New discursive configurations of journalism : Narratives in Rio de Janeiro's favelas [Novas configurações discursivas no jornalismo: narrativas digitais nas favelas do Rio de Janeiro]

Oprincipal objetivo desse artigo é apresentar os resultados parciais de uma pesquisa em andamento sobre o processo de produção de conteúdo do portal Viva Favela, um dos projetos sociais realizados pela organização nãogovernamental Viva Rio. Partindo de uma abordagem conceitual que discute os modos pelos quais a mídia alternativa e o jornalismo público/jornalismo cívico criam as condições de possibilidade para que uma determinada prática jornalística dê ‘voz’ e ‘empodere’ (empower) moradores de periferias e favelas brasileiras, estamos realizando um estudo das rotinas produtivas do Viva Favela e seus ‘correspondentes comunitários’. O conceito sobre voice, de Jo Tacchi, oferece-nos um embasamento teórico adequado para refletirmos sobre o que vem sendo denominado, nos Estados Unidos, de digital storytelling – as narrativas digitais produzidas com as tecnologias de informação e comunicação para “contar estórias” 1, que são criativamente apropriadas, no Brasil, por moradores das favelas e periferias das regiões metropolitanas.

Government grants - an abrogation or management of risks?

New public management (NPFM), with its hands-on, private sector-style performance measurement, output control, parsimonious use of resources, disaggreation of public sector units and greater competition in the public sector, has significantly affected charitable and nonprofit organisations delivering community services (Hood, 1991; Dunleavy, 1994; George & Wilding, 2002). The literature indicates that nonprofit organisations under NPM believe they are doing more for less: while administration is increasing, core costs are not being met; their dependence on government funding comes at the expense of other funding strategies; and there are concerns about proportionality and power asymmetries in the relationship (Kerr & Savelsberg, 2001; Powell & Dalton, 2011; Smith, 2002, p. 175; Morris, 1999, 2000a). Government agencies are under increased pressure to do more with less, demonstrate value for money, measure social outcomes, not merely outputs and minimise political risk (Grant, 2008; McGreogor-Lowndes, 2008). Government-community service organisation relationships are often viewed as 'uneasy alliances' characterised by the pressures that come with the parties' differing roles and expectations and the pressures that come with the parties' differing roles and expectations and the pressurs of funding and security (Productivity Commission, 2010, p. 308; McGregor-Lowndes, 2008, p. 45; Morris, 200a). Significant community services are now delivered to citizens through such relationships, often to the most disadvantaged in the community, and it is important for this to be achieved with equity, efficiently and effectively. On one level, the welfare state was seen as a 'risk management system' for the poor, with the state mitigating the risks of sickness, job loss and old age (Giddens, 1999) with the subsequent neoliberalist outlook shifting this risk back to households (Hacker, 2006). At the core of this risk shift are written contracts. Vincent-Jones (1999,2006) has mapped how NPM is characterised by the use of written contracts for all manner of relations; e.g., relgulation of dealings between government agencies, between individual citizens and the state, and the creation of quais-markets of service providers and infrastructure partners. We take this lens of contracts to examine where risk falls in relation to the outsourcing of community services. First we examine the concept of risk. We consider how risk might be managed and apportioned between governments and community serivce organisations (CSOs) in grant agreements, which are quasiy-market transactions at best. This is informed by insights from the law and economics literature. Then, standard grant agreements covering several years in two jurisdictions - Australia and the United Kingdom - are analysed, to establish the risk allocation between government and CSOs. This is placed in the context of the reform agenda in both jurisdictions. In Australia this context is th enonprofit reforms built around the creation of a national charities regulator, and red tape reduction. In the United Kingdom, the backdrop is the THird Way agenda with its compacts, succeed by Big Society in a climate of austerity. These 'case studies' inform a discussion about who is best placed to bear and manage the risks of community service provision on behalf of government. We conclude by identifying the lessons to be learned from our analysis and possible pathways for further scholarship.