MAI on the professional level (Part one) Press Councils, ombudsmen and letters to the editor

1. Session 5 MAI on the professional level (Part one) Press Councils, ombudsmen and letters to the editor Photo: imago/ecomedia/robert fishman

2. The media accountability instruments on the professional level are these five high degree of institutionalization Press councils Codes of ethics Research Training NGOs Letters to the editor Ombuds-men Media journalism Online comments journalism-external journalism-internal Entertain-ment formats Media criticism in social networks Citizen blogs Journalist blogs low degree of institutionalization Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

3. Press councils: what are they? • Press councils are collegiate bodies that oversee self-regulatory compliance with the ethical principles of journalism. • Generally these agencies take as a reference those codes of ethics that they help to draft or update. • Usually, these councils receive complaints from users of the media and, after making the necessary consultation with the companies involved, issue a verdict. • Since they are not legitimized by universal suffrage and stand outside the judicial system, they often have no sanctioning capacity but merely a moral authority Despite its name, the "press councils" handle complaints relating to all kinds of media, including audio-visual and, more recently, the "online“media Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

4. Aims of Press Councils • The main one: • To promote freedom of expression and quality of information. • But also (probably less altruistic): • To prevent the government's desire to exercise greater regulation. “ If you do not regulate yourself, we will regulate you“ Margaret Thatcher to the newspapers editors in the 80s Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

5. Who supports them? Who compose these councils? • The first European Councils appeared in Britain and Germany. They were created by associations of journalists and editors to stop government intentions to establish a regulatory authority. • The "Press Complaints Comission" was generated from British media companies and it excluded journalists’ associations, which were part of the old "Press Council”. Press councils can be bi- or tripartite, involving representatives of media companies, publishers’ associations, journalists' organizations, and in some cases (like Sweden, Denmark, and the UK, amongst others) also members of the public. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

6. Where can we find Press Councils? In general, these organisms are national, but in some cases they have a regional presence, as in Flanders and Catalonia. In general, it is desirable that councils have jurisdiction within a big geographical territory, because the bigger they are, the more strength and independence they have. But it is also important that people can identify with the councils. Therefore, they can also have more prestige or recognition if they have a regional scope. Especially if they pay attention to a specific media system, culture or language. Germany, Estonia, Finland, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland: press council on national level UK: press council on national level Poland and Romania: no press council on national level France, Italy and Spain: no press council on national level The Alliance of Independent Press Councils of Europe (AIPCE) coordinates the European press councils. It’s a network of independent content regulators for both press and broadcast media. Its annual conferences provide a forum for media and press council representatives to discuss topical issues, to exchange ideas, and to offer and receive advice. http://www.aipce.net/ Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

7. Brief History of Press Councils 1953 1956 1960 1968 1977 2008 2009 The Julkisen Sanan Neuvosto appeared in Finland (Council for Mass Media) http://www.jsn.fi/ In Romania a regional council called Moldavian Press Council appeared (http://consiliuldepresa.md). There is no national and independent council. However there was a Council of Honour within the old Romanian Press Club. England was the precursor with the creation of the General Council of the Press in 1953. That organism became the Press Council in 1963 and in 1991 adopted the current name of the Press Complaints Comission (PCC) http://www.pcc.org.uk/ The Schweizer Presserat was created in Switzerland (Swiss Press Council)http://www.presserat.ch/ Germany created the Deutscher Presserat http://www.presserat.info/ In Poland the Rada Etyk Mediow (REM) was created (Council of Media Ethics) (http://www.radaetykimediow.pl/) A press law from 1984 envisaged such a council, but it was not put into practice. The Raad voor Journalistiek was created in The Netherlands http://www.rvdj.nl/ In Austria the Östereichischer Presserat http://www.presserat.at/, was dissolved in 2002 and created again in 2010 Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

8. What comes before the Code or the Council? It depends! In some cases, councils take as a reference those journalistic ethics codes that have been established previously. In other cases, the council's missions is to draft a new code, or updating an existing one. In any case, these two instruments, codes and councils, are closely linked. A press council takes the code as its "Bible”. Codes Press Councils Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

9. Press Councils Activity Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

10. How are they financed? In general it is preferable that the council does not receive government subsidies amd is not an institution linked to political power to maintain their independence One exception: the Austrian council receives a state grant of 150,000 euros per year. The financial aid is diverse. When they are supported by publishers' associations the media companies finance the councils When they are supported by journalists’ associations the economic difficulties are usually higher. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

11. Weak points Some of the European press councils have experienced serious crises, often for the following reasons: • Inability to impose sanctions • Difficulties in getting members to agree on criteria • Companies' unwillingness to recognize the moral authority of the verdicts • Lack of knowledge of its existence by the public • Insufficient funding Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

12. The Journalists’ opinion Not all journalists believe that press councils are desirable From the neoliberal perspective, it is considered that anything except the law should limit the freedom of information. Press councils are seen as potential censors. Other journalists, supporters of professional self-regulation, understand that the council is, next to the codes, a very valuable instrument to serve as a bridge between the media and the public as well as to reinforce the idea that information is a democratic tool. On average the European journalists consider that the impact of press councils on their behavior is about 2.96 (in a scale of 1-5). The highest value appears in Finland (4.09) and the lowest in Poland (2.25) (MediaAct survey 2012) Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

13. The Press Council and the Leveson Inquiry The tension between regulation and self-regulation has been in the limelight recently in United Kingdom following the recommendation made by Lord Judge Leveson, who investigated the wiretapping case against "News of the World". The role of the Press Complaints Commission has been discussed again after the judge's recommendation that a new press law needs to be created. However, PM Cameron has rejected this possibility and has declared in favour of promoting a new self-regulatory council reform. http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/ Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

14. Ombudsman: one of the self regulation instruments • The ombudsmsn is one of the regulatory mechanisms that media can use to perform their work with high ethical standards. • It is one of the instruments that are promoted within the media companies. The ombdusman figure does not determines if a media company is ethical or not but can contribute to it. In general, the media (especially newspapers) that have incorporated this figure are often among the most prestigious in their respective countries. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

15. Ombudsman Origin The ”audience editor" was introduced to the media as a replica of the official figure "ombudsman" or acting ombudsman in Scandinavian countries for over a century. 1809 For more than one century it only existed in Sweden 1919 1953 Second half of 20thcentury First ombudsman in Denmark First ombudsman in Finland The first ombudsman was created in 1809 in Sweden as part of a liberal constitution. The name of the ombudsman literally means "the man who does the paperwork". Its mission was to ensure compliance with laws and enforce their obligations to officials of the king, for the benefit of citizens. In the second half of the 20th century this figure spread to many democratic states. In each country it is called differently, e.g. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Administration in Britain (1967), Médiateur de la République in France (1973) or Ombudsman in Spain. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

16. The ombudsman in the media In the media context the ombudsman has kept its Swedish original name and has been known as the defender of the readers (or listeners, or viewers) and the attorney or representative of public media. The first newspaper ombudsman appeared in Sweden in 1986 as part of the press council. The first ombudsman of a particular newspaper was John Herchenroeder in the United States. He worked for two newspapers in Louisville, Kentucky, and he had two types of tasks: receiving complaints and providing answers to explain the crisis of newspapers. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

17. Ombudsman functions The basic function (or at least the most cited) is to address complaints from the readers, listeners or viewers. Functions that refer to the society Functions that refer to business excellence Functions that refer to professional excellence Functions that refer to the information product Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

18.  a) Functions that refer to the information product • Deficiencies in production (in the case of the press: incomplete copies,… in the case of audiovisual media: defaults of schedules, lack of sound or image quality, etc..) • Deficiencies in the design (in the case of the press: organization or distribution launched in press format,... in the case of audiovisual media: scenario proposals, costumes of conductors, etc..) • Decisions about the editorial line • Decisions about the inclusion or exclusion of topics or subjects • Offenses beliefs, good taste, sensitivity, etc.. • Decisions about the language used • Deficiencies in language (in syntax, spelling, etc..). The ombudsman main role is to control the product quality. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

19.  b) Functions that refer to professional excellence • Regarding the professional ethics and codes of conduct of journalism (with the understanding that you can assimilate the concept of ethics and quality in line with what is usually called "best practices”) • - Prevention of corporatism. • - Promotion of self-criticism. • - Improving the public image of the professional.  c) Functions that refer to business excellence - Promoting the internal dialogue. - Revitalization. - Knowledge of the public. - Public Relations. - Help to understand and face the crisis in the media. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

20.  d) Functions that reference to society - Agenda Production - Defense of the public's right to information. - Education on media activity. - Consolidation of self-regulation. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

21. Main defining features The ombudsman role is not regulated by law. His powers and forms of exercise are diverse. However, he can take a number of common factor features which are quite frequent. Among these features we can find the following: They receive, investigate and respond to public complaints. They are not usually involved in the editorial line. They have no power to impose sanctions. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

22. Defining features for discussion A number of other features that determine the profile of the ombudsman have a variable form Internal or external character of the ombudsman Way to choose them the period of time Regular space or not in the media Independence of judgment from the Ombudsman The hierarchy of the media Proximity/ distance to the newsroom Guarantees that protect his normative function Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

23. The current situation in Europe Poland and Italy: the concept of the Ombudsman does not exist Germany: some attempts in the 70s. Now there are again some attempts Austria: in 2007 the editors association created the ‘Leseranwaltschaft’with little impact Rumania and Estonia: Ombudsmen don’t exist in commercial media. There are similar figures in public radio and television UK: in the 90s almost all national newspapers had an ombudsman, today only The Guardian and The Observer. The BBC has a very structured complaints system . Switzerland: there are mandatories in the audiovisual media but they have little impact. They also exist in some newspapers France, The Netherlands, Spain and UK: there have been various ombudsmen This instrument, so far, has been more common in the US (Starck, 2010) than in Europe, and is also quite common in some Latin American countries.Most ombudsmen around the world are members of a global organization, the ONO.http://newsombudsmen.org/ Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

24. The journalists’ opinion towards the Ombudsman The ombudsman is the self-regulatory instrument with the least impact (2.32 out of 5) according to European journalists (survey MediaAct 2012) The impact of ombudsman varies widely among journalists from different countries. It seems quite obvious that the presence or not of this figure in the different countries determines the results and that explains the positive opinion in those countries where the concept of the ombudsman exists. An example of this is Spain (with a rating of 2.80, above the average), a country where the ombudsman plays an important role. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

25. Before Web 2.0 and the online era, the letters to the editor allowed interactivity between media and citizens Letters to the editor: a general view This instrument has allowed the public participation for almost a couple of centuries. • This subgenre was born in the UK press in the middle of the 18th century • It is often one of the most popular sections. • The public interest contrasts with little academic attention. • Generally, the letters address current issues but they also refer to other editors’opinion or content published by the media. Some authors call those letters, which criticize the media ‘intervention letters”. It is in this type of letters where media accountability with the public is put in practice. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

26. Letters to the editor as a MAI The authors have established different kinds of letters depending on the way they talk about the media They talk about the publication in general: ideology, product, company. The function of the review focuses on letters for or against the media. They talk about a text already published. The letter can edit the information provided by the reporter and editors or put in question what was written by the journalist. Those that refer to a particular aspect, providing a view for or against. • Weak points: • generally it is known very little about the type of filter used to decide which letters are published and which are not. • It is really rare to find published letters containing harsh criticism to the media itself, especially when media have established systems to channel these criticisms (ombudsman, complaints offices, etc..). •   It is unknown to what extent the media pay attention to the criticism that appear in those letters. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

27. Press Council References Alsius, S., M. Mauri, R. Rodriguez. 2013. “The perception of journalists regarding the effectiveness of traditional instruments of self-regulation.” In: Mapping Media Accountability - in Europe and Beyond, edited by Eberwein, T., S. Fengler, E. Lauk and T. Leppik-Bork, 155-167.Köln: Herbert von Halem Verlag. Fielden, L. 2012. Regulating the Press: A Comparative Study of International Press Councils. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Gore, W. 2008. “Self-regulatory bodies.” In The Media Self-Regulation Guidebook, edited by Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 33-44. Viena. Harastzi, M. 2008. “The merits of media self-regulation. Balancing rights and responsibilities”. In: The Media Self-Regulation Guidebook, edited by Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe., 9-20. Vienna. Hafez, K. 2002. “Journalism Ethics Revisited: A Comparison of Ethics Codes in Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Muslim Asia” in Political Communication, 19: 225-250. Koene, D.2009. Press Councils in Western Europe. Studies for the Netherlands Press. Diemen: AMB. Laitina, T. 1995. “Journalistic Codes of Ethics in Europe”, in European Journal of Communication, 10: 527-544. Puddephatt, A. 2011: “The Importance of Self Regulation of the Media in Upholding Freedom of Expression”, in CI Debates, Communication and Information, 9 – February 2011. UNESCO. Puppis, M. 2009. “Self-Regulation by European Press Councils: Structures, Procedures and the Management of Legitimacy”. Journalism Studies Conference “The Future of Journalism”, Cardiff, September 9-10, 2009. Zlatev, O. 2008. “The Press Council. The archetype of a self-regulatory body.”In The Media Self-Regulation Guidebook, edited by Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe., 45-66. Viena. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level

28. Ombudsman References Maurus, V. 2008. “The Ombudsman. Media self-regulation within a news outlet.” In The Media Self-Regulation Guidebook, edited byOrganization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 67–83. Vienna. AZNAR, Hugo (2005): Comunicación responsable. Madrid: Ariel. 2nd edition. Chapter 6-2: “El ombudsman" (pp. 220-244). Elia, C. 2007. “Vierzig Jahre Presseombudsmann: Wer sind die Leserschaftsanwälte und wie kommunizieren sie? Eine vergleichende Analyse” [Forty years of newspaper ombudsman: who are the readers’ advocates and how do they communicate? A comparative analysis]. Zeitschrift für Kommunikationsökologie und Medienethik 1: 100–105. Evers, H., H. Groenhart, J. Groesen. 2010. “The News Ombudsman: Watchdog or Decoy?” In Studies for the Netherlands Press. Diemen: AMB. Herrera Damas, S. 2005. “Situación del ombudsman en el mundo”, in Sala de prensa, n. 76, February 2005. http://www.saladeprensa.org/art586.htm Maciá, C. B. 2006.La figura del defensor del lector, del oyente y del telespectador. Los paladines del periodismo descaminado [The figure of the ombudsman, the listener and the viewer. Champions of misguided journalism]. Madrid: Universitas. Restrepo, J. D. 2005. “El derecho a la información en la agenda del ombudsman”, in Sala de prensa, n. 76, February 2005.  Zeta de Pozo, R. and S. HERRERA. 2005. “Situación del ombudsman en Latinoamérica” in Sala de prensa, n. 76, February 2005. Letters to the editor References Buell, E. 1975. “Eccentrics or Gladiators? People Who Write About Politics in Letters to the Editor”, Social Science Quarterly, 56: 440-449. Forsythe, S. A. 1950. “An Exploratory Study of Letters to the Editor and Their Contributors”, Public Opinion Quarterly 14: 143-44. Pastor, L. 2010. Teoría de las cartas al director. La gestión periodística del público I (nueva edición).Barcelona: Editorial UOC Tarrant, W. D. 1957. “Who Writes Letters to the Editor?”. Journalism Quarterly, 34: 501-502. Vacib, G. 1965. “A study of letter-writers”, Journalism Quarterly, 42: 464-465. Session 5 – MAI on the professional level