Page 113 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-07.qxd 8/16/2005 7:04 PM Page 98

98 Communication Theory & Research
and the media themselves can play a key part by self-criticism and publication
of reports and critical views.
These three thumbnail sketches are intended to encapsulate the main
alternative means which are available to society, as it were, to maintain a balance
between freedom to publish, the needs of media industries and the wider
interests of society, and its constituent individuals and groups. It is hard not to
be struck by two points. First, that the means available are rich and varied;
second, that they are immensely complex, fragile, interrelated and culturally
dependent. Accountability processes cannot simply be invented overnight, nor
can they be easily manipulated or changed according to some project of media
reform, however well intentioned. In effect, we are limited by the means we have
at our disposal and may have to make the best of these means. These reflections
underline the particular difficulty faced when the media themselves change
fundamentally, as they are doing at the moment. It is easier to appreciate how
difficult it is to respond effectively and in time to such changes.

The relative merits and demerits
of the main accountability frames

The frames as described are not equally suited to all purposes and each has its
own characteristic strengths and weaknesses. It is useful to reflect on what these
are, even if we do not have a free choice between them. The legal-regulatory
model has the apparent advantage of being able to implement the public will in
a clear and binding way. In a free society its application is likely to be kept to a
minimum and it serves to secure as well as limit freedom. In principle it is above
sectional interests and is fair and open in its working. There are also obvious
drawbacks, not least the fact that implementing legal controls does diminish
freedom in some way and often benefits the powerful, who can better afford to
use legal instruments. The legal model tends to be coercive, depending on
concepts of harm and liability which are arguably not so appropriate for judging
communication actions. Legal control is not easy to exercise under present
conditions and is often only effective in the last resort. It is also often ineffective
and unpredictable in its outcomes. Laws are not easy to change when conditions
change, since they serve certain vested interests and acquire a permanent
character. The general trend of deregulation reflects the drawbacks of legal
means of control as much as it does the influence of liberal ideology.
The market model as a means of accountability has equally ardent and
persuasive proponents as critics. It is certainly very flexible, adaptable and
effective in its own terms. It is continually self-adjusting and sensitive to the
interests of many different parties. It provides a consistent and predictable basis
for making judgements on disputed issues. In some respects the media market
is egalitarian and it is generally non-coercive. It is not insensitive to questions of
values, since good ethics can also be good for business.
The limitations of the market are also well known, quite aside from the fact
that markets are imperfect and lead predictably to certain ‘failures’, especially to