MEDIA ETHICS AND

ACCOUNTABILITY

Introduction Media accountability

T
HE SOLE aim of media is to make as much money as they can.
Or again, the media are to serve only the people in power, political
or economic. If you agree to that, you might as well stop reading
this.
This issue of Pacific Journalism Review is predicated on the principle that
media should serve the public. Journalists can only achieve that if they
enjoy independence from financial and political pressures. It is not often
enough underlined that they cannot enjoy that independence without the
support of the public, the masses of voters and consumers. There is no way
the profes- sion can obtain public support unless it listens to
readers/listeners/viewers— unless it is accountable to them.
Media accountability is sometimes confused with self-regulation. It
does include it but is a far wider concept. Self-regulation implies that media
im- pose rules upon themselves. Most often, media owners initiate auto-
disci- pline for fear that a government will legislate restrictions to their
freedom of enterprise, taking public hostility towards media as a pretext.
Sometimes jour- nalists initiate rules to ensure good service and to protect
their profession.
Accountability implies being accountable, accountable to whom? To
the public, obviously. While regulation involves only political rulers and
while self-regulation involves only the media industry, media accountability
involves press, profession and public.
There is one institution, invented in mid-20th century, 1 which normally
gathers representatives of those three groups in order to adjudicate
complaints by users against the media, the ‘press council’ (PC). Most
Western European nations have one. New ones are appearing in Eastern
Europe, Africa, Asia— and Oceania.
Press councils come in various shapes: some do not accept publishers
as in Switzerland, or do not accept journalists as in the UK, or do not accept
the public as in Germany. But the norm is the tripartite PC as in Australia
and New Zealand. Because it is a permanent joint commission of the main
pro- tagonists in social communication, a PC is potentially the best ‘media
ac- countability system’. But it is difficult to put together and expensive to
run.
 This makes it all the more intriguing that small nations like South
Pacific island states, where democracy is emerging, where journalists,
quite a few under-trained, have not formed unions—should have, or
consider having, PCs, even though they are not (yet) of the now-standard
type. Especially as some rich nations, with a long tradition of democracy,
like France, do not have one. As one who has observed PCs for almost 30
years, I believe they are a great kind of NGO—and could become the
ultimate ‘media accountability system’ (M*A*S) because a tripartite PC is
a permanent, democratic, inde- pendent, flexible, multifunctional body that
brings together and represents the people who own the power to inform,
those who possess the talent to
inform and those who have the right to be informed.
At present, there are relatively few of them, even with many more de-
mocracies than before and many more media: as of late 2004, between 54
(active, genuine press councils), 65 if you include African ‘media
observato- ries’—and 80, if you include similar accountability systems and
PCs which may not yet or no longer be operational. There are fewer than 40
true nation- wide PCs in 174 countries, none in the Arab world, only two in
Latin America, only three state-wide PCs for 50 United States, and over 20
nations belonging to the Council of Europe are without a PC—including
France, Poland and Portugal.
The problem is not, as some in this part of the world seem to fear, that
government can turn them into statutory control machines. That has never
happened: when media and journalists are aware and organised to the point
of setting up a PC, they are strong enough to keep it independent. An
interest- ing development took place in India in 1975: as Indira Gandhi
seized dictato- rial powers, one of the first things she did to the media was
to dissolve the PC. Even though it was statutory, it was independent—as is
the one in Den- mark. Autocratic governments have tried to disguise their
media control com- missions, like the ‘Supreme Press Council’ of Egypt,
but they don’t need a voluntary PC as a stepping stone. On the contrary the
creation of voluntary PCs is a sign of democracy; witness black Africa’s
‘media observatories’ or Eastern Europe’s press councils.2
The problem is that they have rarely acquired much influence. Do
news- papers serve the public better in Sweden (which has had a PC for
almost a century) than in Spain (which does not have a national one)? A few
 MEDIA ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
years ago, I asked the councils themselves what their greatest achievement
was. Their
replies were dismal: no council felt it had clearly contributed to the
improve- ment of media.
The few books and articles devoted to PCs normally shovel criticism
upon them: a common criticism is that a council is a PR operation by media
owners to persuade Parliament not to pass restrictive laws and to persuade
the citizens that they care about delivering good public service.
Everywhere, critics note that the public is not aware of the PC’s exist-
ence, even after many years of operation or, if they know it exists, they do
not know what it’s for and, if they do know, they don’t believe it can
improve the media, largely because the council has ‘no teeth’, lacks the
power to punish. So it seems useless. The good media don’t need it and the
bad ones pay no attention to it.
Better informed observers consider that the typical PC rarely has
enough money to assume its functions well. Partly because of that lack of
funds, mainly as a matter of policy, the PC does not handle the most serious
cases, simply because complaints are not made about them and the PC does
not monitor the media.
The problem is that PCs, mainly under pressure from owners, tend to
consider themselves as ‘complaints commissions’—and even then, some
(like the British PCC) insist on mediating, on not adjudicating against the
media if they can avoid it. In my view, a PC’s role is not just to satisfy a
few individu- als who have been hurt by the media, not just to avoid
lawsuits, not just to discourage the state from limiting the freedom to make
money. A PC is meant to improve the news media. Existing councils keep a
very low profile. A true PC should not shy from seeking publicity, taking
stands, establishing case law, taking initiatives when no complaint comes
in. It should also assume all the missions found in the constitution of the
original British PC, like report- ing on the state and evolution of the media,
like speaking out on threats to freedom. I believe a PC should also take an
interest in the training of journal- ists, basic to an improvement of their
services, and in research on how the news media actually function, what
influence they have, what citizens need from them etc. Most importantly, a
PC should be monitoring the press be- cause what the press does worst is
what it does not do. That is indispensable for taking initiatives on issues
which the ordinary citizen most often cannot spot.
All that work cannot be done by press councils alone . Here we come to
 MEDIA ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
the most important point I wish to make. A press council should encourage
the creation of other ‘media accountability systems’ (M*A*S). More than
80 of them exist (See list, pp. 11-16) and more can be invented. M*A*S
possess many qualities. Like PCs, they are harmless, which is fundamental.
They are not a threat to journalistic freedom (which the market and
legislation can be) insofar as they restore the trust and esteem of the public
for the profession, they protect it, they are its best bulwark to defend its
freedom.
M*A*S are extremely diverse. They can be either documents: texts or
broadcasts, or people: individuals or groups, or processes, fast or slow.
They can be internal to media or external to them, i.e. created and operated
by people outside the media, or they involve co-operation of media people
and non-media people. Besides, some M*A*S function at local or regional
or national or international level. They produce an effect that is immediate,
or short term or long term.
They are flexible. They can easily be adapted to circumstances.
Compare a code of ethics and a law for instance. They complement each
other. While none is sufficient, all are useful. And they can all function
with one another. They are democratic: with a few exceptions, they are all
initiated by the pro- fession or by the public (not the State). Many require
the co-operation of professionals and media users.
That makes you wonder why some M*A*S are so little accepted, why
others are so little used. For one thing, many are not known. And if known,
they are disliked simply because they are new. Generally speaking, what is
said against them?
M*A*S are said to be purely cosmetic, by left-wingers; dangerously
radi- cal, by right-wingers, a plot against freedom of speech and free
enterprise. Realists find them unrealistic: codes are senseless catalogues;
can a reporter afford to lose his job for the sake of ethics? Good media do
not need quality control. The bad ones will never accept it unless the law
forces it upon them. They also find them costly, if they are to do their job
well, meaning fast and visibly.
Experience shows that journalists express far more hostility towards
M*A*S than management: righteous journalists find them time-consuming,
restrictive and insulting, incompetent or dishonest journalists feel
threatened, and, mainly, quite a few journalists find it unacceptable because
profession- als are not independent, so they cannot be held responsible.
 MEDIA ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
That is a crucial criticism: media ethics should not turn journalists into
scapegoats. They seem to imply that journalists cause all that is wrong with
the news media, since a
media company cannot be expected to have a conscience, a sense of ethics.
Self-regulation or media accountability, whatever you call it, is
undoubt-
edly slow. Its effects are rarely spectacular. Many M*A*S are unknown to
the public and the profession—hence are not used. Some of them do seem
to be little more than a PR operation, or than a legislation-avoiding
operation. They do seem incapable of eliminating the most serious media
sins, like omis- sion or infotainment. And then, some are quite expensive.
It is easy to be critical, cynical, or merely realistic, about ‘ethics and
M*A*S’. The problem is that there is no alternative. The Soviet Union
showed what media become when the government takes over. The US has
demon- strated, over the last ten years, that a deregulated market causes a
terrible decline of the press, print and electronic.3 In other words, freedom
and regu- lation are indispensable but are not enough. A third force should
come into play. Call it ‘quality control’ or call it ‘the public service ideal’ if
you wish. It consists in an alliance of profession and people to provide
proper information to be gathered and distributed so that democracy can
operate. And democracy is not just a luxury of the wealthy: it conditions
our survival.
Fortunately, ethics and M*A*S are more and more of a concern in all
parts of the planet that are not under dictatorial rule. 4 Now the press council
seems no longer perceived as a threat to press freedom, but rather as a
weapon to protect it. There are more and more PCs. It has taken at least half
a century for the concept to take off: over half the existing PCs have been
created since 1990; one third since 2000. ‘Media observatories’ continue
their expansion in sub-Saharan francophone Africa (in Gabon, Cameroon,
Burundi), wher- ever press freedom and democracy (slowly) increase. The
absence of a press council has become a bad symptom, a sign that the press
is not free (as in Belarus) or that media do not give a damn about ethics (as
in Greece), or that publishers and journalists are not willing to be
accountable (as in France).
Even more striking, in my view, is the flowering of M*A*S, easier and
cheaper to set up, less threatening, better accepted. They are less open than
PCs to the charge of being a publisher’s ploy or an underhand government
manoeuvre. All have the same purpose but they offer a wide gamut of instru-
ments. Created as they are by different groups, they operate differently, in
 MEDIA ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
different time periods. The media landscape is not the ethical wasteland it is
sometimes painted as being. Many M*A*S have become such a normal part
of the environment that they are not noticed anymore: the less spectacular,
the less controversial M*A*S, like codes of ethics, letters to the editor, cor-
rection boxes, regular pages or programmes devoted to media, university
level training for journalists, required courses on media ethics, readership
surveys, citizens’ watchdog associations, etc. As a whole, media are far
more con- cerned with the public than they used to be. And many media
understand the need to forge closer links with the readers/listeners/viewers.
Let us not yield to the very regrettable journalistic urge, which is
always to look at the half-empty glass. The news media may not be good,
not good enough, but they are certainly better than they used to be and, on
the whole, getting better. Progress is slow, however. The duty of
professionals, academ- ics, media-oriented NGOs, enlightened citizens is to
help accelerate the move- ment towards quality news media, for the sake of
civilisation, if not even the human race.

Claude-Jean Bertrand
Professor emeritus
Universite de Paris-II, France
www.presscouncils.org

Notes
1
The first press council was established in Sweden in 1916, but tripartite PCs
only appeared from 1960, in Turkey, Korea and, mainly (far more lastingly) in the
UK (1963).
2
See the ‘News & Views’ section on www.presscouncils.org
3
That decline has prompted the Knight Foundation to fund a competition for
the creation of press councils at State level—the process being supervised by the
two existing councils in Minnesota and Washington State.
4
The number of translations made, or being made, of Media Ethics and
Account- ability Systems, the author’s book on the topic, is a sign. Originally
published in French in 2000, it was translated into English in 2003, and in Armenia,
Brazil, Greece, Italy, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Romania and Turkey. Albanian,
Chinese, Georgian and Polish translations are in progress. Media Ethics and
Accountability Systems and An Arsenal for Democracy (2003) are reviewed on
pages 245-249.
 MEDIA ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Media Accountability Systems (M*A*S)
Non-governmental means of inducing media and journalists to respect the
ethical rules set by the profession. They are extremely diverse but all aim at
improving news media, using evaluation, monitoring, education or
feedback. Here is a list of more than 80, but more can, and will, be
invented. The most obvious classification of the M*A*S is into three
groups according to their intrinsic nature: documents (printed or broadcast);
people (individuals or groups) and processes (long or short).

Documents (text, broadcast or website):

• A written code of ethics, or an ‘ethics handbook’, listing rules which
media professionals have discussed and/or agreed upon with, preferably, in-
put by the public. And which should be made known to the public.
• An internal memo reminding the staff of ethical principles (maybe
the ‘tradition’ of the paper) and providing them with guidelines on behavior
in particular circumstances.
• A daily internal self-criticism report circulated in the newsroom.
• A correction box, published very visibly. Or time taken to correct an
error on the air.
• A regular ‘Letters to the Editor’ column/programme, including mes-
sages critical of the newspaper/magazine/station.
• Other means of public access, like an on-line message board or a fo-
rum for immediate feedback.
• An accuracy-and-fairness questionnaire, mailed to persons
mentioned in the news or published for any reader to fill out.
• A public statement about media by some eminent decision-maker,
abun- dantly quoted in the news.
• A space or time slot purchased by an individual, a group or a
company to publish an ‘open letter’ about some media issue.
• An occasional ‘Letter from the editor’, expounding values and rules
or explaining how media function.
• A sidebar explaining some difficult editorial decision to publish or
not to publish.
• A newsletter to readers, inserted or mailed, to keep them informed of
what goes on at the newspaper or station.
 • A regular media column, page, section in a newspaper, news maga-
zine, trade review—or a programme on radio or television, that does more
than just mention new appointments and ownership changes.
• A regular ethics column in a trade magazine.
• Regular reports by media-oriented citizens’ associations that are pub-
lished by newspapers.
• A website systematically posting corrections of media errors—or the
grievances of working journalists, or abuses by advertisers.
• A website offering journalists information and advice on ‘promoting
accountability’.
• A website devoted to debate on media issues (e.g. media and
children).
• A website teaching the public how to evaluate media.
• An alternative periodical (esp. published by a minority), non-profit
sta- tion or website, that publishes facts and gives viewpoints which regular
me- dia ignore, including criticism of the said media.
• A ‘journalism review’, on paper or the air or the web, devoted princi-
pally to media criticism, exposing what media have distorted or omitted,
and whatever other sins reporters or media companies have committed .
• ‘Darts and Laurels’, a page or website consisting of short stories in
criticism or praise of some media action, such as most journalism reviews
have had.
• A yearbook of journalism criticism, written by reporters and media
users, edited by academics.
• A weblog run by a journalist, or by an amateur, giving a serious cri-
tique of media performance.
• An article, report, book, film, TV series about media, informative
about media and, to some extent at least, critical.
• Newsletters emailed to subscribers by media-watch organisations.
• The review of a consumer group (regional or national) which occa-
sionally deals with media.
• A television network or weekly news magazine entirely made up of
material borrowed from foreign media, enabling users to evaluate their own
media.
 MEDIA ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
• A petition signed by hundreds or thousands to put pressure on media
directly or via advertisers or via some regulatory agency.
 • (Very exceptional). A newspaper given by its publisher to a journal-
ism school to serve as a ‘teaching hospital’.

People (individuals or groups):

• An in-house critic, or a ‘contents evaluation commission’, to
scrutinise the newspaper, or monitor the station, for breaches of the code -
without making their findings public.
• An ethics committee or a ‘staff review group’ (a rotating panel of jour-
nalists) set up to discuss and/or decide ethical issues, preferably before they
occur.
• An ethics coach operating in the newsroom, occasionally, to raise the
reporters’ ethical awareness, to encourage debate and advise on specific
prob- lems.
• A media reporter assigned to keep watch on the media industry and
give the public full, unprejudiced reports.
• An outside critic paid by a newspaper to write a regular column
about the paper.
• A whistleblower who dares to denounce some abuse within the
media company.
• A consumer reporter who warns readers/viewers against misleading
advertising—and intervenes on their behalf.
• An ombudsman, ‘editor in charge of reader relations’, or a team of
reporters, employed by a newspaper or station, to listen to suggestions and
complaints from customers, investigate, obtain redress if need be and (usu-
ally) report on his activities.
• A complaints bureau or customer service unit to listen to grievances
and requests.
• A disciplinary committee set up by a union or other professional
asso- ciation to ensure that its code is respected—under pain of expulsion.
• A liaison committee set up jointly by media and a social group with
which they may occasionally clash.
• A citizen appointed to the editorial board; or several (often chosen
from users who have complained) invited to attend the daily news meeting.
• A panel (or several specialised panels) of readers/listeners/viewers
regu- larly (e.g. daily or twice a month) consulted.
 MEDIA ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
• A club (of readers/listeners/viewers) that uses perks to attract mem-
bers and leads them into a dialogue about the medium (most often a maga-
zine).
• A local press council, i.e. regular meetings of some professionals
from the local media and representative members of the community.
• A national (or regional) press council set up by the professional asso-
ciations of media owners and of journalists, and normally including repre-
sentatives of the public—to speak up for press freedom and to field com-
plaints from media users.
• A national ombudsman appointed by the press to deal with
complaints, either in association with a press council (Sweden) or
independent (South Africa).
• ‘Media observatories’ set up by journalists to monitor attacks on
press freedom and adherence to a code, receive complaints, debate ethical
issues with publishers.
• A watchdog agency set up by a media-related industry (like advertis-
ing) to filter contents—and ask that some not be made public, for ethical
reasons.
• A militant association dedicated to media reform or to helping
persons with grievances against media.
• A foundation that funds projects or institutions aiming at the
improve- ment of media.
• A media-related institution, national or international, that has a direct
or indirect interest in promoting media quality through conferences, semi-
nars, publications etc.
• An NGO that trains personnel, and provides free services to media,
in emerging democracies (Eastern Europe) and under-developed nations.
• A citizen group (like a labour union or a parents’ association) which,
for partisan and/or public interest reasons (e.g. the welfare of children),
moni- tors the media—or attacks a special target, like advertising.
• A consumers’ association, especially one of media users, using
aware- ness sessions, monitoring, opinion polls, evaluations, lobbying, mail
cam- paigns, even boycotts to obtain better service.
• A representative group of journalists in the newsroom, endowed with
some rights, as allowed by law in Germany or required in Portugal.
 • A ‘société de rédacteurs’, an association of all newsroom staff, that
demands a voice in editorial policy—and preferably owns shares in the
com- pany so as to make itself heard.
• A ‘société de lecteurs’, an association of readers which buys, or is
given, shares in the capital of a media company and demands to have a say.
I am inclined also to place in this category three types of institutions that
some experts would leave out of the M*A*S concept. To the extent that
they do not take orders from government, to the extent that their purpose
is to improve media service, it does not seem possible to leave them out
com-
pletely. They might be called associate M*A*S or para-M*A*S:
• The regulatory agency, set up by law, provided it is truly
independent, especially if it takes complaints from media users.
• The international broadcasting company, public or private, using
short wave radio or satellites, that makes it difficult for national media to
hide or distort the news.
• The autonomous non-commercial broadcasting company, whose sole
purpose is to serve the public and which constitutes implicit criticism of
com- mercial media. That category might be widened to include all high
quality media whose primary aim is good journalism and can serve as
models.

Processes:
• A higher education, a crucial M*A*S. Quality media should only
hire people with a university degree, preferably (though this is
controversial) one in mass communications.
• A separate course on media ethics required for all students in journal-
ism.
• Further education for working journalists: one-day workshops, one-
week seminars, six-month or one-year fellowships at universities. Such pro-
grammes, quite common in the US, are very rare elsewhere.
• An in-house awareness programme to increase the attention paid by
media workers to the needs of citizens, especially women and cultural, eth-
nic, sexual or other minorities;
• or to teach journalists how to respond appropriately to readers/listen-
 MEDIA ETHICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
ers/viewers on the phone.
• Building a data-base of all errors (type, cause, person involved) so as
to discern patterns and take measures.
 • An internal study of some issue involving the public (like a newspa-
per’s relations with its customers).
• An ethical audit: external experts come and evaluate the ethical
aware- ness, guidelines, conduct within the newspaper or station.
• Giving the email addresses and/or telephone numbers of editors and
of journalists (whenever a story of theirs is published).
• The (controversial) ‘readback’ of quotes to sources to avoid errors.
• A ‘media at school’ programme to train children from an early age in
the understanding and proper use of media.
• A ‘media literacy’ campaign to educate and mobilise the general pub-
lic.
• A listening session: once a week or irregularly, editors man the phones
to answer calls from readers.
• The regular encounter of news people with ordinary citizens in a
press club, on the occasion of neighborhood meetings - or even on a cruise.
• A regular (e.g. quarterly) opinion survey (polls, public meetings,
internet forum), commissioned by the media, to get feedback from the
person-in-the- street; also a questionnaire on a newspaper or station
website.
• A nation-wide survey of public attitudes towards all or some media
(e.g. towards public broadcasting).
• Non-commercial research, done mainly by academics in the universi-
ties, but also in think-tanks or scientific observatories, studies of the
contents of media (or the absence of them), of the perception of media
messages by the public, of the impact of those messages.
• An annual seminar on journalism criticism organised by a journalism
school.
• An annual conference bringing together media decision-makers, po-
litical leaders and representatives of citizens’ groups of all kinds.
• International cooperation to promote media quality and accountability.
• A prize, and other tokens of satisfaction, to reward quality media and
quality journalists—or an ‘anti-prize’.

Full details of the M*A*S on the Independent Press Councils website:

www.presscouncils.org