Page 107 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-07.qxd 8/16/2005 7:04 PM Page 92

92 Communication Theory & Research
might society call on journalists to account for their performance of the
responsibility given them. Responsibility has to do with defining proper
conduct; accountability with compelling it.

The case is, however, more complicated since there are different kinds of
obligation and alternative ways of attributing them to the media. The notion of
responsibility, for instance, includes at least the following: the occupational tasks
going with a particular media role, such as film director or editor, thus
essentially professional matters; the restrictions laid on media by law and
regulation; the positive tasks assigned to some media by law or other binding
agreement (as with public broadcasting); voluntary promises to serve society in
some way; actual liability for the effects of publication, including harm caused.
Essentially we are dealing with, various potential claims made against the
media on diverse grounds and the processes of accountability (the rendering of
accounts) has to vary accordingly.
One important dimension of responsibility is the degree of compulsion
involved in any obligation. Responsibilities range on a scale from the completely
voluntary to the completely compulsory, like the prohibition of deliberate
incitement to violence. The variation can be captured in terms of four main types
of media responsibility, distinguishing between those that are assigned, contracted,
self-imposed or denied (see Hodges, 1986).
Assigned responsibilities include many matters covered by law and
regulation, against which the media may have no legitimate grounds for appeal.
In free societies, these are kept to a minimum and mainly serve to balance media
freedom with the rights of other members of society and the public interest.
Contracted obligations arise because of some implied covenant between press
and society, maintained by convention and mutual agreement. They also relate
to promises of quality of service implied in the commercial transaction between
a media business and a paying customer. Self-imposed obligations mainly refer
to voluntary professional commitments to observe certain ethical standards and
to serve public purposes. The category of ‘obligations denied’ is needed to cover
numerous instances where claims are laid against the media but are not
accepted, with varying degrees of legitimacy. To deny responsibility may be an
essential expression of freedom as easily as an evasion of duty.
A full consideration of media accountability has to take account of all four
categories. Each has its own place and each presents different problems.
Moreover, it is arguable that, along with other changes mentioned at the outset,
there are some basic shifts in the distribution of these types of media
responsibility. I have no measure of such shifts, but it seems likely that the
relative share of both assigned and self-imposed responsibilities is falling, while
the share of obligations contracted or denied is rising as a result of the extension
of media activities, driven by market considerations and protected by market
freedoms. Obligations to society are more likely to be denied where they involve
the provision of unprofitable services.
In general, the probable trend of modern society and of mass media is towards
a loosening of collective social bonds and a weakening of mutual obligations of
a moral kind, including public duties. In the case of media, the growing scale