Page 110 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-07.qxd 8/16/2005 7:04 PM Page 95

Accountability of Media to Society: Principles and Means 95

There are also times when a media organization may fail to meet some
external obligation on the grounds of a freedom claimed by an employee, for
instance in the matter of disclosure of sources. Although ultimately the media
organization as a corporate entity can usually be held responsible, the question
of exactly who in an organization can be called to account is not always clear, and
the issue is more than one of minor detail.
I return to the question of to whom accountability is due. If we consider only
external relationships, we can identify a range of potential claimants. In general
terms, these include: those to whom a legal or contractual duty exists; those to
whom a promise has been made; those affected by some publication; those with
power to act in response to publication. More concretely, the main claimants who
call the media to account, aside from the owners (including shareholders) can be
classified in terms of proximity, vocality and prima facie legitimacy.
The strongest and most direct accountability claims are likely to come from:
sources (e.g. providers of news stories); clients (e.g. advertisers); audiences (as
paying customers or as citizens and members of the public); those affected by the
media (directly reported on or experiencing effects of some publication); and
regulators (a general category for those with responsibility for control, whether
from government or by self-regulation). Less directly involved, but important
are: different pressure and interest groups; politicians; commentators, critics and
those who claim to express public opinion.
Not only are the lines of accountability which arise in what are (in principle)
mutual relationships between the media and these potential claimants very
numerous and diverse, they also differ in the ‘currency’ which is employed. The
‘accounts’ deployed in media accountability are cast in several forms. Sometimes
the currency is cash money, but in other cases it is a matter of esteem, loyalty,
trust, allegiance or affection. The services supplied by the media are not usually
material and they receive not only cash in return. A full consideration of
accountability has to recognize the special character of the institution. A major
implication of these remarks is that sanctions against the media can take non-
material as well as material forms. At the same time, recent trends in media have
tended to give more weight to money as the main ‘currency’. Modern media are
probably less concerned about loss of their own public reputation, their social
influence or professional standing than about their financial balance sheet.

The accountability process

It is clear from this summary sketch that multiple and overlapping criteria,
meanings, rules and procedures are involved in the business of holding media
socially accountable. The situation varies from one medium to another and from
one type of responsibility to another. In essence the accounting process which
accompanies and follows publication is a matter of continually matching promises
and obligations on the one hand with expectations and claims on the other.
The time-scale of accountability also varies greatly. Every issue of a daily
newspaper and each television news bulletin is routinely tested immediately by