Page 116 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-07.qxd 8/16/2005 7:04 PM Page 101

Accountability of Media to Society: Principles and Means 101

Even if it is quite clear that the market on its own is as much a danger as a
benefit to the public interest, there are advantages to including the market within
the range of accountability procedures, rather than treating it only as something
to be restrained, especially when the market is by far the dominant driving force
of media change and expansion. The market clearly protects and promotes some
important freedoms and it can also discourage some undesired media freedoms
and promote some positive ones by way of mechanisms of consumer response
and public relations. There are also ways of encouraging business ethics which
can reinforce professional ethics.
The position of public broadcasting is a special case (and still of critical
significance) in this general discussion. It is arguably the best single device for
reconciling the three divergent aims set out above, assuming that democratic
control can take care of essential freedoms. It has no equal in its capacity to
secure positive communication benefits, at the behest of society. However, it is
also not universally available, it is declining in its extent relative to less regulated
market forms and is not likely to provide a solution for new areas of media
expansion. It is also increasingly hard to maintain the distinction between
broadcasting and other media which legitimates its special position. However,
the implication of my analysis, especially the desirability of diversity of structure
and means of control, is that public broadcasting should be preserved wherever
possible for as long as possible. It can also be gradually reconfigured into the
framework of a public trust model with a wider remit, with other media
borrowing from its strengths.
Current technological changes do seem to undermine or bypass the regulatory
systems instituted for broadcasting and broadcasting itself becomes harder to
distinguish from the new interactive media. However, according to the line of
argument advanced, the latter do not require any fundamentally new systems of
control. In some ways they are intrinsically suited to the kinds of accountability
which have been favoured in this account. Their interactivity makes dialogue
with audiences more possible and they are diverse and fragmented. We can also
expect the market increasingly to influence the organization and uses of new
interactive media, with some losses for freedom as well as gains for
accountability through setting limits to undesired effects. Whatever the degree
of control, new interactive media, even if powered by the market, can be
expected to contribute to the public good by way of information and the
formation or strengthening of social ties.

Concluding remarks

In general, the ‘crisis of accountability’ has probably been exaggerated and also
misrepresented. It has always been too easy to blame the media for the ills of
society and even for the ills of the media themselves. It is hard to escape from the
fact that the media generally do follow the tastes and interests of their audiences
and also the needs of their sources and clients, including the politicians and
governments who are supposed to look after the public interest. The performance