Self-Regulation

News media self-regulation—the monitoring of news production by the profession itself as opposed to external control—is one of the mainstays of the concept of press freedom. In general, the public values the ability of news media to report freely, to criticize freely, to serve as its watchdog; but simultaneously, the public expects journalists to uphold certain ethical standards, be mindful of the rights of both readers and subjects, and to be, as far as possible, truthful and balanced in their reports.

Yet occasionally excesses occur and a media story appears which causes both the public and politicians to question the integrity of journalists and journalism in general. Philosopher Stephen Carter suggests that the very nature of journalism can lead to instances where newsmen are so insulated from the rest of society that their decisions are made with a warped sense of their own worth. He has termed this “First Amendment arrogance.” To avoid this lack of accountability, some call for government oversight of news media, but most view any statutory regulation of journalistic practice as interference with the freedom that is seen as essential to democracy. Only self-regulation remains.

In modern journalism, there are two elements to self-regulation. On the one hand, professional editors, publishers, and station managers bear substantial responsibility for regulating the conduct of staff and maintaining accepted standards of journalism. On the other, over time various mechanisms beyond such informal and uneven oversight have evolved, including professional codes of practice, public editors, news ombudsmen, and news councils. News consumers have ways to hold news media accountable as well, ranging from the traditional such as “letters to the editor” to the rise of citizen journalism, especially in its online form.