Media self-regulaton
Media self-regulation is a component of social responsibility model whereby, on the one hand, media outlets must be free from both state ownership and control and on the other hand, media must not be a profit-oriented institution alone but must feel responsibility to all groups of society and consider their needs and requirements.
Social responsibility model implies that media is responsible to society and responds to complaints of consumers concerning media content. Cooperation between society and media is based on principles of Thomas Hobbes’ “social contract.” Bearing in mind that interests of an individual are affected not only by his/her action but also actions of others, it is important for people to agree on rules and observe those rules. An individual who is responsible for a particular action is also accountable for the consequences of that action. A responsible individual is relatively autonomous or free to take decisions concerning his/her work without external pressure and influence. Autonomy is, however, central to the definition of professionalism.
Journalists are responsible for reporting events that are important for society, which includes a fair and balanced representation of objective opinions. Accountability involves condemnation or encouragement of such actions that, as a rule, relate to acknowledged responsibilities. Ethical action of media representatives is linked to their moral obligations:
-
To themselves – in order to protect their own reputation;
-
To clients - to observe contract and act professionally in behalf of their clients;
-
To organization and employer – to act in accordance with the aims and policy of organization;
-
To profession and colleagues - to observe professional standards and protect reputation of profession;
-
To society - to take into consideration needs and requirements of society.
Ethical decisions made by media affect a large number of people while an important component of professionalism is the orientation on social service. Existence of journalistic self-regulation mechanism is one of important manifestations of ethical development of social service.
Journalistic self-regulation is important because it:
-
Protects editorial independence,
-
Reduces state intervention,
-
Contributes to the improvement of media quality and trust towards the profession,
-
Is a demonstration of media accountability,
-
Enables society to know what to expect from objective and conscientious media,
-
Enables society to access media.
There are three types of self-regulation:
-
Institutionalized – press councils;
-
Non-institutionalized – in-house regulations of media outlets, individual ombudsmen;
-
Mixed regulation – complaints commission set up at a regulatory authority or a broadcaster on the basis of the law.
Institutionalized regulation – press councils
Press councils represent the most common form of self-regulation and an important platform of media criticism. In the majority of countries press councils are bodies voluntarily set up and consisting of three subjects (owners, journalists, representatives of society), which aim to:
-
Protect freedom of press;
-
Consider complaints against media with the involvement of representatives of society.
By taking joint decisions, the press demonstrates that it cares for the quality of information, that media professionals act responsibly, and that there is no need for media regulation and state interference.
Key functions of press councils are:
-
Receive complaints;
-
Establish the issue of incompliance with a code of ethics;
-
Consider complaints;
-
Perform the function of mediation between media and complainants;
-
Take fair decisions;
-
Monitor breaches of ethical standards;
-
Initiate complaints;
-
Voice interests of media;
-
Develop standards and periodically revise existing codes;
-
Support researches and trainings.
Normally, press councils publish council decisions on their websites while in several countries, they obligate media outlets to publish council decisions on their websites or correct inaccuracies.
Georgia has the Charter of Journalistic Ethics which is a membership-based organization. The Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics considers complaints against its member media organizations as well as other media outlets.
Non-institutionalized regulation
To receive feedback from media consumers and be accountable to them, individual media outlets have in-house editorial regulations which implies the establishment of an institution of media ombudsman, publication of readers’ letters, defining the obligation to observe ethical standards, operating internal monitoring service and various other mechanisms.
Press ombudsman, who is appointed jointly by media owners and media representatives, contributes to the development and promotion of media accountability concept. The institution of ombudsman implies three different systems of accountability:
-
American model – reader’s advocate appointed by individual newspapers and broadcast companies, who receives readers’ complaints, considers them and tries to mediate between the parties.
-
Swedish model – a special agent of press council, who filters complaints: considers simple complaints him/herself whereas sends more serious complaints to the press council for consideration.
-
Third model – a 18th century Swedish tradition of public defender which by its essence resembles an institution of public defender with a broad mandate.
Mixed regulation
Mixed regulation is applied to broadcasters since the broadcast media and in particular, television have a strong influence on audience and broadcasters are subject to licensing. Setting a self-regulatory mechanism in a broadcaster is a requirement under the law in many countries while institutional forms of self-regulation differ by countries. In many countries, this function is linked to a license issuing regulatory authority and consumers may file complaints against violations of codes of conduct. In Georgia, pursuant to the law, complaints commissions are set up at individual broadcasters and citizens may apply to them about violations of the Code of Conduct for Broadcasters. Decisions of the commission may be challenged with an appeals body which is manned by independent individuals. Broadcasters have the obligation to ensure the right to reply which implies correcting mistakes in a due form.