Page 209 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-15.qxd 8/16/2005 12:01 PM Page 194

194 Communication Theory & Research
great extent from the old ones. This is why the codes applying to those countries
are considered to be originally adopted in the 1990s. [...]

Functions as a basis for the comparison

I believe these codes of ethics have two main functions. On the one hand, their
function is to specify accountability with regard to different outside interests;
mainly the state, the public, the sources and the advertisers. Behind this is partly
the need to ‘look good’ in the eyes of the regulators; to convince them that no fur-
ther surveillance is needed. The need to show accountability is also a direct con-
sequence of the duties of journalists in democratic societies; their role as
informers of the public and watchdogs over the ruling powers.
On the other hand, a function of ethical codes and other self-regulatory mech-
anisms is also to protect the integrity and identity of the profession itself, both
from external (state, interest groups, etc.) and internal (plagiarization, yellow
press, and so forth) pressures.
The two-fold nature of self-regulation is emphasized by Ari Heinonen (1995).
According to him, some kind of normative system (such as codes of ethics)
which self-regulation implies, can be constructed only in relation to some artic-
ulated role expectations, as in relation to those of public interest demands. But
since self-regulation to a great degree also reflects the values and norms of the
journalistic profession, its substance can be regarded as ‘the profession’s inter-
pretation of the public interest demands, amended by the aspects connected to
the professional integrity’ (Heinonen, 1995: 45, 63). For Heinonen self-regulation
and its mechanisms represent a certain kind of compromise between the claims
of society and the needs of the profession. [...]
From the two general functions of the codes six more specific ones can be
derived. Four are named after – in my opinion – the most important groups regu-
lating journalists. Through their codes of ethics the journalists show accountabil-
ity (1) to the public, (2) to the sources and referents, (3) to their employers and
(4) to the state. The latter two functions, on the other hand, concern the journalists’
professional identity by protecting (5) the professional integrity of journalists and
(6) the status and unity of the journalistic profession. The fifth function refers to
external interference on the part of, for instance, the advertisers, whereas the sixth
function refers to the clauses consolidating the good reputation of and solidarity
among the journalists; thus protecting the profession from inside pressures.
I highlighted these particular six functions partly by selectively following the
lines of accountability within the media and between the media and the outside
world, drawn up by Denis McQuail (1994) (see Figures 15.1 and 15.2). The thoughts
of several other scholars (e.g. Bruun, 1979; Jones, 1980; Harris, 1992) and the texts
of the codes themselves have also led me to concentrate on this ‘group of six’.
The six chosen functions constituted the basic classification for comparing the
topics covered by national codes. The six functions were further divided into 13
categories as follows: