Social Responsibility Theory

The Social Responsibility Theory (SRT) argues that the press has a responsibility to the public. This theoretical approach is a result of broadcasting and media ethics. Early communication administrators such as Robert Hutchins (head of the Commission on Freedom of the Press) expressed concern over communication ethics in libertarian media cultures. Early followers of the theory believed that mass media should contribute to societal improvement. SRT has been widely recognized by media practitioners and scholars since the Commission on Freedom of the Press in 1947.

The Committee on a Free and Responsible Press (1947) expressed the view that the press should provide a truthful, comprehensive, and intelligent account of the day's events in a context which gives them meaning; serve as a forum for the exchange of comment and criticism; project a representative picture of the constituent groups in society; help in the presentation and clarification of the goals and values of society; and offer full access to the day's intelligence. The statement of principles by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (2002) restated that the primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time.

Early communication scholars, such as Frederick Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Schramm, argued that according to the relationship between the social structure and the media, each society has a particular communication system. These early scholars emphasized SRT as a desirable direction for new media societies to correspond to liberal political and social climates.

However, current scholars such as Scott Lloyd think a fresh perspective of SRT should be considered, [Page 749]because all information sources are interrelated and message channels grow more complicated. Thus, social responsibility for certain social actors is an obscure concept in terms of media ethics and social values. Lloyd argues that although SRT is practically and academically useful and acceptable, American society does not consistently correspond to the assumptions of SRT. He asserts that societal obligation, individual rights, and interpersonal relationships are concepts necessary to modifying the theory to fit a contemporary usage.

Levels of media accuracy and reportage depend on how social circumstances support media information. Reporting with either very few details or vague information could make media sources look unethical and socially irresponsible. Thus, the appropriateness of media roles proves troublesome in rapidly changing societies with multiple information sources. Therefore, some argue that SRT is an outdated theoretical approach, while others still assert that the media and the public should determine and uphold social values and degrees of responsibility. Besides the original SRT assumption that the media remain independent and self-regulate their level of social responsibility, all journalists need to understand the appropriate social values for a given time and place and adjust SRT to fit current social systems.