Press Councils Around The World: Unraveling a Definitional Dilemma

Bertrand, Claude-Jean

doi:10.1177/107769907805500203

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For a number of countries, empirical and internationally comparative data is available on journalists' views and perceptions: The MediaAcT project conducted in-depth survey research on the practical impact of MAIs and the context factors for accountable journalism in twelve European countries as well as Jordan and Tunisia (Fengler et al, 2014), and the Worlds of Journalism project included four questions on perceptions of ethics in its 67-country survey of journalists (Hanitzsch et al, 2019). Wiedemann (1992), Bertrand (1978Bertrand ( , 2000, Pöttker and Starck (2003), Puppis (2009), andFielden (2012) analyzed the structures and functions of (Western) press councils from a comparative perspective. Most recently, Trappel and Tomaz (2021) discussed media accountability as an indicator to assess media performance across countries.…”

Section: Trends In the Media Accountability Discourse: A Literature R...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Media Accountability: Global Trends and European Monitoring Capabilities

Kreutler,

Fengler

2024

MaC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article summarises the global state of the art of research into media accountability, using this overview as a framework for an analysis of 14 European countries’ structures and the possibilities for monitoring their media accountability landscapes. The first step shows that a model developed purely in the context of liberal Western democracies struggles to explain the diversity of media accountability instruments, actors, proceedings, and the effectiveness of these systems in different countries. When a broad understanding of media accountability is applied, different models of media accountability frameworks can be identified globally, and even within Europe. These findings on structures and actors in the field function as guidelines for the second part of the article, which analyses monitoring capabilities in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden—with a special focus, not only on the status quo, but also the capability to monitor changes and trends over time. Even in countries with generally well-developed monitoring and research structures in the media sector, much of the available literature focuses on normative questions, and available data is not necessarily comparable longitudinally or cross-nationally. International efforts have inspired key publications in a number of countries, but they are rarely followed up by continuous monitoring of developments in the field. Several cases describe a common reason for monitoring deficits: Weak professional culture among journalists leads to ineffective and often neglected media accountability measures, which in turn limits research activity and funding opportunities.

show abstract

Section: Trends In the Media Accountability Discourse: A Literature R...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Media Accountability: Global Trends and European Monitoring Capabilities

Kreutler,

Fengler

2024

MaC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…71-75;O'Malley and Soley, 2000, p. 131), generally the councils have included lay representation. Exceptions appear to be the Austrian and German press councils (Bertrand, 1978;Wiedemann, 1992). Why not, according to British, Swedish, Swiss or American models (Bermes, 1992;Holtz, 1998), add independent representatives to the German Press Council?…”

Section: Critiquementioning

confidence: 99%

Criss-Crossing Perspectives: contrasting models of press self-regulation in Germany and the United States

Pöttker

Starck

2003

Journalism Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two media scholars-one from Germany and one from the United States-discuss in pointcounterpoint style issues pertaining to press self-regulation in their respective press systems. Their intent was not only to assess press freedom and press responsibility in their own countries but also to offer reflections on each other's observations. The German perspective argues for more press freedom in Germany, while the North American perspective maintains the need for more press responsibility in the United States. Authors conclude that insights about one's own press system can be gained from considering factors in other systems.

show abstract

“…(10) No obstante lo anterior, hay que recalcar que la autorregulación se refiere al control de la actividad informativa. Es decir, de todo aquel medio a través del cual se difundan hechos, juicios o el resultado de investigaciones.…”

Section: Principales Caracteristicas De Los Instrumentos De Autorreguunclassified

“…(37) El sentido de la autocrítica empresarial no suele ser el común denominador de los dueños de periódicos o medios informativos. Merece la pena, eso sí, resaltar la labor que en Estados Unidos realizan las empresas que cuentan con un sistema autoimpuesto para mejorar su trabajo.…”

Section: -Control Empresarialunclassified

“…Por desgracia, la falta de tradición de autocrítica entre los profesionales de la información ha sido una de las causas del fracaso de instrumentos de autorregulación, como sucedió en Turquía. (47)cir, el destinatario de la información tiene diversos caminos para estampar su parecer y no necesitaría de un Consejo de Prensa.…”

Section: -Principales Obstaculos Que Enfrenta La Creacion De Un Orgaunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

La autorregulación de la actividad informativa

Ferrer

1986

cdi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La autorregulación se presenta como una alternativa que los profesionales de la información han encontrado para: -elevar el nivel ético y técnico de su actividad y mantenerla a tono con el desarrollo de los medios de comunicación,y -defenderse de un control gubernamental, que pueda limitar la libertad necesaria para trabajar dentro de un marco de responsabilidad. La autorregulación se da a través de determinadas fórmulas prác-ticas, como son los Consejos de Prensa, cuyo principal modelo es el 'Press Council' británico (*). Estos instrumentos, si bien presentan un camino distinto a las sociedades modernas que aspiran a que sus órganos informativos cumplan con determinadas exigencias de calidad y satisfagan determinadas necesidades, no son la única forma de controlar la actividad informativa.Al estar inmersos en una sociedad democráticamente organizada, coexisten con agrupaciones intermedias y con la máxima organización social que es el Estado, o los tres poderes que lo conforman. La autorregulación tiene cierta relación con ellos, ya que no es un sistema aislado o autosuficiente. Es un camino que se ofrece y que determina cuál es su campo de acción.Los organismos de autorregulación necesitan, a su vez, de unas condiciones previas que garanticen su eficacia y logren los objetivos que se proponen.Veremos a continuación, cuáles son estas características que condicionarían su funcionamiento. Esto nos lleva a ver cómo se relacionan con los otros instrumentos de control que la sociedad ha legitimi-(*) El análisis global de estos Consejos más reciente, es la obra "Los Consejos de Prensa: un seminario en Madrid", dirigido por Peter Galliner y Pedro Crespo de Lara, publicado por la Asociación de Editores de Diarios Españoles (Madrid, 1984).

show abstract

Press Councils Around The World: Unraveling a Definitional Dilemma

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Media Accountability: Global Trends and European Monitoring Capabilities

Media Accountability: Global Trends and European Monitoring Capabilities

Criss-Crossing Perspectives: contrasting models of press self-regulation in Germany and the United States

La autorregulación de la actividad informativa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About