Media, Militarization, and Human Rights: Comparing Media Reform in the Philippines and Burma
Thoseworkingtodevelopandreformmediaoftendrawonhumanrightsdiscourse,especially in areas of political violence. Yet discours er ef lecting globally dominant conceptions of individually based human rights can have detrimental effects. This study illustrates how militarizationand this discourse of human rights can be mutually reinforcing, and explores the impact of this phenomenon on media and reform efforts. We examine as case studies the efforts to reform and develop media in the Philippines and Burma (Myanmar), both militarized states with severely constrained political discourse. As a result, media freedom and reform efforts tend to center on the safety and individual rights of journalists rather than on media as a public service, a political and social force accessible to all. doi:10.1111/j.1753-9137.2011.01107.x Those working to develop and reform media often draw on human rights discourse in lobbying for free and publicly responsible media, especially in areas of political violence. Yet discourse reflecting the globally dominant, individually based conception of human rights can have detrimental effects. This study illustrates how ‘‘militarization’’ and this discourse of human rights can be mutually reinforcing, and explores the consequences for media and media reform efforts. We examine as case studies the efforts to reform and develop media in the Philippines and Burma (Myanmar), 1 both militarized states with severely constrained political discourse. As aresult,mediafreedomandreformefforts tendtocenteronthesafetyandindividual rights of journalists rather than the role of media as a public service, a political and social force accessible to all. That militarization and human rights discourse are mutually reinforcing in the Philippines and Burma suggests that this phenomenon may be at play elsewhere as well. Individual journalists are easier to control than groups lobbying for structural change, and the focus on press freedom, while important, arguably provides a (less threatening) distraction from such collective demands. This lends weight to the