Tuesday 27 March 2012

29. Self-regulation


University of Botswana
Department of Media Studies
BMS 226 ETHICS FOR MEDIA PROFESSIONALS

HANDOUT 28: SELF REGULATION

Definition:
The word “self” refers to the actor – e.g. a single company or a group of companies acting collectively, e.g. through a professional association.

“Regulation” refers to what the actor is doing.

Regulation has three components:

(1) legislation, that is, defining appropriate rules;

(2) enforcement, such as initiating actions against rule breakers

(3) adjudication --  deciding whether a violation has taken place and imposing an appropriate sanction.

“Self-regulation” means that the industry or profession rather than the government is doing the regulation. However, it is not necessarily the case that government involvement is entirely lacking.


The following is an extract from The Media Self-Regulation Guidebook, All questions and answers, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 2008.


Self regulation:

·         is about establishing minimum principles on ethics, accuracy, personal rights and so on, while fully preserving editorial freedom on what to report and what opinions to express.

·         helps the media to respond to legitimate complaints, and correct mistakes in a trial-and-error way.

·         is a pledge by quality-conscious media professionals to maintain a dialogue with the public.

A complaint mechanism is set up to deal with justified concerns in a rational and autonomous way.

In the media, obviously only those outlets whose journalists, editors and owners seek to produce a responsible press would engage in this dialogue.

Self-regulation can be set up both industry-wide and in-house.

Outside the media, political institutions and public figures are usually the main providers of complaints, as reporting and commenting on their activities is an important job for the serious media. But equally interested partners could be civil society’s protagonists such as business and labour, religious and minority organizations, traditional and newly established interest groups, and, of course, individual members of the public.

Merits of media self-regulation

By promoting standards, self-regulation helps maintain the media’s credibility with the public. This is particularly welcome in new democracies, most of which are also new to an independent press. Media self-regulation helps convince the public that the free media are not irresponsible.

At the same time, self-regulation protects the right of journalists to be independent, and to be judged for professional mistakes not by those in power but by their colleagues.

When it comes to correcting factual errors or violations of personal rights by the press, satisfaction over the judgments of self-regulatory bodies lessens pressure on the judiciary system to sanction journalists.

It is quite natural for media consumers to seek guarantees about the value of journalists’ information. Codes of ethics provide guidance on editorial standards, while complaint mechanisms offer a kind of ‘quality insurance’.

Complaints launched with self-regulatory bodies come at no cost, unlike court proceedings. This is a considerable advantage for the average citizen.

There are benefits for complaining politicians, such as the speedy resolution of disputes, and the satisfaction of seeing mistakes acknowledged publicly and voluntarily by the press.

Democracy is not only about disputes. It is also about a shared culture of disputing in a rational and fair manner. Governments, even if freely elected, are participants in the political contest and therefore are not best-suited to enforce rationality and fairness. Besides, democracy is incompatible with state custody of the press. Media self-regulation is an effort to impose democracy’s political culture, independent of political forces. It also advances the transition from a government-owned, state-controlled press to one owned and controlled by civil society.

Five reasons for the media to develop media self-regulation
1. It preserves editorial freedom;
2. It helps to minimize state interference;
3. It promotes media quality;
4. It is evidence of media accountability;
5. It helps readers access the media.

Media self-regulation versus regulating the media

To a certain extent media laws are necessary. But the press can only perform its crucial role as a watchdog of government if there is as little state control as possible.

In societies on the road to democracy, constitutional and legal guarantees are necessary to make press freedoms enforceable. For example:

·         Constitutions should prohibit censorship and protect freedom of expression;
·         Laws should guarantee free access to government information and protect journalists from being forced to disclose confidential sources of investigative stories;
·         Regulations should guarantee the fair and transparent administration of media business such as registration, licensing, ownership disclosure and taxation.

In a democracy, unavoidable exceptions from freedom of expression must be set in law. But in order to maintain fearless debate of public issues only very few types of speech offences should be criminalised. These include words or images that would clearly and imminently endanger the rule of law, society’s peace, or the safety of individuals: for example, incitement to violence, calls for discrimination, or distribution of child pornography.

Speech that ‘merely’ shocks, disturbs or offends should be dealt with in the civil-law courts. The same applies to speech that infringes on privacy, insults dignity or defames honour – even if committed intentionally by recklessly unprofessional journalists.

Can governmental regulations harm press freedoms?

Undue legal restrictions passed by freely elected governments can be almost as oppressive for the press as the dictatorial arbitrariness of the past. This is especially the case when legal restrictions are created (or misused) with the clear intention of eliminating independent reporting and opinion. Such malicious media laws might, for example:

·         Discriminate against non-state media outlets, in favour of the still-existing state-owned press, for example in the administration of such spheres as registration, taxation, printing, subscription and distribution;
·         Unfairly control the issue of broadcast licences;
·         Criminalize dissenting views or unwelcome investigative stories;
·         Use a selective approach in the application of criminal or civil provisions protecting personal rights.

Can governmental regulations unintentionally harm press freedoms while protecting other freedoms?

Time and again, the road to unnecessary legal interference is paved with good will, and prompted by the public’s real need for standards in journalism.

Many undue limitations are intended to “help” enhance ethics and quality, or “balance” freedom of the press against other important values, like state security, social peace, or personal rights. In the hope of eliminating hatefilled public debate, governments often overstep the legitimate limits of criminalisation of speech and allow prosecution of all kinds of intolerant, discriminatory speech, or simply views that offend others. Such laws tend to merely impose the tastes of the ruling parliamentary majority.

Additionally, democracies can be slow to remove speech restrictions that were conceived in times when different standards applied. Examples could be:

Criminalization of defamation, libel, and insult, instead of handling these offences in civil courts;

Punishment of “breach of secrecy” by civilians, including journalists, instead of limiting this crime to those who have an official duty to protect the secrets;

Special protection of high officials from verbal abuse.

Can governmental regulations make the press more professional or ethical?
No. True ethics standards can be created only by independent media professionals, and can be obeyed by them only voluntarily. Whether passed in good will or not, any attempt to impose standards on journalists by law will result in arbitrary limitation of their legitimate freedoms, and restriction of the free flow of information in society.

Of course, taxpayer-paid public-service broadcasters are obliged by law to report and comment in an objective, fair, and ethical manner. But public service requirements, too, must be formulated and enforced by independent professional bodies, and will only function if politicians refrain from interfering with editorial work.

Can self-regulation figure in the law?

That would be helpful in only one respect: by ensuring that ethical judgements of a self-regulation authority are not used in a court of justice by the criticised media professional, the state or the offended person.

Can self-regulation help promote better laws?
Yes, it can, but not by offering self-censorship. A self-regulated media can fight more effectively for the repeal of unnecessary regulations by:

Convincing the public that the media are conscious of the need for standards;
Naming and shaming corruption in the media;
Offering complaint resolution in justified cases.

What can governments do to promote self-regulation?
Governments can best promote self-regulation by:
Saying no to state ownership of the media;
Ensuring full freedom from governmental interference in the press;
Keeping the media pluralistic through anti-monopoly measures.







No comments:

Post a Comment