Sending out radio and TV waves is essentially a practical matter. With the right equipment and people, and access to a transmitter, broadcasting can be done anywhere. Nevertheless, radio production in UN field missions seemed like a revolutionary idea in 1989. In 1997, the discussion no longer focuses on whether radio and TV broadcasting have a place in public information in the field. At issue now is the best way to go about it.

Some at the UN argue that a mission should have its own completely independent production and broadcasting facility. Some prefer local production of programming by mission personnel, who then arrange for broadcast on local stations. Still others eschew local production in favour of a central broadcasting facility at HQ in New York. And some prefer to concentrate on training, working with local broadcasters in an effort to improve programming and enhance journalistic standards. The answer seems to be: "It all depends." On the mission, on the resources, on local conditions.

For the most part, the UN is simply not in a position to plant an antenna in the soil of each new peace operation and start transmitting programmes. Nor is this always, or perhaps even often, the best approach. In many cases, it may well be argued that working with local broadcasters pays more benefits in the long run. In others, using existing facilities might be a far more efficient means of getting on the air, outweighing the disadvantages. According to Ayman El-Amir, DPI's Chief of Radio, "you need a case-by-case analysis".

"Ultimately what really matters is building an audience", says Chief of DPI's Peace and Security Section Kevin Kennedy. "And you can do that only by offering programmes people want to hear. People listen because they get useful, reliable information, or because they're entertained -- or both. It's not enough just to project the UN voice. The voice has got to connect. It's got to be saying something relevant, however you project it."