Media Accountability: Global Trends and European Monitoring Capabilities

IF 2.7 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Media and Communication Pub Date : 2023-10-31 DOI:10.17645/mac.7256
Marcus Kreutler, Susanne Fengler
{"title":"Media Accountability: Global Trends and European Monitoring Capabilities","authors":"Marcus Kreutler, Susanne Fengler","doi":"10.17645/mac.7256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":18348,"journal":{"name":"Media and Communication","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Media and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7256","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
媒体问责:全球趋势和欧洲监测能力
本文总结了媒体问责制研究的全球现状,并以此为框架分析了14个欧洲国家的媒体问责制结构,以及监测其媒体问责制格局的可能性。第一步表明,一个纯粹在西方自由民主国家背景下发展起来的模型,很难解释不同国家媒体问责工具、行动者、程序和这些系统有效性的多样性。如果对媒体问责制有一个广泛的理解,就可以在全球范围内,甚至在欧洲范围内确定不同的媒体问责制框架模式。这些关于该领域结构和参与者的调查结果作为本文第二部分的指导方针,该部分分析了奥地利、保加利亚、克罗地亚、捷克共和国、爱沙尼亚、德国、希腊、匈牙利、意大利、拉脱维亚、波兰、罗马尼亚、斯洛伐克和瑞典的监测能力,特别关注的不仅是现状,还有监测变化和趋势的能力。即使在媒体部门监测和研究结构普遍发达的国家,现有的许多文献也集中在规范性问题上,现有的数据不一定具有纵向或跨国的可比性。国际努力促使一些国家出版了重要的出版物,但很少对实地的发展进行持续监测。有几个案例描述了监测赤字的一个常见原因:记者的专业文化薄弱导致媒体问责措施无效且经常被忽视,这反过来限制了研究活动和资助机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Media and Communication
Media and Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.20%
发文量
108
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183-2439) is an international open access journal dedicated to a wide variety of basic and applied research in communication and its related fields
期刊最新文献
Media-Tech Companies as Agents of Innovation: From Radical to Incremental Innovation in a Cluster Legal and Ethical Regulation in Slovakia and Its Relation to Deliberative Communication Symbiosis or Precarity? Digital Platforms’ Role on Australian Digital-Native Journalism and Their Funding Models The Awkward Moment When You Agree With News Outlets That You Normally Distrust Can’t Fix This? Innovation, Social Change, and Solutionism in Design Thinking
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1