Page 115 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-07.qxd 8/16/2005 7:04 PM Page 100

100 Communication Theory & Research
from media to society. No single one of the frames discussed is ideal or
necessarily superior to the others, and it is also clear that none of the three
discussed is adequate on its own. What is needed is to encourage the aspects of
each framework which (1) are most likely to maximize the achievement of these
three aims and (2) most capable of reconciling the divergent tendencies of the
three frameworks.
According to my analysis, the aim of freedom is best served by making certain
choices which I can only summarize. First, intervention should be kept to a
minimum and self-regulation is generally preferable to external regulation.
Additionally, just as freedom is served by a diversity of media, so is it likely that
diverse, overlapping and even conflicting forms of accountability are more
desirable, on grounds of freedom, than unified and consistent forms. This is an
argument against convergence of regulation whether or not the media converge,
which seems less likely as time goes on. The more alternatives there are for
framing and testing issues of accountability the more courts of appeal there are
and the less ‘chilling’ are the effects of control. The very inconsistency of
accountability can promote freedom, even if it offends against administrative
and even market logic. Multiple models of freedom and regulation are also more
likely to reflect the genuine diversity which exists in society concerning
conceptions of what is in the public good. There is no single prescription for
freedom or for virtue.
The preferable forms for accountancy will be those which are spontaneous and
interactive and which involve the greatest mutuality between the parties
concerned, providing the best conditions for media answerability. Freedom is not
well served by coercive forms of control or by making the media more liable for
consequences which are considered harmful. But dialogue and negotiation
between the parties to communication is impossible where relations between
media agents and those affected by the reactions are completely detached and
calculative.
It should consequently be the objective of policy to promote routine relations
of dialogue between media and society (audiences, public, groups, government)
which reduce the need for arbitrary and restrictive measures at moments of
crisis. This means that any interventions relating to media structure should aim
to encourage smaller-scale and more local (and also national) media and
discourage global conglomeration. It also means that encouragement should be
given where possible to strengthening the voice of the audience and of ‘inter-
mediate’ public exposure and settlement of disputes with media rather than private
procedures.
In line with the aim of promoting positive contributions to society, forms of
accountability which reward ‘good’ media behaviour are also to be preferred to
those which punish offences. In this respect, the questions of ‘internal’ media
freedom deserve particular attention, where liberty of the press is valued, even
if law is not the best way to increase the autonomy of journalists and other media
professionals. Improving the status of professional associations of media
workers and encouraging education and self-regulation are more appropriate
avenues to follow and can help to provide a counterweight to the extremes of
commercial motivation and to multinational conglomerates.