Introduction
Insights from the Literature
Methodology
Focus Group Findings and Implications for Media Accountability
We firstly turn our attention to how professional and public accountability have come under threat, and then indicate how this relates to the structural dynamics of changes in market and political accountability.On the one hand, you have a much stronger pressure on every kind of media, regarding the speed, regarding how and how fast they are able to deliver, check and communicate the news to a great number of people. On the other hand, you have another pressure coming from the Internet that is the reader, the spectator or the listener, who is no longer anonymous. Nowadays, he wants to interfere and be part of the media. Internet brought that and I think it’s just the beginning. The third point is how classical media, whether it’s press, television or radio, are struggling to find a new way to earn money and survive.
Challenges in Terms of Individual Accountability: Threats to Professional Accountability and Public Accountability
This increased competition has intensified the endless race to be first, and to be entertaining or interesting enough the capture and sustain the interest of a public with increasingly shortened attention-spans. A Paris respondent contends:Time pressures have gotten much, much worse because now, you have to beat not only digital agencies, but everyone with a Twitter account and their own YouTube channel and everything. So you’re competing against everybody.
Our findings regarding the effect of speed on the media industries is congruent with many studies that have been done on the subject. As Witschge and Gunnar (2009, pp. 38–46) explain, the productivity of journalists is three times higher than it used to be twenty years ago and 41 % of them agree with the fact that “the demand for speed in publishing forces me not to check the facts as carefully as I would like to.” The authors also note that facts are usually published as “ongoing news” without any prior checking. The three phases of journalism, i.e., news-gathering, evaluation, and production are now more “compacted.”we’re like these insects that run on the water.” We’re becoming water spiders and this is normal journalism. What is it? It’s part of something that is part of journalism but what is it?
This insight is reflected in the fact that the term ‘objectivity’ has disappeared from the ethical code of the U.S. Society of Professional Ethics. This has led some scholars, like Hunter and Van Wassenhove (2009) to suggest that we have replaced the myth of objectivity with the myth of transparency (which is for example the slogan of Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange). What this entails, is that honesty rather than neutrality becomes the watchword, and that this determines the trustworthiness of professionals. But the question is whether transparency as such can be a substitute for the duties of honesty and objectivity that used to be the basis of professional journalists’ responsibility toward the public, at least as defined by bodies such as the Hutchins Commission. Their ‘good governance’ rules for the media included clear deontic principles, requiring of media outlets to be truthful, correct, impartial, honest, and ultimately accountable (Van Liedekerke 2004, p. 36). Our focus group results indicate that the loss of professional values has changed the way media professional relate to the public, and how they perceive both their professional and public responsibilities. One can however not understand this simply in terms of the erosion of individual accountability. Speed not only impacted individuals, it also changed structures. We therefore now turn to the interrelationship between these individual challenges and structural changes in the profession.You know we don’t try to be objective, we don’t pretend to be objective. We know it’s non-sense there’s no such thing as objectivity.
Challenges in Terms of Structural Accountability
Monetizing Speed: a Threat to Market Accountability
The effect of speed is again evident here—information must be consumed on the go, quickly, efficiency. One can clearly see that the concern is not for the long-term ‘health’ of the public arena, but for the immediately consumable news. Because of the fact that much of the media has become ‘infotainment’ (Stoll 2006), media professionals are constantly under pressure to build a brand that ‘sells.’ The need to build a specific brand and to find ways to monetize the various uses of technology that are available to the media were common themes emerging from the focus groups. In Chicago, the concern for resources is reiterated:Fast food. Hamburgers. Green beans are good for them. Broccoli is good for them. I know it. But I’m not giving them broccoli because they won’t buy it.
Media professionals constantly find themselves under pressure to maintain a balance between the integrity of their own brands and the need to satisfy their audience’s demands to be entertained. As one newspaper editor quite bluntly puts it: “You are keeping yourself busy with news that’s sells. In the end we are all sluts. We need to survive.” What emerged from the discussions is that media professionals find themselves in a unique predicament. On the one hand, it is their capacity to select, filter, and evaluate information that sets them apart from the bloggers, or the general public with their twitter and Facebook accounts. The dilemma that editors face is that their organizations’ financial sustainability seems to be pitted against the professional journalist’s role in offering meaningful perspective. Unfortunately, the speed with which journalists have to work makes it impossible to find brand new news items, digest it, evaluate the implications, and stimulate public interest in its long-term effects.It’s all about money. It all comes down to resources and the things like M talked about and I think our competition has increased partly because of the lack of resources.
He describes how graphical user interfaces, or GUI, narrate the affordances that they inscribe. Through them, certain instrumental purposes dictate how and what we can know about our world. The structuring of perception involved in ‘fast-food’ content makes it difficult for professionals to offer their audience a variety of perspectives, let alone critical reflection. In the Paris focus group, there was a lot of discussion of the scrolling news banners that flash across our screens constantly. Not only do they mimic the immediate and crucial financial world’s market data, but they frame and determine our understanding of political news and cultural events in those very same terms. What therefore should not be discounted, is the media’s power to impose its own temporal structures on society (Rosa, 2010). Virilio claims that we have all become ‘image-illiterates’ or ‘deaf-mutes,’ people who have been deprived or their receptor organs through the globalization of the gaze (Virilio 2000, pp. 137–148). There are certainly some elements of the media organizations that seem to suggest that there is a funneling of information at great speed, which does not allow a full range of perceptual evaluation to operate. In Paris, there was much discussion about the way in which certain headings are mindlessly repeated in various media outlets. As one respondent explains:Today information is architecture by other means, framing and contouring the relative motility of social intercourse.
An added complication is that many senior media professionals are often too busy seeking advertising revenue, or developing new business models to monetize the use of new technologies, to play this role of curator, designer, and mediator. The selection of news items and the evaluation and commentary are often left to junior staff members who lack the experience and perspective to stimulate public reflection on the news. Difficulties in finding sustainable business models may in fact be the very threat to the profession’s most important functions.L, you said that the contact points with the audience have been multiplied… But what sometimes strikes me is when you do an inventory of the information collected during the day. You look at the three main news channels and they are pretty much all the same. Even when you go to Google News, the titles of the dispatches on ten different publications are the same! There is no additional information, but there are a thousand contact points!
Dromocracy: A Threat to Political Accountability
In France for instance, where public subsidies in the media are very important (more than 10 % of the turnover of the newspapers come from that source), the supposedly independent high-authority in audiovisual (“Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel”) is composed of 9 members who are nominated by the President of the National Assembly (3), the President of the Senate (3), and of the President of the French Republic (3). Other public institutions such as the (CSA) in France, has the power to allocate radio and television frequencies and grant or revoke broadcasting licenses. It is thus clear that in some contexts there is a close relation between political power, economic performance, and legal viability in the media industry. Furthermore, one cannot deny the political influence of media leaders, usually presented as ‘moguls.’ Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and Michael Bloomberg in the USA are cases in point. They have both been important media leaders in their respective countries (with their media giants Mediaset and Bloomberg) while being political leaders as well (the former as prime minister of a G8 country and the latter as mayor of one of the most influential cities in the world). Through his company Mediaset, Berlusconi was the main private actor in the Italian media industry. As such, he could nominate the top-managers of public TV stations for many years. This gave him de facto control the whole sector. Van Liedekerke (2004, p. 32) has drawn attention to the need to consider the interactions between moguls, management, and editorial teams in such contexts in order to ensure appropriate checks-and-balances. Furthermore, Van Liedekerke explains (2004, pp. 33–34): “Strong ownership rules often favour the creation of local empires, where the danger of too close a relationship between political and media power is even larger than in the case of a foreign owner coming in. (…) In this sense media ownership rules can be counterproductive from a political point of view.”I think it depends what the crisis is… (…) don’t know where their next revenue stream is coming from ….. I think here it is much more the political involvement. Fingers in everywhere. I know how much prodding there is and from somebody that was licensed. For instance when I joined XXX, we weren’t licensed we were sort of just grandfathered. Subsequently we’ve been licensed. The argument for us has always been we are a commercial entity and therefore we are not going to adhere to these, like, political kind of little guidelines or pick up the phone and say you can’t air that, you can’t air this. Whereas now that we’re regulated, it is becoming a lot more, you know “you must speak to so and so about content”, which is not necessarily what you have done before. …. I think that is really a problem for all of us.
From Virilio’s (2008, p. 112) perspective, truth is the first victim of speed. The result of what he describes as the ‘defeat of facts,’ is a complete disorientation in relation to reality. The disqualification of distance undermines our capacity to act, because we have no space to act. Within the professional realm, we lose the mediating value of action and practice, which used to ground professional ethics, while the immediacy of interaction gains in comparison. Virilio (2000, pp. 61–62) warns that the result would inevitably be an ‘oblivion industry,’ within which the ‘market of the visible’ dictates.The more the show, the less ethics for me. (…) I mean truth is different from being nice, from being spectacular.
Dimensions of media accountability | Focus group insights |
---|---|
Individual accountability
| |
Professional responsibility: ethical codes and performance standards | Identity crisis |
Public accountability: relationship to citizens | Transparency instead of objectivity |
Structural accountability
| |
Market accountability: system of supply and demand | Monetizing speed |
Political accountability: formal regulation | Digitalization and globalization Political interference |
Discussion: The Possible Emergence of Relational Accountability
From this perspective, media professionals play an important role in selecting, evaluating, and packaging material for their specific audience. In a time of overwhelming amounts of information, this is a crucial role to play, and requires trust to be sustained between the media professional and her/his audience. Although many respondents still mention the importance of ‘trust,’ they seem to be redefining trust in this fast-paced environment. For instance, in South Africa, there was a strong emphasis on the importance of building a trusted brand that attracts a specific audience because of its capacity to deliver the news that serve the readers’ or viewers’ specific interest and value-preferences. This means that media professionals have to select content that match their audience’s interests, package it in their audience’s favored format and ensure that it is always presented in a way that is consistent with their audience’s beliefs. Does this necessarily turn media audiences into deaf-mutes, or Cyclops, without the capacity for judgment?I think we become curators. That’s a word I’ve heard a lot recently. You as a consumer pick a brand or an outlet that you respect because of whatever they’ve delivered to you in the past, and it might be different for all of us. You trust that person, just like you trust a best friend to recommend a restaurant. They curate the information that is out there.
This insight may allow us to rethink the way in which accountability functions within media environments. Painter-Morland (2007, p. 526) argued for a more relational understanding of accountability, which requires of all participants in a network to continually account to one another for their actions in terms of a dynamic set of relationally defined expectations. Instead of holding professionals accountable for the information upon which democracy relies, they must constantly be challenged to be accountable toward those who rely on them for information, and in terms of the emerging sense of normative orientation that emerges from these relationships. What seems clear, is that this will not entail a return to an adherence to abstract professional principles. Instead, a relational understanding of responsibility requires the ongoing moral responsiveness of those involved (Painter-Morland 2006, p. 95). In some respects, this is a higher demand, since professionals have to take account of a broad range of specific needs and contexts, as well as the long-term implications of their professional activities. This kind of accountability is not one-directional, but requires thoughtful interaction between all the participants in a relational network. Within the media environment, this relational network encompasses media professionals, media consumers, government officials and politicians, business managers, and NGO representatives.People keep coming back and you can come back an hour later and say actually the information we had an hour ago wasn’t entirely correct, we’ve subsequently found an update.
This approach is confirmed by the editor of a South African celebrity magazine:The feeling I have is we are shifting from the former way to be a journalist and towards a new one. The former one was around the value ‘truth’ and truth takes time, you have to be sure, to check… and this time of journalism was made of stories, analysis, comments etc. Recently it’s been challenged by not truth but direct live testimonies, true stories… I think we have to accept this shift – not to this direct life- but maybe there’s something better to try, which would be ‘journalism of doubt’, but very transparent doubt.
This specific celebrity magazine rewarded readers who make them aware of errors or updates by donating money to a charity of that reader’s choice. In this way, professional responsibilities of the profession is directly linked to CSR activities performed by this media organization. In Paris, the importance of this type of relational checks-and-balances was confirmed. ‘Control’ goes beyond the journalist or the media professional involved: “Speed caused a loss of control, but also transferred the control of information towards the source rather than the journalist.” What seems to be emerging, is a relational trust and credibility that goes beyond the individual journalists or editors to their audience, sources, mentors, and life experience.the fact is that we’re also human, we work to fast deadlines, we get the information to you as fast as we can, but we do work in print. We can’t fix what we do, but we say that we make mistakes. We want you guys to come up and say you’ve found mistakes, tell us what it is and we’ll print it. And then again, you make a community of people who are all in it for the same thing.
Being the first to introduce new information is no longer enough to ensure audience engagement. Relationships are built over time and are sustained by open communication. Addressing mistakes and disappointments seems to facilitate and enhance relationships of trust instead of undermining it. The ongoing interaction between the media professional and his/her audience is therefore crucial in establishing the checks-and-balances that are needed to develop credibility over time. What becomes important however, is that media professionals play their role as curators within a network of relational checks-and-balances. They have to be made aware of the informational architecture that they create and the way in which this filters public perception. It is the kind of care that can only emerge through time and experience, and as a result, the importance of mentorship, personal self-reflection, and challenging conversations among peers cannot be underestimated.It goes back to that credibility issue and that engagement issue in how do you engage your audience in a compelling way because people are no longer passive observers of information. They want to feel like they are part of it in some way so… And all of this speed we have to consider the credibility, is this factual? But also is this engaging?
Fostering multiple interactions over time, incrementally adding new perspectives, could be one way on which journalists maintain their accountability toward their audience while responding to audiences need for quick and digestible information. At the same time, audiences may be encouraged to accept their own responsibility with respect to the media, by seeking out multiple perspectives over time, suspending quick judgments in order to see how a story unfolds, and engaging with media professionals when criticism or questioning is appropriate. What is needed for relational accountability is to think through the “embeddedness of consciousness and identity in particular historic social relations of time and space” (McQuire 1999, p. 154). Allowing for multiple, albeit quick iterations over time, from different contextual perspectives may be a new way to deal with the fact that truth is always partial, always postponed, and negotiated (Cubitt 1999, p. 135).Recently I’ve been going to different conferences asking people how do we do it quicker and faster and I got a piece of advice from X and she was fantastic because she said don’t stop doing what you do, but break off the story into little pieces when you are done, but continue to have because a voluminous investigation because there are certain people looking for that, but then have somebody rewrite it for your blog in such a way that is different or put little pieces on Facebook.
It seems as if the access to information that the digital environment affords both journalists and their audiences, creates opportunities for mutual challenges and as such, the opportunity for ongoing evaluation and the development of judgment. From this perspective, it becomes clear that the threats to the various levels of accountability can only be addressed if speed is used as an ally to extend and enhance accountability, rather than as a force for undermining it. In more specific terms, let us articulate what this may imply on each level of accountability:I like the speed. I’m appreciating the opportunity to take a business model or a business challenge and utilize so many different vehicles and opportunities to communication directly with the target audience and it just energizes me to always come up with very creative ways to get our messages out.
Dimensions of media accountability | Focus group insight | The danger from Virilio’s perspective | The opportunity: Relational accountability |
---|---|---|---|
Professional accountability: ethical codes and performance standards | Identity crisis | ‘Dromology’ | Professionalism as relational responsiveness |
Public accountability: relationship to citizens | Transparency instead of objectivity | ‘Dromoscopy’ | Citizen participation in fact checking and the generation of multiple perspectives |
Market accountability: system of supply and demand | Monetizing speed | ‘Image-illiterates’ or ‘deaf-mutes’ | New, creative business models which enhance audience and reader participation |
Political/accountability: formal regulation | Digital environment Political interference | ‘Dromocracy’ | Rethinking agency assumptions that underpin governance structures. |