Page 111 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-07.qxd 8/16/2005 7:04 PM Page 96

96 Communication Theory & Research
a variety of potential claimants, not least by the audience. In the longer term, we
find media systems being assessed by research, reviewed by commissions or
subject to debate in parliaments, especially at or after critical moments in society.
Accordingly, it is obvious that the particular means or mechanisms by which
accountability is exercised include very many disparate entities and follow
several alternative logics.
Any of the following may be involved: the working of the media market;
political debate; the justice system; commissions of inquiry; independent research;
comment and criticism by the media themselves; the pressure of public opinion;
media self-regulatory agencies; media professional associations; special lobbies
and interest groups; political parties; associations representing the audience.
In order to consider the questions raised at the outset it is useful to consider a
small number of basic ‘accountability frames’, each one representing an
alternative, though not mutually exclusive, approach to accountability, with its
own typical logic, forms and procedures. A ‘frame’ in this sense involves several
elements. First of all there must be a relationship between a media ‘agent’ on the
one hand and a ‘claimant’ on the other, often with a third party as adjudicator. The
relationship is actively concerned with some disputed issue and thus with certain
normative principles. Finally there are some accepted rules, procedures and forms
of account. Such frames can be distinguished along several dimensions, especially
the following: the particular issues and normative principles which they deal with;
the forms and discourse in which accounts are rendered; the procedures for
accounting; the degree of constraint or compulsion involved.
The three most generally prevalent accountability frames in the sense
intended are: a legal-regulatory frame; a financial/market frame; and a public service/
fiduciary (or public trust) frame. The history of media institutions can provide
other examples, the most prominent being the frame of government control, which
is still to be found, or that of media based on religious or political party allegiance,
which is also not completely extinguished. The three selected frames can be
characterized in more detail as follows.
The legal-regulatory frame typically sets the basic principles and ground rules
for the operation of media institutions and establishes the rights and duties of
individuals in relation to the media. In modern liberal and law-based societies,
the law guarantees rights of free publication and also sets limits to freedom for
purposes of protecting the rights of others and taking care of the general good
of society. The main accountability issues handled within this frame include:
intellectual property rights; freedom of expression; ownership and monopoly
questions; claims of harm to individuals, groups, organizations, the state and
society; and the needs of the judicial and political system. The relevant logic and
discourse is legal-rational and administrative in character. The procedures
involved are clearly laid down and formal in character, involving a process of
adjudication. The forms of account are normally written texts which specify
promises, obligations, arguments, justification, judgements, and so on. There is
nearly always a high degree of constraint and settlements of disputes are usually
involuntary.
The financial/market frame refers primarily to the normal disciplines of the
market applied to publication issues. Laws of supply and demand secure an