MediaAcT

Recommendations

Info

Index | Editorial | Birds-eye view | Opening the toolbox | Zoom-in on the newsroom newsroom| Media landscapes 0 How to increase media accountability By MATThiAS kArMASin, dAnielA krAuS, Andy kAlTenBrunner & klAuS Bichler do journalists need more incentives or sanctions to use accountability tools? Media accountability, defined as any non-state means of making media responsible towards the public, is one key indicator for media pluralism and media freedom in a country. Therefore, investments in better media accountability systems mean investment in the quality of democracy. The MediaAcT team, as part of its research, tried to find ways to foster such investments. Two main target groups for such measures are journalists and media companies. Especially today in times of crisis (media, financial sectors, etc.) there should be incentives for journalists and media companies to have fair and balanced reporting. However, state intervention is out of the question. The relevant standards should be developed in a joint process by the media industry and its managers, journalists, the audience, NGOs, media scholars etc. Research shows that regulated self-regulation, also termed co-regulation, is the best way to meet high media accountability standards. This means that the state provides a framework that offers the media incentives for self-regulation. The juggling act between guaranteeing freedom of expression as well as media freedom on the one side and censorship on the other side can be handled best by such measures. High standards in media accountability guarantee a high level of freedom of expression. Furthermore they raise the quality of discussion within the public sphere. The international MediaAcT research group has collected interesting results within the research processes. One result of the Media-AcT project consists of policy recommendations. Based on the research outcomes, the team can recommend three major measures to foster media accountability in the future at the supranational level: 1. Monitoring (EU focus on fundamental rights in the member states). 2. A clear framework for subsidies (EU focus on fair competition). 3. Encouraging media literacy (EU focus on European public sphere). 1. The first needs researchers’ actions: Continuous monitoring helps to evaluate the state-of-the-art of media accountability in the EU member states. The monitoring includes a regularly produced (annual, bi-annual) and openly published index, which has been developed by the MediaAcT project, which monitors the activities of media professionals and media organisations in EU member states. Such an index creates a ranking in order to find country-specific deficits. Furthermore, it enables media policy makers to set incentives to improve the situation. Moreover, the highlighted best practice countries can act as benchmarks. In the long term, the monitoring will apply important data to media and journalism and thereby raise the quality of democracy. Therefore it strengthens fundamental rights. 2. The second requires the involvement of politics: The media sector is no longer simply a national issue, as concentration processes in ownership in the EU accelerate. For the European Commission, the protection of competition policies and the free movement provision should also apply to the media industry. As a consequence, any kind of subsidies should only be granted under clear premises. Transparent frameworks should apply to direct subsidies (e.g. press subsidies or public service broadcaster fees) as well as to indirect subsidies (e.g. public advertising money). Regarding direct subsidies, the national public broadcaster
services should play a major role in accountability processes. Their major stakeholder is the audience. As they are (partly) financed by public money or taxes, they should act as benchmarks in balanced and high quality reporting or entertaining. Consequently, public broadcasters should stick to clearly defined standards and act as a reference point in internal media accountability systems. This can be achieved by having an adapted internal code of ethics, a fixed complaints procedure or by making news production processes transparent. Regarding indirect subsidies, clear rules are also needed. Government departments, public bodies and institutions spend a huge amount of money on advertising in all kinds of media. These institutions should oblige themselves to spend advertising money only in a medium that maintains certain accountability standards. These standards have to be defined in advance and can range from membership in a (local) press council, accepting the national code of conduct, having an ombudsman or having fixed accountability procedures. 3. The third needs an informed public: Europe requires more initiatives to promote and support media literacy in EU member states. The European Commission already provides direct support to a number of media organisations or media projects, e.g. EURANET, support for Euronews and for the European Journalism Centre. As a consequence, the Commission should also initiate and financially support a programme for media literacy. Such a programme will raise the quality of discussion within the European public sphere. These three suggestions are based on the scientific results of the MediaAcT project. They address three levels of media accountability, each involving multiple stakeholders mutually developing media accountability standards. lInk The MediaAcT policy recommendations can be downloaded here: www.mediaact.eu/outcomes.html Photograph: Lutz Kampert 1 Index | Editorial | Birds-eye view | Opening the toolbox | Zoom-in on the newsroom | Media landscapes
Page 1 and 2: MediaAcT Final Research Report How
Page 3 and 4: ZOOM-In On ThE nEwsrOOM 24 CRiTiCAl
Page 5 and 6: A right royal tussle between press
Page 7 and 8: Leveson’s plan caused an instant
Page 9 and 10: Photograph: photocase/pauliestroj M
Page 11 and 12: ple, in the Netherlands). In Jordan
Page 13 and 14: media? First, via a message, which
Page 15 and 16: Online OFFline Example 4: Productio
Page 17 and 18: OFFline Example 12: External Tools
Page 19 and 20: sources of information by attaching
Page 21 and 22: against freedom of information. The
Page 23 and 24: Action! By TOBiAS eBerwein how medi
Page 25 and 26: Critical or hypocritical journalist
Page 27 and 28: the High-Level Group - even though
Page 29: according to Jari Väliverronen, th
Page 33 and 34: First, there is a second and potent
Page 35 and 36: What we see is that although there
Page 37 and 38: Table 1: Democracy index average by
Page 39 and 40: playing an active role in fighting
Page 41 and 42: ia? Self-regulation vs. co-regulati
Page 43 and 44: Boguslawa Dobek-Ostrowska, Poland W

MediaAcT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?