Thursday, 6 November 2008

forum transparency

Forum transparency membership,
public vs. private

12 public members
20 private members
member transparency = 37 %
management, public vs. private
9 public managers 5 private managers
manager transparency = 64 %
. . .
Forum membership as at 20 august 2008

The Pacific Freedom Forum now has 32 members, 15 of them signing within the first 24 hours.
Well, only 14, really, because in the rush PFF forgot to add Susuve Laumaea to the Forum email list.
A bit puzzling for Lauaea, considering the forum had asked him to co-chair the forum and act as a spokesperson with Monica Miller. It only took a few days for a PFF manager to get suspicious as to why the co-chair was so quiet.
. . .
Emerging transparency

From an industry that calls continually for transparency, members of the media are a shy bunch - just 35 % - one out of three - opting to publicly declare their support for the Pacific Freedom Forum.
An encouraging sign to emerge is a strong commitment towards transparency from founding forum managers, nine of 14 managers opting to go public - about two thirds.
At first glance - or thin slice as the jargon has it - the public face of freedoms seems a fair cross-section of islands media. There is a student, senior manager, news director, random freelancers, media volunteers, company directors, an academic and an aspiring politician, one with extensive experience on both sides of hourly deadlines.
In one short sentence, the Pacific Freedom Forum is an advocacy space for urgent issues facing freedoms of speech.
PFF is the latest acronym to leap into the alphabet stew of regional institutions, a fresh, young pea, bobbing around bravely among big, meaty NGOs, CSOs, NSAs, dodging a PING, a PANG, and a PIANGO of jargon-laden social justice.
Actually, one acronym is completely made up, presenting a golden opportunity for more vowel mash-ups.
. . .
Formal motion
After a few days internal debate over chicken-or-egg priorities, PFF noticed a media query asking for more details about members. This prompted a speedy motion, formally mooted, that:
"That all members of the Pacific Freedom Forum agree that all current membership details i.e. name, current positions, and country of residence be publicly and permanently disclosed, with agreement to this transparency being a pre-condition of any future membership application."
One private manager suggested that members could put their names to each motion as they saw fit – building precedence on a case-by-case basis.
. . .
Membership transparency

An original 13 members of the Pacific Freedom Forum, joining within 24 hours, have all been given manager status by the forum founder.
Of those 14, nine have chosen to join a public list following formal motion to require public disclosure of membership.
Of the remaining five, private, managers, one points out that some PFF members have valid cause for wanting to stay anonymous. Issues like job loss, or even harassment by military thugs sounds like valid cause for private membership.
. . .
Generally accepted practice

Private sources can give valuable insight and feedback. This idea is so fundamental to journalism that even junior journos would go, “yeah – duh.” Given that it is generally accepted practice on the frontlines of journalism, it could be argued that similar synergies apply back among the support troops. In short, there is journalistic precedence for the approach apparently supported by most PFF members and managers.
. . .

Originally posted to avaiki nius agency.

No comments:

Post a Comment

comments welcome below: