Session No. 1: Questions and answers
Q1: What is Media Accountability and how can Media Accountability Instruments be
defined?
A1: Denis McQuail (2005: 207) defines media accountability as “voluntary or involuntary
processes by which the media answer directly or indirectly to their society for the quality
and/or consequences of publication.” Media Accountability Instruments (MAIs) are defined
as “any non-State means of making media responsible towards the public” by Claude-Jean
Betrand (2000: 18). Following Russ-Mohl (2003) and Fengler (2008) MAIs can be classified as
established instruments of media accountability (e.g. press councils, ombudsman; media
journalism in trade journal, letters to the editor etc.) and innovative instruments of media
accountability (e.g. editorial weblogs, online ombudsman, media criticism on Twitter and
Facebook etc.) (see Eberwein et al 2011: 9).
Q2: Which journalism cultures have been defined by Hallin and Mancini (2004)?
A2: Daniel Hallin and Paolo Mancini (2004) have pointed out how national political and
economic structures shape the emergence and status quo of journalism and the media.
Furthermore they have argued that similar trends shaping the media and journalism can be
identified in specific journalism cultures crossing national borders, and accordingly have
developed country clusters characterized by a number of remarkable similarities: The liberal
model (e.g. Great Britain, United States) is characterized by highly deregulated media
markets, little state interference in the media sector, and a highly developed culture of
professionalism among journalists (ibid. 198). The democratic corporatist model (e.g.
Scandinavian countries, Germany, Austria) is also associated with high professionalism
among journalists, but differs from the liberal model with regard to the influential role that
public broadcasting plays in those countries (ibid. 143). Distinctive features of the polarized
pluralist model (e.g. Italy, Spain, France) are the high influence of political actors on both
private and public news organizations, a weak professional culture among journalists, and
the somewhat marginal role of the print media (ibid. 89) (see Fengler et al. 2013).
Q3: How can Media Accountability Instruments be classified?
A3: Media Accountability Instruments (MAIs) can be classified on five levels (referring to
Shoemaker/Reese 1996): The earliest MAIs were located at the media routines level: press
councils were set up to decide cases of malpractice in journalism, and trade journals were
published by journalists’ associations and unions. Accountability efforts by individual news
outlets (the organizational level) have played an increasing role since the 1970s, when
media organizations started to employ ombudsmen and introduce organizational ethics
codes, as observed by Marzolf (1991: 196), who argues that the “individual efforts of
newspapers to live up to a voluntary standard of values and behaviour have so far been the
most successful methods for raising the standards of the press.” In the digital age, many
new media accountability initiatives have emerged online, among them media and
newsroom blogs; but also media watch blogs run by media users, and other media-critical
activities in the Social Web. These new instruments increasingly have participatory features
and extend the existing portfolio of MAIs (both at the organizational and the extramedia
levels) (see Fengler et al. 2013).
Q4: Which frames of accountability have been developed by Bardoel and d’Haenens
(2004)?
A4: Bardoel and d’Haenens (2004: 9, 20) have developed a model of media accountability
that distinguishes “four accountability frames”, referring to policy makers, the market, the
profession, and the public as the relevant addressees of media accountability processes.
“Political accountability” relates to the state and media regulation (Bardoel and d’Haenens
2004: 9—10), and “market accountability” is an economic perspective on accountability
referring to the “system of demand, supply and competition” (ibid. 14), “professional
accountability” is associated with practices of self-regulation (like codes of ethics) (ibid. 16)
and “public accountability” refers to the relationship with the public (ibid. 18) (see Fengler
et al. 2013).