Media Accountability in the Era of Post-Truth Politics

European Challenges and Perspectives

Tobias Eberwein, Susanne Fengler, Matthias Karmasin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351115766
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Media & Communications Industry
• Index: Business

Bringing together both leading international scholars and emerging academic talent, Media Accountability in the Era of Post-Truth Politics maps the current state of media accountability in Europe and provides fresh perspectives for future developments in media and communication fields.

As the integrity of the international media landscape is challenged by far-reaching transformations and the rise of "fake news, " the need for a functional system of media regulation is greater than ever. This book addresses the pressing need to re-evaluate and redefine the notion of accountability in the fast-changing field of journalism and "information provision." Using comparative research and empirical data, the book's case studies address the notion of media accountability from various perspectives, considering political and societal change, economic, organisational and technological factors, and the changing role of media audiences. By collecting and juxtaposing these studies, the book provides a new discussion for the old question of how we can safeguard free and responsible media in Europe – a question that seems more urgent than ever.

Media Accountability in the Era of Post-Truth Politics is an essential read for students and researchers in journalism, media and communication studies.

PART I

Concepts and classifications of media accountability

1

Theory and practice of media accountability in Europe

An introductory overview

Tobias Eberwein, Susanne Fengler and Matthias Karmasin

Introduction

Fierce public discussions about the quality and responsibility of the media, and news journalism in particular, are neither new nor uncommon. Indeed, criticism of media performance, be it in spontaneous or in more systematic forms, has been in existence for as long as there have been professionally manufactured media products; and as a stimulus for processes of (self-)reflection, this criticism has always been an important instrument to hold media professionals to account (Marzolf 1991). Recent years, however, have seen a notable upsurge of critical observations about journalistic coverage, which is presumably unprecedented in the history of the media. Reasons for this trend are manifold and include various challenges on the political, economic and technological levels, which are currently threatening the functionality of many news outlets – and the journalistic profession as a whole.

Evidence is most easily discernible in the political arena: especially but not exclusively since the inauguration of US President Trump, complaints about an alleged political bias of the “mainstream media” seem to have become commonplace (Pickard 2017). Europe has witnessed a general shift to the Right and a radicalisation of political movements in many parts of the continent over the past decade. Various political activists openly denounce traditional journalistic reporting techniques as deceptive and turn to alternative (online) media to disseminate their views of the world (Heft et al. 2018). Their politically motivated critique of the media culminates in catchwords such as “fake news” or “lying press” (Lügenpresse), which characterise the assumption that professional journalists constantly distort social reality, to pursue their own political agenda. At the same time, however, journalists find it increasingly difficult to separate facts from fiction in a political culture that follows the dictate of strategic polarisation and “post-truth” (Albright 2017).

Such problems are even aggravated by the economic challenges that newsrooms around the globe are currently facing. Due to the failure of traditional revenue models, the financial basis of professional journalism is slowly eroding, which makes extensive cuts in most areas of the journalistic working environment almost inevitable. The consequences are often drastic: while some newsrooms are forced to close down completely, others need to economise – with dangerous repercussions for journalistic diversity and independence (Alexander et al. 2016).

Unfortunately, the technological innovations of the recent past have by no means helped to alleviate these tendencies. For years, both media scholars and practitioners have highlighted numerous advantages that a digitisation of public communication may bring about for journalism – for example, easier access to sources, more creative forms of content presentation or even a democratisation of the social discourse about the news (e.g. Fenton 2010). By now, however, such high hopes have given way to more pessimistic insights: the accelerated publication cycles of online journalism create a higher risk of editorial mistakes and misinformation; increasing user participation incites unparalleled waves of hate speech and trolling; and new forms of automated communication make it even more difficult to ascribe responsibility for published content (Eberwein and Porlezza 2016).

All of these and similar developments exert a massive pressure on journalistic actors, who, consequently, find it ever more demanding to live up to the expectations of their role in the complex societies of the present age. In many instances, these trends lead to a far-reaching distrust in traditional news reporting – and kindle a polymorphic choir of outrage against the journalistic profession, which, ever more frequently, lets typical quality standards fall into oblivion. In situations such as these, journalists need an entity to remind them of their social responsibility, and clarify what defines good practice in their profession. Such an entity can be found in the networks of instruments of media accountability and media self-regulation (e.g. press councils, ombudspersons, media journalism, but also media criticism via social media), which seem to be more significant now than ever before. The systematic investigation of these media accountability instruments from the perspective of the journalism cultures in Europe is the core objective of this collection of original research papers.

But what exactly is media accountability and what are the conceptual foundations of the term? Which instruments of media accountability do currently exist in Europe and how did they spread historically? Which kinds of approaches have media scholars, to date, chosen to make sense of this field of research? And what are the conspicuous research gaps and current challenges of media accountability initiatives from a comparative view? The introductory chapter will try to answer these questions on the grounds of a literature review, before the concept and the aims of the book can be explained in more detail.

Definitions and conceptual foundations

It is largely undisputed that mass media and journalism, in contributing to the self-monitoring of society, fulfil an important function when they select current topics and induct them into the social discourse (Luhmann 1996). The social relevance of the media has often been used as an argument to justify regulatory efforts, which are expected to safeguard the media’s functionality and ensure responsible behaviour by journalistic actors (e.g. McQuail 2005). However, media regulation by the state is mostly restricted to the provision of functional media structures, whereas journalistic work processes and editorial contents are usually protected from external control in democratic media systems (Puppis 2007).

Because of the principle of press freedom, the idea of media self-regulation originated as an alternative regulatory concept in the media sector. It includes all of those measures that representatives of the media professions initiate themselves to provide for the fulfilment of their social function. Other than conventional forms of media regulation, which are usually defined as a question of law, media self-regulation must be understood as a question of ethics (e.g. Frost 2000): it demands responsible journalistic behaviour not by adopting external control mechanisms but by counting on the inner acknowledgement of moral norms by human beings that act on the basis of individual judgment and autonomy. In this sense, it aims at safeguarding professional quality standards in media and journalism, while simultaneously holding off control measures by the state. In contrast, the concept of regulated self-regulation (or co-regulation) describes a middle ground between internal and external control: here, the state sets up a regulatory framework in which media actors are expected to operate autonomously, to achieve predefined quality goals (Schulz and Held 2004). In the field of political science, the trend towards increasing co-operation between state and non-state actors in the process of media regulation and policy-making has recently been subsumed under the umbrella term media governance (Puppis 2010).

However, the notion of media accountability, as adopted by the authors in this volume, goes one step further: it not only focuses on the state and media professionals as the key actors in the discourse about media performance and regulation but also identifies further stakeholders with an interest in free and responsible journalism, for example, media users and other members of civil society who claim their right to a say ever more often in the participatory culture of the present. Consequently, Bertrand defines media accountability as “any non-State means of making media responsible towards the public” (2000, p. 107). Similarly, but more precisely, Bardoel and d’Haenens (2004) differentiate between four media accountability frames that highlight the varying reference points and mechanisms to hold media accountable for their performance:

• political accountability includes all types of formal regulation stipulating, for example, how broadcasting companies and newspapers will be structured and how they function;
• market accountability refers to the system of supply and demand, in which the free choices of the public are given free rein and considerations of efficiency also play a role;
• professional accountability is linked to instruments such as ethical codes and performance standards that are used within the media, and should help in counterbalancing every excessive dependence upon politics and the market;
• public accountability corresponds to the media’s assignment of maintaining more direct relationships with citizens, in addition to their relationship with the aforementioned accountability frames.

Von Krogh (2012) amends this typology by stressing the considerable impact of media systems as well as the general influence of technological change on media accountability processes. Indeed, the extensive digitisation of public communication in the course of the past two decades, along with the introduction of the social web, has made it easier than ever for citizens to participate in the discourse about media responsibility, thus giving new relevance to the idea of public accountability compared with the other accountability frames.

This development is reflected by the most recent taxonomies of media accountability instruments (MAIs). For instance, the comparative project “Media Accountability and Transparency in Europe” (MediaAcT) (Eberwein et al. 2011; Fengler et al. 2014) systematised its findings with the help of an axis model, which distinguishes between journalism-internal and journalism-external MAIs on the one hand, as well as institutionalised and non-institutionalised MAIs on the other hand. From this perspective, media actors are not only held accountable by traditional institutions within the journalistic profession (such as press and media councils, codes of ethics, ombudspersons or media journalism) but also external institutions such as media research, NGOs or viewer/user associations of any kind. At the same time, it is also important to consider the growing influence of the various innovative instruments of media observation that are currently flourishing on the Internet, both inside and outside of the journalistic profession (e.g. newsroom and citizen blogs, cyber-ombudspersons or media criticism via Twitter and Facebook). Process models of me...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Figures
• Tables
• Contributors
• PART I Concepts and classifications of media accountability
• PART II Political and societal challenges
• PART III Economic and organisational challenges
• PART IV Technological challenges
• PART V Perspectives: rethinking the role of the audience
• Index