Page 112 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-07.qxd 8/16/2005 7:04 PM Page 97

Accountability of Media to Society: Principles and Means 97

approximate balance between the needs and interests of communicators and
those of consumers and between the interests of the media industry and those of
the wider society. In principle the market system works in an open and self-
correcting way. Free market principles support freedom to publish and to receive
communication. They also work against unpopular forms of publication. The
main issues handled within this framework are those to do with property rights
(and duties), freedom again (including access and diversity), with the quality of
communication goods and services (as seen by the consumer) and with techno-
logical development. The underlying logic emphasizes freedom, efficiency, choice,
profitability and majority preference.
The market system appears to work without direct reference to normative
principles. However, for present purposes, we can note that media markets usually
involve mechanisms which are sensitive to some norms. For instance, audience and
market research reports on public preferences, likes and dislikes and social
attitudes. Media publicity and public relations help media to keep in touch with the
public mood and lead to publication decisions which are not just a direct reflection
of immediate consumer demand. The economic interests of the media require some
sensitivity to the views and interests of government and other powerful social
institutions. Finally, the media market system has to work within some limits set by
law and regulation on behalf of the public interest and is not fully autonomous.
The third frame, described as one of public responsibility or trust, is more
complex and less clearly manifested, but real enough and still serviceable as a
means of accountability. It is identified more by goals than by procedures
(although it also includes public service broadcasting). The relevant goals reflect
a primary concern with society, the public good and with the ideal purposes of
public communication as information, opinion and culture. Its basis lies in the
idea that organized rights to publication involve some form of ‘public interest’,
whether written or unwritten. There is a historic commitment on the part of
many media organization as well as of individual communicators and their
professional associations to behave in a ‘socially responsible’ way. The frame
includes, besides the activities of public service broadcasting, private media in
their more voluntary pursuit of social and communication goals. Again, we find
an overlap between the range of application of the market frame and this one.
The issues which fall within the scope of the ‘social responsibility’ frame are
diverse, but essentially concern: informational and cultural ‘quality’ measured
by non-market criteria; potential benefit or harm to the wider community,
especially in matters of morals and public order; social cohesion; and support for
the national culture and the working of democracy. The typical discourse is
normative and judgemental, often assuming a consensus of social values.
The media themselves often organize self-regulatory procedures to deal with
individual or more collective complaints. Professional organizations within the
media supplement industry procedures. Codes of professional norms and ethics
usually specify minimum standards of conduct which should not be breached
for personal or commercial gain. Public opinion is constantly expressed by
politicians, by many special interests and by routine research. Public commissions
and enquiries into issues of media and society add their voice from time to time.
There is continual debate in many different fora about the doings of the media