Introduction Basic Concepts and Theoretical Foundations of Media Accountability Session No. 1 Photo: imago/ecomedia/robert fishman
Introduction Basic Concepts and Theoretical Foundations of Media Accountability
Feb 25, 2016
Session No. 1. Introduction Basic Concepts and Theoretical Foundations of Media Accountability. Photo: imago/ecomedia/robert fishman. Why Media Accountability matters: The News of the World scandal and the Leveson Inquiry. http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/. Road map for Session No 1. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IntroductionBasic Concepts and Theoretical Foundations of Media
Accountability
Session No. 1
Photo: imago/ecomedia/robert fishman
Session 1 - Introduction 2July 2013
Why Media Accountability matters:The News of the World scandal and the Leveson Inquiry
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/
Session 1 - Introduction 3July 2013
Road map for Session No 1.Basic Concepts and Theoretical Foundations of Media
Accountability
Media Accountabili
ty
Definitions
Relevance
Perspectives
Models
Session 1 - Introduction 4July 2013
Media Accountability: Challenges for Journalism
“We recommend that the members of the press engage in vigorous mutual criticism. Professional standards are not likely to be achieved as long as the mistakes and errors, the frauds and crimes, committed by units of the press, are passed over in silence by other members of the profession.”
Who will hold the media accountable?
Session 1 - Introduction 5July 2013
Media Accountability (MA): Definitions + Instruments
“Any non-State means of making media responsible towards the public.” (Bertrand 2000: 108)
“Voluntary or involuntary processes by which the media answer directly or indirectly to their society for the quality and/or consequences of publication.”
(McQuail 2005: 207)
Media self-regulation instruments (professional +
organizational level):
Press codes + press councilsMedia criticism
(trade journals + mass media)Ombudsmen
Newsroom + journalists‘ blogs
Media accountability instruments (involving the
audience)
Users‘ CommentsMedia users‘ blogs
Social Media (Twitter, Facebook)etc.
Low cost of criticism in digital age
Session 1 - Introduction 6July 2013
Media Accountability in transition (?)
Media Accountability
Offline Online
eEditor at Norran (Sweden) http://norran.se/ Tagesschau-Blog (Germany)http://blog.tagesschau.de/
fixmedia.org (Spain) http://fixmedia.org Error Button at Berliner Morgenpost (Germany)http://www.morgenpost.de/berlinaktuell/article1077710/
See Session No. 9 & 10
See Session No. 5 & 6
Session 1 - Introduction 7July 2013
Media Accountability online – Case Study:„Editors‘ Blog“ of the BBC News (UK)
1. Short descriptionThe “Editors’ Blog”, where editors from across BBC News share (their) dilemmas and issues, started in May 2006 as part of an effort to improve transparency and accountability. The BBC values openness and accountability and offers the audience the possibility to interact with its staff. This blog aims at explaining the editorial decisions and dilemmas faced by the teams running the BBC's news service (incl. radio, TV, online).
2. Money/Time/ResourcesMost of the blog posts are fairly brief and they are written by many different contributors from across BBC TV and radio, respectively the online service. In 2011, there were 70 blog posts.
3. User participationIn some cases, the blog posts are responses to feedback, comments and criticism the BBC may have received from the public over the way it had handled certain news stories. Each post also allows for moderated response.
4. Why is it a best practice example?The types of articles posted on the blog fall into two general categories – updates about BBC News (a new newsroom, an app, viewing figures, etc.) and responses to feedback. For example, in December 2011, the BBC was criticized over its coverage of a European Summit in Brussels (notably by the Eurosceptic media), which led to the BBC Director of News issuing a response which then received a further 200 comments.
5. Why is it important for media accountability?Responding to criticism, and being open to further criticism, is an excellent way of showing actor, newsroom and production transparency – especially for the publicly funded BBC.
Link: www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors
Source: Bichler et al. 2012
Session 1 - Introduction 8July 2013
Session 1 - Introduction 9July 2013
How effective is media self-regulation? Observations from research
• Media journalists – who cover media issues for quality media – shy away from criticizing their colleagues and supervisors (e.g. Fengler 2002; Malik 2004; Porlezza 2005).
• Studies dealing with ombudsmen reveal similar self-imposed restrictions (e.g. Evers et al. 2010).
• Broadcasting stations tend to criticize the print media and vice versa, often with a political bias with regard to specific industry interests regarding media policy. (e.g. Krüger/Müller-Sachse 1998; Weiss 2004)
Collective and individual self-interests of media professionals obviously restrict the impact of established media self-regulation instruments. New models may be needed to hold the media to account more effectively. See Session
No. 3
Session 1 - Introduction 10July 2013
• Self regulation and coregulation are general principles of EU policy• Policy makers (EU, EP, OSZE, UNESCO) increasingly broach the issue of
media self regulation • The transformation societies of Eastern Europe and the Arabic states
perform under special frame conditions of Media Accountability• The EU High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism presented a
ground breaking report in 2013 and suggested among other recommendations to drastically expand the sanctioning potential of existing press councils, which provoked fierce response by industry representatives and lobbyists across Europe
Political relevance
Session 1 - IntroductionJuly 2013 10
Discussion:Does the traditional model of media self-regulation dating back from the 1950s, with press councils as its core institution, still suffice for today’s converging media world – which is ever so much more competitive?
Session 1 - Introduction 11July 2013
Journalism cultures (Hallin/Mancini 2004)
The liberal model (e.g. Great Britain, United States) is characterized by highly deregulated media markets, little state interference in the media sector, and a highly developed culture of professionalism among journalists (Hallin and Mancini 2004: 198).
The democratic corporatist model (e.g. Scandinavian countries, Germany, Austria) is also associated with high professionalism among journalists, but differs from the liberal model with regard to the influential role that public broadcasting plays in those countries (Hallin and Mancini 2004: 143).
Distinctive features of the polarized pluralist model (e.g. Italy, Spain, France) are the high influence of political actors on both private and public news organizations, a weak professional culture among journalists, and the somewhat marginal role of the print media (Hallin and Mancini 2004: 89).
Session 1 - Introduction 12July 2013
Media Accountability as informal institutions of media regulation
(North 1990)
Media regulation
laws standards
Session 1 - Introduction 13July 2013
Media Accountability: Functions for Stakeholders
Media society: Enlightenment
Media audience: Media literacy
Media politics/economics: Transparency
Media actors: Quality control
Media products: Orientation
(Beuthner/Weichert 2005)
Session 1 - Introduction 14July 2013
Classification of Media Accountability (Shoemaker/Reese 1996)
Source: Model adapted from Shoemaker and Reese 1996, amended by Fengler et al. 2013
Journalists (Individual Level)
Professional Standards (Media Routines Level)
Newsroom, media organization (Organization Level)Extramedia Level
Transnational Level
Journalist Training
Journalist Blogs
Press Councils
Trade Journals
Ombudsmen
Newsroom blogs
Organizational Ethic Codes
Watchblogs by Citizens
NGOs Social Networks
Session 1 - Introduction 15July 2013
Media Accountability instruments: a typology
Research
NGOs
Press councils
Codes of
ethics
Media journalism
Ombuds-men
Journalist blogs
Entertain-ment formats
Media criticism in social networks
Citizen blogs low degree of
institutionalization
journalism-external
journalism-internal
high degree of institutionalization
Training
Letters to the
editorOnline commen
ts
Session 1 - Introduction 16July 2013
Modes of Media Accountability (Bardoel and d’Haenens 2004)
Accountability to the state (1)
Accountability to the market (2)
Professional accountability (3)
Public accountability (4)
Source: Developed from Bardoel and d’Haenens (2004) by Heikkilä, Domingo, Pies, Głowacki, Kuś and Baisnée (2012: 6)
Session 1 - Introduction 17July 2013
Research project „Media Accountability and Transparency in Europe“ (MediaAcT): Comparative study in 14 countries
• Analysis of status quo of media self-regulation and media accountability in Europe
• Survey of journalists‘ attitudes towards media accountability
Key interest 1: Impact of established and innovative media accountability instruments
Key interest 2: „Cultures“ of accountability in Europe and comparison with exemplary Arab states
Session 1 - Introduction 18July 2013
New cultures of media accountability in Europe?
most-advanced countries
The North/Central European or Democratic Corporatist Model
advanced countries
The North/Central European or Democratic Corporatist Model
less-advanced countries
The Mediterranean or Polarized Pluralist Model
“under-construction” countries
countries without formal MAS
Session 1 - Introduction 19July 2013
No. Session Learning targets
1 Introduction – Basic concept and theoretical foundation of Media Accountability
Overview of the definitions, models, and theories as well as the relevance of Media Accountability.
2 Ethical challenges in journalism and Media Accountability –Recent cases
Overview of recent cases and ethical dilemmas of Media Accountability in Europe and beyond.
3 Back to the future – From the state of the art to new theoretical concepts
Overview of theoretical concepts of Media Accountability from an economic perspective.
4 Theoretical perspectives – Systemic and comparative approach of the Media, Field theory
Overview of a Systemic Theory and Field Theory of Media Accountability .
5 Media Accountability Instruments on the professional level – Part 1 - Press Councils, ombudsman and letters to the editors
Overview of Media Accountability Instruments (MAIs) on the professional media level.
6 Media Accountability Instruments on the professional level – Part 2 - Codes of Ethics
Overview of Media Accountability Instruments (MAIs) on the professional media level.
7 Media Accountability Instruments on the organizational level – Part 1 - Theory
Overview of Media Accountability Instruments (MAIs) on the organizational media level.
8 Media Accountability Instruments on the organizational level – Part 2 - Practices
Overview of Media Accountability Instruments (MAIs) on the organizational media level.
9 Online and participative Media Accountability Instruments – Part 1
Analysis of online and participative Media Accountability Instruments (MAIs) in Europe and beyond.
10 Online and participative Media Accountability Instruments – Part 2
Analysis of online and participative Media Accountability Instruments (MAIs) in Europe and beyond.
11 Media Accountability in Northern Europe and the Anglo-American World
Analysis of the cultures of Media Accountability based on the concept of Hallin and Mancini.
12 Media Accountability in Southern and Central/Eastern Europe
Analysis of the cultures of Media Accountability based on the concept of Hallin and Mancini.
13 Media Accountability in Authoritarian and Transitional Systems – The Cases of Jordan and Tunisia
Analysis of authoritarian and transitional media systems with a focus on the Arab World.
14 Final Assingment Task: Collection and discussion of national case studies.
Road Map
Session 1 - Introduction 20July 2013
ReferencesBardoel J. and L. d’Haenens. 2004. “Media responsibility and accountability: New conceptualizations and practices.” Communications 29: 5–25.Bertrand, C.-J. 2000. Media Ethics & Accountability Systems. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Beuthner, M. and S. A. Weichert. 2005. Die Selbstbeobachtungsfalle. Grenzen und Grenzgänge des Medienjournalismus.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Bichler, K., H. Harro-Loit, M. Karmasin and Daniela Kraus. 2012. “Best Practice Guidebook”. MediaAct Workingpaper No.
14/2012.Evers, H., H. Groenhart and J. Groesen. 2010. “The News Ombudsman: Watchdog or Decoy?” In Studies for the Netherlands
Press. Diemen: AMB.Fengler, S. 2002. Medienjournalismus in den USA. Konstanz: UVK .Heikkilä, H., D. Domingo, J. Pies, M. Glowacki, M. Kuś and O. Baisnée. 2012. “Media Accountability Goes Online. A
transnational study on emerging practices and innovations.” MediaAct Workingpaper No. 14/2012.Krüger, U. M. and K. H. Müller-Sachse. 1998. Medienjournalismus. Strukturen, Themen, Spannungsfelder. Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.McQuail, D. 2005. McQuail's Mass Communication Theory. 5th Edition. London: Sage.North, D. C. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Porlezza, C. 2005. “Zwischen Selbstbeweihräucherung und Konkurrenzkritik. Medienjournalismus in der Schweiz – drei
Fallstudien.” Medienwissenschaft Schweiz 1: 64-68. Puppis, M. 2009. Organisationen der Medienselbstregulierung. Europäische Presseräte im Vergleich. Köln: Herbert von Halem
Verlag.Shoemaker, P. and S. D. Reese. 1996. Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content. 2th Edition.
White Plains: Longman.Vike-Freiberga, V., Däubler-Gmelin, H., Hammersley, B. Maduro, M. 2013. A free and pluralistic media to sustain European
democracy. The Report of the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism
Related Documents
