"Young Ugandans are reluctant to voice their concerns and take part in public discussions according to indicative findings from the MIL INDEX country study presented here. The eight focus groups conducted for the study in Kampala and Bugembe early in 2019 revealed that youths are using both traditional and social media extensively, but discussions of political and public issues take place mainly in closed circles on platforms like WhatsApp. “It is a suffocated environment,” says media expert Gerald Businge.
This MIL INDEX study is aimed at obtaining a concise picture of media- and information-related skills amongst youths under the age of 35 in Uganda. It addresses five dimensions of Media and Information Literacy (MIL) based on DW Akademie’s MIL model: access, analysis, reflection, creation, and action.
The focus group participants see themselves living in the “the dot-com era” though access to the Internet and even television is far from universal in Uganda. The smartphone is the most popular device and it serves as a benchmark when judging more traditional media (radio, television, and newspapers). Social media are used alongside traditional media, but there is a feeling that traditional media, especially radio, are losing touch with the Ugandan youth of today. There is a general neglect of printed media, based on an aversion to long reads and often also difficulties in understanding them. Some participants feel they are addicted to social media and online messengers.
When it comes to analytical skills, the Ugandan youths in the focus groups are not very critical of the media environment they live in despite the overwhelming evidence that state control, intimidation, and media concentration are problems in Uganda. But they do pick up on news bias and sensationalism. They are also aware of the fact that online sources and social media information should not be trusted blindly. Participants can differentiate between quality and tabloid-type media, but an alarming proportion does not know their constitutional right to freedom of expression.
The level of reflection on the part of focus group participants is medium to low. They can render many cases of cyberbullying/hate speech, disinformation and cybercrime, though they are not always aware of the difference. Especially the examples of cyber-harassment that are recounted in the focus groups reveal that female youths are primarily targeted. At the same time there seems to be little in the way of counselling for victims and there was not enough reflection of the background to such malevolent forms of communication. Strategies in coping with them are not very elaborate, though some groups did mention methods of verification in the context of disinformation several times. There is considerable potential for support when it comes to dealing with cyberbullying, cyber-harassment, hate speech and cybercrime." (Executive summary)