication environments and engage young people through public debate and dialogue:

8. The Governance community needs to take media more seriously ► Violent extremists, and indeed all groups (especially corrupt ones) seeking to command loyalty, undermine accountability and effective governance make heavy investments in media. ► Media support largely marginal in governance support strategies ► Don’t play to their strengths – play to ours; ► Be clear about evidence, theories of change and learn from what works and doesn’t (but who does that in development system on media support?); ► Paid for media advocacy campaigns won’t help: Media in many fragile states already heavily dominated by messages from development actors, rather than those that reflect people’s priorities/realities. Airwaves increasingly saturated with paid for content.