Media Accountability Systems

A media accountability system (M∗A∗S) is a relatively recent concept. It gathers a wide diversity of [Page 879]existing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) whose unifying purpose is to improve news media. Among the better known variations are correction boxes, press councils, news ombudsmen, and even books attacking press misbehavior. An M∗A∗S can be an individual (such as a media reporter) or a structured group (like a television viewers' association). It may consist of a single document (such as a code of ethics), a critical report, or a censorious blog on the Internet. It can also be a process, either short (like an ethical audit) or long (like a university education).

Although the terminology is recent, forms of M∗A∗S have existed since the press was born. Why, then, pay more attention to them now? For the same reason that there are more of them: it is widely believed that news media are not yet good enough for democracy to function well, though the survival of civilization may be predicated on the extension of democracy. So a crucial issue is how to help news media to better inform the public. Both a free market and limited legislation that avoids abuse of freedom are indispensable, but neither can deliver a quality press. Worse, either one can be dangerous: consider what state tyranny did to Soviet media, and what near total deregulation has done to American media since the 1980s.

A third force is developing in journalism, called “media accountability.” That concept embraces “ethics,” an individual journalist's sense of right and wrong; “media ethics,” guidelines drawn up by the profession in order to better serve the public; and “quality control,” the techniques used by a manufacturer to satisfy and retain his customers. Media accountability involves the public and in that way is quite different from “self-regulation,” which has rarely proved efficient. Media users are also voters and consumers: they can wield great influence on media but they have rarely done so.

The basic M∗A∗S, media codes of conduct, started being drafted at the turn of the twentieth century when “mass media” and commercialization spread. Today, probably no nation on earth is without some kind of media code. In the United States, most major newspapers have one of their own. Reading hundreds of them from around the world leads to the conclusion that they all essentially agree. With few exceptions, what is wrong and right in journalism are the same in every democracy. So the main problem is not in defining the principles or

justifying the rules of journalism, but in getting media owners and journalists to respect them. And since history teaches us not to trust the government, its police, and its courts, the focus has to be on nongovernmental means to enforce the rules—M∗A∗S. The purposes of the existing M∗A∗S are not limited to the enforcement of code rules, however. The situation may be summarized in six points:

• 1.
  The goal is quality information, sorely needed for democracy.
• 2.
  Quality information depends largely on the quality of journalists.
• 3.
  The quality of journalists requires that they resist both political and economic pressure.
• 4.
  To resist, they need to bring two forces into play: solidarity within the profession and public support of the profession.
• 5.
  Public support will only be made available if the public feels trust and esteem toward the profession.
• 6.
  Trust and esteem require three conditions: that quality services be provided, that journalists listen to the public, and that journalists feel accountable to the public for what they do.

...