The third blog post on the GESCI-AKE Creative Media Venture edu-biz training project and Living Lab Research, now addressing the industry and policy-maker responses to the research findings.
Two weeks ago I wrote about the 7 Theses of GESCI-AKE Creative Media Venture for Youth Entrepreneurship: Context matters significantly; Entrepreneurial education needs to be flexible; Everything is entrepreneurial; Both digital and physical platforms matter; Your niche is important; No success without collaboration; and Support should be ongoing.
I asked some external experts in the field — of creative industries, media business management, youth start-up incubation, start-up PR, and corporate innovation — what they considered as key drivers of Youth Entrepreneurship. I was thrilled to find that my 7 theses are also theirs.
Read about their views: 7 Theses, In Their Words
My 7 lessons for #youthentrepreneurship from GESCI-AKE Creative Media Venture training and incubation program, Nairobi, Kenya:
GESCI-AKE participants: Word cloud on their thoughts on entrepreneurship and development.
GESCI is pioneering an innovative training and enterprise program model combining culture and digital media technology dubbed ‘African Knowledge Exchange (AKE) – Creative Media Venture’.
The program addresses the changing global jobs and employment environment driven by new technologies in the context of growing youth unemployment.
- Jerome Morrissey, GESCI CEO
This post is based on the GESCI-AKE projects: The Sound of the City (2014-2015), and GESCI-AKE Creative Media Venture (2016-2017). Both have been rooted in the ongoing, urgent, and increasingly global, concern of sustainable future of work for the world’s youth.
GESCI-AKE’s training and enterprise model is in line with the trend that believes in local entrepreneurship as one of the most empowering, and cost-effective, solutions local systemic problems of youth employment. Compared to 14 major, established innovation and training labs/hubs in Eastern and Southern Africa,
View original post 2,125 more words
Public service media (PSM) institutions around the world exist in challenging conditions: not only do the commercial counterparts claim that PSM is distorting the market, governments are increasingly meddling with content and tightening financing for these institutions. This is an alarming trend in times of viral misinformation, filter bubbles, distrust of media, and global political and economic turbulence.
PSM should be the institutional harbingers of universality and public interest media: principles that bring people together.
But do they play that role anymore? Can public service media institutions survive these tumultuous times?
Shrinking platforms for public debate and diminishing support for media as a public good are challenges that CMDS is currently addressing. ThePublic Media Speakers Series launched in March 2017 is part of these efforts. The goal of this series is to go beyond conventional academic analyses of public broadcasting and showcase visions, as well as concrete strategies and tactics, of the roles public service media should play. The series addresses issues that include management and governance, policy, and journalism in public service media, as well as strategies to advocate for the protection of public service media from political pressures.
CMDS is running this series in cooperation with RIPE@GLOBAL, an influential global network of academic researchers and strategic managers with expertise in every relevant dimension of public service media. RIPE was established in 2000 in Finland and is a worldwide community today. One of RIPE’s core projects is the development of a Global PSM Experts Network, featuring an open access expert roster and active social media community of academic and applied researchers of public media.
“RIPE is committed to collaboration in curating these important conversations about the present, and ultimately the future, of PSM,” said Gregory Ferrell Lowe, Professor of Media Management at the University of Tampere (Finland) and RIPE’s Continuity Director. “We need multi-stakeholder views and involvement to build better understandings of the challenges and their different manifestations around the world. That is a firm foundation for collaboration.”
The series kicks off on March 2, 2017 with Jawhar Sircar’s public lecture: Public Broadcasting in India: Success and Failures. The lecture is organized in cooperation with the CEU South Asia Research Group.
Originally published in MediaPowerMonitor.
Executive Orders, staffing choices, unusual foreign policy moves, interesting “facts”, and numerous related tweets have dominated recent news about the new U.S. president and his administration. Perhaps that is why little attention has been given to the signs that the Trump administration will most likely cut funding for Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).
A few stories emerged mid-January, prompted by this article in The Hill, referring to the budget suggestions by the Heritage Foundation. It is rumoured that Trump will follow these closely. This is what the Foundation’s so called Budget Book says about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the umbrella organization channelling funds for PBS ad NPR:
“Privatize public broadcasting. Save taxpayers US $4.5bn.
The CPB made up only US$ 444m, or 16%, of this amount. Without federal funding for the CPB, services such as PBS and NPR, which receive funding from the CPB, could make up the lost money by increasing revenues from corporate sponsors, foundations and members. The goal of CPB is also increasingly met by other media sources.”
The Republicans have traditionally used public broadcasting as fuel for political debates. Unsurprisingly, Republican and pro-Trump news outlets have celebrated the idea of budget savings and invoked the claim about the enormous diversity of content choices on cable TV. Also, some throw in arguments that the federal government is currently funding biased news coverage by NPR — and this must stop.
Bias is a difficult question to verify. But, as Salon reports, 95% of the U.S. population can access public broadcasting’s over-the-air signal as part of its universal service mandate. This includes rural communities and economically disadvantaged viewers who cannot afford to pay for cable TV. In addition, NPR has been at the forefront of digital innovation — and it shows in audience ratings: NPR stations have outperformed many of their commercial news counterparts. It also remains the number one Podcast publisher in America. To put the proposed savings in context: the share of CPB of the federal budget is reportedly 0.01%.
Regardless, the plans of trumping public media are now moving forward. At the end of January 2017, Republican congressman Doug Lamborn introduced two bills: firstly to defund the CPB; and, secondly, to prohibit NPR from receiving funds from CPB, or public radio stations from using federal funds to purchase programming from and/or pay dues to NPR.
Photo: Ted Eyton