The Ways in Which the Public, in All Its Diversity, Can Be Involved in Consultative Programming Structures

COUNCIL CONSEIL OF EUROPE DE L’EUROPE

The ways in which the public, in all its diversity, can be involved in consultative programming structures

Salvatore Scifo

H/Inf (2009) 11

The ways in which the public, in all its diversity, can be involved in consultative programming structures

Report prepared by Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Council of Europe Strasbourg, June 2009 Acknowledgements The author of this report would like to thank a number of persons who have contributed to this research: the members of the Group of Specialists in Media Diversity (MC-S-MD), and in particular the European Broadcasting Union, Jacques Favre and Ed Klute for their comments on drafts of this report; Karin Wahl Jorgensen, of the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, for her insightful perspectives given in the area of journalism and public participation; the Council of Europe’s Secretariat for his support in the process of preparation and editing of this report.

The opinions expressed in this work are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Council of Europe.

Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex http://www.Council of Europe.int/

© Council of Europe 2009 Printed at the Council of Europe Contents

Executive summary ...... 5

A rationale for public’s involvement in programming structures ...... 5

How the public can interact with media institutions ...... 7

The European context ...... 10

Accountability and participation in the public service broadcasting ...... 11 The context ...... 11 The main features ...... 12 Some case studies ...... 13

Community/third sector media ...... 14

Newspapers/print media ...... 17

The contribution of civil society organisations ...... 19

Conclusions ...... 20

Recommendations ...... 21

References ...... 21

Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

Executive summary The report was commissioned by the The range of possible interactions Newspapers are also going through Council of Europe Group of Specialists between the media industry and the substantial changes and their online on Media Diversity (MC-S-MD), to re- public, including civil society organisa- versions now include more interactive search “the role of the media in pro- tions, include options of regulation, platforms that facilitate the participa- moting social cohesion and the self-regulation and co-regulation, and tion of the public and interaction with integration of different communities a wide range of tools that can be used their readers. However, further re- and in particular prepare a report ad- in each context. search is needed to analyse the dy- dressing the ways in which the public However, the mere formal existence of namics of participation and the in all its diversity can be involved in a law, procedure, code, body or com- editorial choices that occur in these consultative programming structures” mittee is not a guarantee of viewers’ platforms. Where effectively intro- across TV, radio, newspapers and new rights to be protected. Recent research duced, ombudsmen have improved media. findings offer a fragmented picture in the quality of the relationship terms of media accountability and between the newspapers and their The report draws on academic studies possibilities of participation that readers. and official reports on “consultative depends on the historical and social Where they exist, civil society organi- programming structures”, meaning the contexts of each country, ranging from sations provide extremely valuable wide range of tools that are available well-developed systems in some coun- work to monitor the media, represent- to the public to interact and to be con- tries to very weak or almost non exist- ing viewers’ interests within the indus- sulted by media institutions on pro- ent in others, where media systems are try, and providing information and gramming matters, with a focus of co- still in transition, following recent discussion forums to media users. regulation options. major media reforms. Where these organisations are weak or non existent there is a need to encour- Whereas for television and radio this Public service media are a key player in age their establishment and develop- term usually refers to viewers’ and lis- promoting social cohesion at national ment. teners’ panels, in the case of news- level across Europe, but need to con- papers it refers to ways in which the tinuously redefine the relationship Awareness of consultative program- public can get in touch with their with their audiences through the use ming structures has to be increased, editing hierarchies, commonly known of online platforms, and also open and the cause of non-participation to as “Letter to the Editor”, or their con- their content to conversation “in order be researched further with the collab- temporary equivalents in their online to build and maintain a constant dia- oration of all the stakeholders involved versions. logue with the public”. in this process. Community media, with their reliance The Council of Europe should keep Previous studies have shown that in on volunteers from the local commu- monitoring developments in this area many countries broadcasters and nity and the collaboration with a and possibly facilitate the constitution media authorities are developing en- network of civil society organisations of platforms which could bring to- hanced feedback tools, complaining involve their target audiences directly gether media institutions, policy procedures and websites to inform in researching, producing and present- makers and civil society, in order to consultations and facilitate the in- ing programmes. They are usually help raise the awareness on consulta- volvement of the public in consulta- more responsive as they are able to be tive programming structures, as well tive programming structures through in closer contact with their local com- as the opportunities and challenges internet-based platforms. munity than larger broadcasters. offered by digital media.

A rationale for public’s involvement in programming structures The role of the media goes much further than which citizens use to make sense of and inter- The role of media institutions in simply providing information about events and pret the world in which they live. Consequently, shaping cultural identity, beyond their issues in our societies or allowing citizens and the role of communication media extends to in- use for information, entertainment groups to present their arguments and points of fluencing who we think we are and where we and education, is well documented. view: communication media also play a forma- believe we fit in (or not) in our world: in other Both industry and academic research words, the media also play a major role in tive role in society. That is, they are largely re- in the field has been, and continues to forming our cultural identity. (European Com- sponsible for forming (not just informing) the be, a subject for passionate discus- mission (EC), 1998:9) concepts, belief systems and even the lan- sions at both national and wider Euro- guages – visual and symbolic as well as verbal – pean level.

5 Ways in which the public can be involved in consultative programming structures

In a continent where public service for the time being – this negative trend” (Celot “feeding into the broader constitutional en- broadcasting has historically played an and Gualtieri, 2005:351). deavour of effective citizen participation’, which important role in enhancing demo- In other words, requires ‘a diverse range of the views to be in cratic processes, this sector is currently circulation and accessible to as wide a range of “the digital revolution and platform conver- going through an unprecedented level the population as possible in order to allow for gence tend to divert funding from program- of change that is contributing to rede- comparison and triangulation” (Feintuck, ming to technology and marketing’ (Baldi and fine the concept of public service 1997:3). Hasebrink, 2007a:10) broadcasting (PSB) itself and how it adapts to the converging media sce- with consistent sums destined to In the newspaper industry, sector’s nario of this decade. promote cross-media presence and in- representatives have stated that tools frastructures. to facilitate consultation and interac- Private media concentration in fewer Less quality in programming can also tion with the programming structure hands and, in some cases, the process have social consequences on the are already incorporated in the layout of commercialisation of PSBs, as well public and this has attracted the atten- of the paper, in both internet and print as similar trends in the print and large tion of institutions such as UNESCO versions. However, the possibility of web-based media, have raised con- and the Council of Europe, which are submitting feedback, comments and cerns among policy makers, research- “trying to strengthen civil society or- opinions, does not automatically mean ers and sections of the public alike, ganisations in order to foster citizens’ that there will be an increased degree worried that citizens’ position in rela- participation” ( ibid ., 11). Regarding the of influence of the public, in the edito- tion to the media has been weakened Council of Europe, the issue of how rial choices and programming struc- in the last two decades, and that “tra- public service media should promote a tures of mainstream media and further ditional legal and market-oriented ac- wider democratic participation of indi- research is surely needed in this area. countability mechanisms alone are no viduals has been explored for a longer sufficient”. Therefore, as media number of years. Outside the realm of mainstream researchers Bardoel and d’Haenens media, community media, given their Moreover, the right to freedom of ex- argue, it is extremely important to own nature, have consultative struc- pression 1 through the media needs to discuss “to what extent modern media tures usually built-in their organisa- have balance with regards to other meet the citizen and how the account- tional structure. Local communities rights, such as privacy, the protection ability and answerability of media vis- can in principle have a substantial say of minors, ethnic minorities and, more à-vis citizens can be strengthened” on the output of the radio and TV sta- generally, vulnerable groups of our so- (2004:166). tions and, in some countries, the pres- ciety. In a previous study, Hasebrink ence of local steering committees/ Public participation or consultation as did point out (1994) that, apart from advisory bodies is also a necessary re- regards programming and content being a customer, consumer, or just a quirement to apply for a broadcasting provision has been the subject of a user of the media, the public is also licence. Research in this area (Gumucio large study carried out at the Euro- formed by individuals who “need pro- Dagron 2001, Girard 1992, Lewis and pean level. Focused mainly on televi- tection and the possibility to defend Jones 2006) has highlighted the po- sion viewers (Baldi 2005; Baldi and their rights”, as they can become tential of community media and Hasebrink 2007a, based on EAVI 2004), objects of bad reporting, offensive “bottom-up” media production proc- the study has shown that in many statements, and, more generally, esses in empowering communities countries broadcasters and media au- harmful programming that violates or and promoting participation in society thorities are developing enhanced exploits their religious or moral feel- and politics, especially among the feedback tools, complaints procedures ings. The public includes also citizens most marginalised social groups. and websites to inform consultations and, among them, minority groups and facilitate the involvement of the whose interests and communicative In order to make full use of the poten- public in consultative programming needs necessitate being included on tial of digital media and to encourage structures through Internet-based all the available platforms. reflection about the media in the platforms. However, the study paints a In this sense, the European Commis- public, national governments have more complex picture. It remarks how sion has stated that regulation of the also been stressing the importance of the increased consolidation and glo- media should also strive to achieve a gaining media literacy skills, for both balisation, especially in the television balance between “the free play of children and other social groups sector, has not been met by increases market forces and the preservation of whose view have been usually under in audience power and satisfaction the general public interest” (EC, represented in the media. A number of (see also Bardoel and d’Haenens, 1998:10). The latter could be described projects have been funded for this 2004). as purpose across Europe. In the case of “On the contrary, European citizens are facing, in the United Kingdom, the promotion of 1. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights many countries, a dangerous standardisation media literacy has also become one of and Fundamental Freedoms, ETS No. 5, Article 10, and homogenisation of their television sched- paragraph 2, available online at
 the duties of the media regulator ules and the ‘digital revolution’ is not reversing –         
 . Ofcom (Communications Act, 2003).

6 Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

In the following pages the report will view of consultative structures across organisations before reaching the con- explore academic research conducted Europe and relevant case studies, dis- clusions and a series of recommenda- on this matter to put the discussion cussing also findings about the effec- tions on this matter. into context, then moving to an over- tiveness of listeners and viewers

How the public can interact with media institutions The “large spectrum of interactions” are described as “multi-stakeholder from country to country, they share in between the media industry and the platforms” that principle similar processes (2006b:83). public, including civil society organisa- “can refer to state of the art research and con- The individual behaviour of the tions, has been insightfully analysed crete situations, with debates that do not members of the media industry and by the French media academic Divina confine themselves to the decision-makers only the standards of their work are made Frau-Meigs in La palette des interac- but which often include producers and broad- explicit in what have been called tions: auto-régulation, régulation et co- casters. It may result in the drafting of recom- media accountability systems (MAS) régulation (Frau-Meigs, 2006a), trans- mendations related to some cultural or political and contribute to “underline the im- lated into English and included later in value or content, to editorial strategies, and to portance of freedom of expression”, re- a publication on media education specific formats in conformity with the expecta- minding “that information is a published by UNESCO (Frau-Meigs, tions of a given community.” ( ibid .) common social good, and not just a commercial product” ( ibid .). The range 2006b). Self-regulation by media professionals of possible interactions in this field consists in instruments elaborated by listed by Frau-Meigs (83-86) are sum- Consultative structures such as the the professionals themselves, which marised in Table 1 below. “consultative councils for program- aim to maintain or increase the trust of ming” (as in Frau-Meigs, 2006b:162) the public. Whereas these might differ

Table 1. Self-regulation

Tool Remit Aim Advantage/Limitation Style sheets Recommendation/commitment Help professionals to deal with Not binding per se for news making social issues, representation of mi- norities and young people Guidelines for standards of good Principles of the profession: objec- Establish social accountability of Not binding; no mention of fees or practice tivity, equity, independence, journalists; respect for human dig- sanctions freedom of expression* nity, diversity and peace Ombudsmen (human interface Relay suggestions and complaints Remind guidelines to media pro- Some have own programmes between media and their public) from the public fessionals (as recommendations, (pedagogical/educational func- charters, good practice) tion); Facilitators of understanding between professionals and citi- zens; No need of arbitration Ethics and liaison committees Aid media to present democratic Highlight lack of rigor in news- Consultative status; part of (panel of experts representative of debates, observe respect of making (absence of issues in news media’s public image interests of the public) human dignity and protection of agenda; excessive time dedicated minors to trivia) Critical and review programmes Examination of techniques of Exposure of botched/untrue arti- Point of reference in their fields; and professional journals enquiry and reporting cles and/or reports; publish cen- professionals’ tool to assert inde- sored documents; highlight pendence discrimination in editorial boards; expose collusions with politics and economics Press councils Periodical meetings between pro- Ensure independence of the press Consultative power; no sanctions fessionals and the public where and its taking account of reader- prescribed. Recommendations complaints are considered ship by considering solutions to published in newspapers; more complaints useful at local level Professional ethics workshop Members of the public discuss ed- Develop mutual understanding Space for debate, especially at itorial decisions with professionals between professionals and their local level. At wider level are pro- publics moted as ‘week of press’. Call-in shows Audience calls during live radio Allow audience to express them- Aura of authenticity and participa- and TV programmes selves freely tion; need for precaution for live broadcasts to prevent discrimina- tions

7 Ways in which the public can be involved in consultative programming structures

Table 1. Self-regulation

Tool Remit Aim Advantage/Limitation Prizes Professional recognition and/or fi- Promote best practices and en- Usually confined to the sphere of nancial rewards to media profes- couraging quality programming news sionals Self-regulated monitoring entities Advice to professionals and Formulate rules and recommen- Sponsors joining on a voluntary respond to public’s concern (e.g. dations basis advertising campaigns) Labels and classificatory systems Classification of audiovisual sup- Prevent access to potentially Sales and rental points not effec- ports harmful content tive in limiting access to products not made for minors Screening committees Programme units managers in Decide about programmes Not real tools of evaluation; com- charge of channel obligations bought and scheduled by a mercial decision often different assist by people representative of channel from committee recommenda- the public tions (e.g. youth programming) Scrambling or remote control Parents that want to forbid access Avoid the access to potentially Technical capacity of the broad- locking systems to programmes or websites to harmful content casting systems, internet servers their children or television sets

* As expressed in international documents like 1983 declaration by UNESCO on the ethics of journalism or the similar declaration adopted by the European Council in 1993

Frau-Meigs also reminds us that since referring to best practices across like Ofcom in the United Kingdom, the 1983 UNESCO had listed the access Europe. Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel in and participation of citizens among France or the Broadcasting Commis- the main ethics principles of journal- Apart from self-regulatory bodies, as sion of Ireland, and their predecessors, ism in its Declaration of international press councils or media trusts, the two have been in charge to regulate access principles on the ethics of journalism 2 other possible forms of regulation are to the airwaves by commercial and with “many international press organi- regulation by the state and co-regula- community broadcasters and monitor sations and media institutions that tion, in collaboration with civil society broadcasting norms as well as the have promoted this and other ethical organisations. In the latter case, the access to spectrum. Frau-Meigs high- principles among the ranks and their public can be consulted on program- lights how the rise of organised groups professionals” (ibid, 76). A recent ming issues as well as major changes of citizens and consumers has encour- Media Self-Regulation Handbook pub- in media’s mission or economics that aged regulators to apply more trans- lished by OCSE (Representative on might affect standards of program- parent procedures, as well as Freedom of the Media, 2008) provides ming (e.g. public service broadcasting managing “disputes concerning also a comprehensive and clearly remit). ethical standards and public service written resource especially for Regulation, delegated by the state to obligations of the networks”. Table 2 member states that want to develop specific authorities and/or intermedi- below summarises the interactions in this tool further, including bodies as aries, aims to “preserve or correct the the case of regulation by state inter- Ombudsmen and Press Councils and market balance”, “ensure that official mediaries/authorities (based on Frau- texts are respected and applied” and Meigs, ibid., 86-88). 2. Issued by the Fourth Consultative Meeting of International and Regional Organisations of Jour- “encourage the adoption of standards nalists in Paris on 20 November 1983. for better practices” ( ibid . 86). Bodies

Table 2. Regulation by state entities

Tool Remit Aim Advantage/Limitation Establishing regulatory entities Authorise broadcasting agree- Maintain the principles of plural- In some countries full regulatory ment and establish services and ism and cultural diversity, balance powers and for applying sanc- obligations opinions, right and expectations tions; ‘soft pressure’ on industry of the public for classifications standards Setting up a complaints body Ensuring that audiences’ criticisms Correct information; monitor Enact respect of persons’ image reach programme managers and rights of reply in case of personal news editors attacks or political editorial Establishing public service obliga- Implement rights and duties of Measure candidates’ access rule in Possibility of monitoring channels’ tions the media in relation to their news and monitor fiction, adver- licences and agreements through public in public and commercial tising and documentaries periodical evaluations of the rela- channels tions with the public. In local media priority topics to be dealt in the community can be decided in town meetings

8 Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

Table 2. Regulation by state entities

Tool Remit Aim Advantage/Limitation Applying a set of measures for the Enforce existing children’s rights, Enact procedures that protect Promotion of culture, communica- protection of minors also referring to related UNICEF children’s appearance on broad- tion, education and protection of and UNESCO documents cast news or fictions minors Elaborating parental warning Examination of content to prevent Classifying programmes prior to Give a strong ethical signal; per- systems damaging young/fragile people’s broadcasting and attaching possi- ception moving from censorship sensibilities. Review in annual ble scheduling restrictions to parental decision-making tool report or discussions Fostering the public broadcasting Debate excerpt of programmes in Target children and families on Resolving conflicts before or after of critical reading programmes terms of production and editorial public broadcasting channels and regulations; taking account of spe- processes with media educators operate by keeping balance with cificities of each medium that is and representatives of the public country’s political and legal frame- ruled by particular codes/guide- work on minors/minorities protec- lines tion

Here co-regulation is understood as a
depending on the single coun-
claim to respond “to the expecta- co-operation between the media in- try’s political and social context, in- tion for direct participation in a demo- dustry and actively organised sectors volving a variety of actors as citizen cratic process”; of society (e.g. civil society). A major groups, NGOs, trade unions, corporate
aim to be involved also at the role here is also played by the self-reg- organisations, professional groups, level of decision-making and do not ulation bodies describe above and the charities, researchers and representa- simply follow up implementation of di- governmental departments or minis- tives of local communities. rectives or recommendations; tries of culture, communication and The study reports that media-related education that participate in negotia-
require information in time to for- civil society organisations, in some tions in multi-stakeholder partner- mulate their own contribution or countries, “have gained considerable ships and forums. In this context, Frau- counter-proposals; importance”, either in the form of com- Meigs says, the concept of “govern- munication focused groups or already
develop a “structured relation- ance” frames the notion of co-regula- existing professional or consumer ship” with the media and establish eth- tion, “a form of government that aims groups that have added media and ical relations with professionals; at re-founding the democratic basis communication to their agendas. They for the exercise of power” ( ibid ., 88).
try to arouse the critical aware- are active in defending rights that are ness of the general public on particu- Media governance structures and ac- ignored or overlooked by current po- lar issues; tivities include: litical and commercial powers, such as
issuing directives and recommen- misrepresentation of minorities or
aim to establish principles, rec- dations rather than laws and sanc- access and over exposure of specific ommendations and standards of prac- tions; issues in the media. tice and disseminate them.
involving a multiplicity of actors These organisations are aware that A summary of co-regulation activities from the local up to international level; economical and political actors will that might involve civil society organi-
encouraging citizens’ participa- not take initiatives on particular issues sations is illustrated in Table 3 below tion and responsible behaviour; and therefore: (based on ibid., 89-91).

Table 3. Co-regulation with civil society organisations

Activity Remit Aim Advantage/Limitation Participating in advisory councils Present state of the art research Advise PSB’s councils and minis- Engage in direct discussion with for programmes or multi-stake- and practice and participation in tries committees; help to write up media industry representatives holder forums discussions with decision-makers, recommendations taking account and programmers producers and broadcasters the expectations of the repre- sented community Creating media monitoring enti- Possibly litigate against industry, Create stable structures that allow Internet has favoured increase in ties regulators or co-regulatory associations to exercise surveil- their number, swiftness of infor- bodies; act as watchdog, de- lance on relevant matters; raise mation and capacity to remain on nounce and offer critical analysis awareness and stimulate discus- alert sions Organising multi-stakeholder Attract multi-stakeholder partici- Contribute to build trust and Discussion of relevant program- events pants and guest from industry, habits of exchange in neutral ming or policy matters in semi- public authorities and associa- places formal contexts tions in semi-formal/official meet- ings (e.g. festivals, workshops)

9 Ways in which the public can be involved in consultative programming structures

Table 3. Co-regulation with civil society organisations

Activity Remit Aim Advantage/Limitation Developing resource centres Store documents about relevant Shed new light on own analysis of Keep up to date with relevant events in media libraries, compu- media issues; train representa- issues through easily searchable ter databases or on-line portals tives in entities and public authori- archives; association members’ ties where the organisation is development involved Publishing pedagogical materials Distribution of media content Spread training and self-tutoring Increase of media skills and liter- through a wide range of formats methods to develop media liter- acy among members to members acy Co-ordinating with inter-govern- Work on specific issues and apply Co-ordinate international and na- Involvement of local groups, their mental organisations (IGOs) principles adopted by the UN; tional policies with NGOs and civil expertise and hands-on experi- publish regular reports on issues society at local level ence as Millennium Development Goals Establishing non-governmental Collect data and do comparative Protect a particular category or Up-to-date research and keeping/ organisations (NGOs) or on-the-spot research; possibly civic right(s) by monitoring rights promotion of awareness on the denounce the violation to correct and duties of media in a group of/ state of civic rights and fragile a problem or raise public aware- all countries; coordinate with IGOs groups ness/launch a campaign and relevant matters

However, co-regulation interaction control is held somewhere else (e.g. arguing that “co-regulation implies between the industry and civil society, classification of programmes) or when that the responsibilities and social Frau-Meigs warns, requires “care and the participation in media councils functions of each stakeholder should vigilance” when independent associa- gives some control on editorial choices remain separate and clearly deline- tions are proposed to share responsi- but does not influence broadcasters’ ated”. bilities on matters where the final everyday decisions. She concludes by

The European context

The classification done by Frau-Meigs
Direct marker relationships (sub- mere formal ‘existence’ of a law, proce- helps to give an idea of the range of in- scription, pay-per-view) dure, code, body or committee is not a teractions between the public and the The twelve countries that were in- guarantee of viewers’ rights to be pro- industry. However, at the European cluded in their study (Czech Republic, tected” and that “options for viewers’ level extensive academic research on France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The participation have diminished com- broadcasting accountability is a rela- Netherlands, Spain, Slovakia, Sweden, pared to the past” (Baldi and Hase- tively recent phenomenon. Switzerland, Turkey, and the United brink, 2007:13-14). As media scholars Jeremy Mitchell and Kingdom) shared an “almost complete On similar lines, Bardoel and d’Haen- Jay Blumer claimed in their study pub- lack of consumer consciousness in ens also argued that “the position of lished in 1994, “no attempt has previ- their regulatory structure […] oriented the citizen in relation to the media has ously been made to examine the to their legal obligations rather than become weaker in recent decades” nature and the implications of the the interest of viewers” ( ibid ., 208-212). and there is a growing need to under- several facets of the relationship A decade later, a large study con- stand to “what extent modern media between broadcasters and viewers in ducted in 2004 3 with the financial meet the citizen and how the account- the round”. They listed eight formal ac- support of the European Commission’s ability and answerability of media vis- countability mechanisms: Directorate of Education and Culture à-vis citizens can be strengthened”
Political accountability through (Baldi 2005) gathered a substantial (2004:166). political and parliamentary systems body of information on media ac- Hasebrink et al. (2007) have warned countability systems and ways that fa- that viewers should not be regarded
Administrative accountability cilitate viewers’ participation in media “as consumers of television products (handling complaints) governance. 4 Among the main fea- only” and therefore look at their partic-
Advisory committees tures the study highlighted that “the ipation beyond their viewing decisions
Audience research and envisage them as “participants of 3. Within the same initiative the European Associ- a public discourse on media qualities
Responses to sponsors and adver- ation of Viewers’ Interests (EAVI) was created in tisers March 2004. See:
   . and media accountability […] close to 4. For a more general and pan-European analysis, the concept of civil society” (:78). As
Direct audience feedback (letters, including regional and national industry perspec- civil society has “a special sensitivity telephone calls) tives see also Terzis, Georgios (ed.) (2007) European Media Governance. National and Regional Dimen- for problems and concerns of viewers
Press criticism sions. Intellect: Bristol and Chicago. and can articulate them in the public

10 Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

sphere” (Dahlgren 1995, quoted in tention and support to their objec- ibid .), viewers’ organisations can play tives”. an important role in “raising public at-

Accountability and participation in the public service broadcasting

The context They also remark how broadcasting fulfil social, cultural and democratic Before moving to discuss recent re- policies in Europe, apart from eco- needs”. This will require developing search in the area of media accounta- nomic and social factors, have empha- “convincing arguments and practical bility and the presence and sised “social imperatives as the pivotal instruments that make its public di- effectiveness of consultative program- concerns” ( ibid .) and this is evident in mension more explicit and transpar- ming structures among public broad- documents like the Protocol on the ent” (2007:22). casters, it is important to describe the System of Public Service Broadcasting Importantly, the Council of Europe context in which public service media attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam (Committee of Ministers, 2006) wants are operating at this time in Europe, (Commission of the European Commu- to make sure that the public service characterised by a mix of pressing nities (CEC), 1997) where PSB is envis- principles are extended to new media demands to be more accountable, aged as “ directly related to the because a full participation in the in- more distinctive, more inclusive, and, democratic, social and cultural needs formation society is seen as an essen- eventually, leading the transition to of European citizens and a necessity for tial tool for democracy, citizenship digital by making their contents availa- maintaining media pluralism” ( ibid ., 11, and, ultimately, to exercise the human ble on a mix of cross-media platforms. emphasis in original text). right to communicate. With a specific On top of that, in many countries, Moreover, because of the 2001 Com- focus on the information society, the there is the need to justify the ration- munication on State Aid, and the ex- Council of Europe also stresses the ale of licence fees that taxpayers have ponential growth of non-linear media fundamental role of public service usually no other choice than to pay. consumption and production, the media in the new digital environment Bardoel and Brants (2003) have noted move to PSM has required a “renewal and recommends that its member how, after the introduction of com- of the public service ethos” across states include provisions in their legis- mercial broadcasting across many European public media and new strat- lation “covering in particular the new European countries throughout the egies to be developed and adopted. In communication services, thereby ena- 1990s, some public service broadcast- this respect, Nissen (2006) has identi- bling public service media to make full ers have felt the need “to go back to fied three content implications that use of their potential and especially to worrying about their legitimacy and PSM will be required to oblige: promote broader democratic, social roots in civil society” and have imple-
consider the needs of special and cultural participation, inter alia , mented “new accountability instru- groups and individual users of public with the help of new interactive tech- ments in order to give the citizens media; nologies” (Council of Europe, Recom- more involvement in PSB policies”
mendation (2007) 3 of the Committee (Bardoel, 2007:450). serve the needs related to cultural diversity and democratic processes; of Ministers of 31 January 2007 on the Bardoel and Ferrell Lowe have high- remit of public service media in the in-
lighted how in the current context “the promote social cohesion. formation society). From a legal point core challenge facing public service A justification for the latter also being of view, the Council of Europe empha- broadcasting is the transition to public “the general trend towards globalisation and in- sises the need to allow public service service media”, which requires a series ternationalisation, regional integration of nation media to “exercise, as effectively as of shifts in their production processes: states and individualisation of citizens requires possible, their specific function in the
developing a demand-oriented modern society to find mechanisms that information society and, in particular, approach to service and content provi- counter this fragmentation and create social co- allowing them to develop new com- sion, rather than the previous supply- hesion. Electronic media and services adapted munication services” (Recommenda- orientation; to the new context of the information society tion (2007)3, paragraph 26).
can serve this role” (19). relating to audiences as partners Therefore, as Jakubowicz states, “the rather than targets; In this context, Bardoel and Farrell PSB role as the central force preserving
developing strategy and tactics Lowe then argue, PSM have to become the cohesion of society clearly needs for popular, albeit distinct from com- more audience-centred, with this im- to be safeguarded and, crucially, ex- mercial, cross-media content plying “serving citizens in all the ways tended to the online world” (2007:35) (2007:10). their public interest activities seek to and, furthermore, “redefining the rela-

11 Ways in which the public can be involved in consultative programming structures

tionship with their audience and The main features land, Germany, Belgium and the Neth- opening content to ‘conversation’ in Unsurprisingly, given the different his- erlands (see also Table 4 below). All order to build and maintain a constant torical and social contexts of each these countries share as well authori- dialogue with the public”: European country, in terms of media tative reviews of public service broad- casting, regulators and broadcasters “People should be able to feel that public accountability, Baldi (2007) paints a that implement more effective tools to service broadcasting is theirs […] New media, as highly fragmented picture of Europe better understand audience needs several public service broadcasters have recog- and distinguishes three groups of and representation, and a supportive nised, provide striking opportunities to break countries. environment for the establishment of out of [the] ‘take what you are given’ mode. But The first one includes those where self-regulating bodies. The Nordic organisational changes offer also public service efforts to improve accountability have countries share also a long tradition of broadcasters opportunity to build new relation- ever been concrete and tangible, Ombudsman practice. ships of partnership, identification and a sense where debates on media accountabil- of shared ownership which involves viewers, lis- ity and its improvement are lively and teners and web surfers – indeed, which make ongoing. Classified by Baldi as most receivers into senders.” (Collins et al. 2001:11, in advanced , they include the Nordic Jakubowicz, ibid .) countries, the United Kingdom, Ire-

Box 1. Some good practices in public service broadcasting in the most advanced countries. Adapted from Baldi (2007)

Audience Council (RTE, Ireland)

Established in January 2004, it is an “unpaid public body of citizens and nominated members which provides a mechanism for the audi- ence to respond to RTE (Radio Telefis Eireann, the Irish public service broadcaster) and interact with its programming agenda”. In this way, non-politically appointed citizens become part of a self-regulation “which ties broadcasters and authorities to its audiences and public” (Baldi, 2007:20-22). Half of the members are publicly recruited and the other half nominated from arts, sports, industry, and language or- ganisations. Its legal basis is laid down in the RTE Charter.*

Medienversammlung (Media Meeting) (Media Authority, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany)

Launched in November 2003, it has an advisory function and aims to achieve public discussion between viewers and media profession- als. Relevant topics are discussed by a mix of viewers/users, academics, politicians and media professionals.†

Programme Council (Denmark)

This is a forum where public service broadcaster TV2 Denmark meets regularly with representatives of viewers’ organisations twice a year. Its role is to “comment on programmes and give inspiration and good ideas”.‡

* RTE Audience Council:
     
 . † Medienversammlung:
        . ‡
           .

The second group of countries in- ence of European directives and laws ence. Here broadcasting systems in- cludes those where accountability in the national law, there seems to be creasingly tend to be dominated by tools are present, but their efficiency is no urgent need to implement them. commercial, and often foreign, inter- seriously questioned by the findings of The third and last group includes ests where PSBs tend to be marginal- Baldi’s research. They are classified as those countries where accountability ised. less advanced and include Italy, Spain, and responsibility are still political and Holznagel and Jungfleisch (2007), in a France, Greece, Switzerland, Austria, managerial aims. The under construc- review of the findings in the areas of Portugal and Luxembourg. Despite tion countries, include central and legislation and media law of Baldi et some differences among themselves, eastern Europe (CEE), where “the sepa- al.’s study, have analysed the possibili- they share mechanisms to ensure ration between media and society is ties of participation in internal advi- viewers’ participation and are usually still a tangible feature”. They share a sory boards set up by PSBs and more formal than substantial. Often, lack of general funds and attention to regulatory authorities. Aiming to rep- there is also a lack of political tension viewers’ interests, a lack of civil society resent the interests of the public and on these issues and, despite the exist- tradition, and a still strong state influ- to make sure that programming is not

12 Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

biased towards specific interests, these public broadcaster ORF that should After reviewing, the main features of bodies include the possibility for social protect viewers’ interests, but esti- the broadcasting sector, the attention groups to have their representatives mates a very low influence, due to the will now turn to characteristics and on board (e.g. representatives of reli- high number of members nominated possibilities of influencing their pro- gious, social, political and cultural or- by the Federal Government. gramming through consultative struc- ganisations). tures. In Switzerland, the viewers that want However, Schreier (2001:65 cited in to get involved have to become ibid. , 56) reminds us also that “despite members of the public service broad- Some case studies the many precautions to insure inde- caster SRG SSR. pendence of board-members, political United Kingdom Holznagel and Jungfleisch criticise parties often exercise influence over In the British context, Collins and also the Dutch “pillarised” model, public service broadcasters”. Sujon (2007) recognise that the oppor- where, in principle “open access and The classification by Holznagel and tunities for viewers’ to exercise voice effective influence in public broadcast- Fleisch follows different criteria from are stronger in the case of the public ing for citizens is assured” ( ibid ., Baldi’s study and distinguishes among service broadcaster, through its Na- 2005:295), but where viewers have to homogeneous, inhomogeneous and in tional Broadcasting Councils for North- become members of one of the public progress countries, depending on the ern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and service organisations present in the presence, or not, of a range of charac- the English National Forum. Netherlands. So, the more members teristics. From a viewers’ perspective they have, the more programming However, Collins and Sujon have also these include viewers’ rights estab- time is allocated to them. highlighted that the BBC does not lished by law, complaints and support democratic election and ac- audience councils, authorities’ respon- Hasebrink et al. warn that in those countability of its consultative institu- sibility for viewer complaints and rep- cases broadcasters are more likely to tions, and criticise the BBC for not resentation in official bodies. From a reject initiatives from single viewers, being yet accountable in the sense “of broadcasters’ perspective, they seen by them as “illegitimate”. In other being subject to sanctions imposed by include the independence of the Au- words “the public is sufficiently repre- itself directly or by other bodies exter- thority, its responsibility for pro- sented through these bodies” nal to itself” ( ibid ., 38). More than gramme standards and its sanctioning (2007:80) so other perspectives might viewers and listeners holding the BBC powers ( ibid. , 58). have limited or no space at all. to account, they describe the relation- ship as “one of mutual obligation In the case of Germany, part of the ho- Finally, the CEE countries, classified as rather than one where one party holds mogeneous countries, Broadcasting in progress , are characterised by the other into account”: the public is Councils (PSB internal supervisory strong, often foreign-controlled com- obliged to fund the public broadcaster boards) include social and political mercial sectors, public service broad- “so that the broadcaster may provide groups, as well as Government and casters that are under threat and have information to listeners and viewers to Parliament representatives, in order to a very fragile or non-existent commu- act as citizens” ( ibid ., 50). Where the have a pluralistically composed body, nity broadcasting sector. This is due to authors recognise, on the other hand, representative of the society in the the policy frameworks existing there the contribution of the public broad- country’s Länder . Finland’s public and an overall lack of funds for non caster to an informed citizenry, they broadcaster YLE’s administrative board commercial broadcasters. includes members from social and lin- also highlight that this should happen guistic groups, as well as personalities In this context, viewers’ and listeners’ in a framework of “reciprocal entitle- from the areas of education, econom- participation in programming struc- ment and obligation”. ics, arts and sciences ( ibid . 61). The tures is not regarded as an important It has to be noted also that because British example, arguably the more ad- issue and the absence of a strong civil the BBC, as most of the PSM, benefits vanced in the continent, because of society sector leaves a gap and the from public funding, the programming the historical reputation as a solid and need to lobby for better conditions to quality will tend to be higher than the still very supported public service improve the possibilities of contribu- offer from the commercial sector, broadcaster, the BBC, will be the focus tion from the public. where programming has to reflect of a separate and extended review in In the last group of countries new more the interests of advertisers than the next section on public service media laws have been recently ap- their listeners and viewers. media. proved and many of them are still in The inhomogeneous countries , instead, the process of establishing independ- France, Spain and Germany show a very different mix of high ent media systems. However, early Apart from the use of councils, several standards and a lack of important fea- signals of progress are present and, as public service channels across Europe tures. Holznagel and Fleisch cite exam- Holznagel and Jungfleisch conclude, have introduced ombudsmen-like ples such as Austria, where there is the further development promises to bodies to deal with comments and formally an Audience Council of the “be an exciting progress” (2007:73). suggestions from the public: the médi-

13 Ways in which the public can be involved in consultative programming structures

Box 2. BBC Audience councils in the United Kingdom*

The new Audience Councils of the BBC were introduced in 2007, following a review of accountability systems across the corporation. The British public broadcaster claims that these bodies are one of the key ways that “ensure the views of the public are represented at the highest levels of the BBC”.† There are Audience Councils in each nation: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England, with the latter as- sisted by a network of 12 further regional Audience Councils.

Members of the councils are licence-fee payers who “have an informed interest in the work of the BBC and an understanding of the inter- ests, concerns and diversity of the audience in their nations. Members are volunteers and do not have any professional link with the BBC”.

In its document Our promises to you (2007), the BBC has also stated that “the Audience Councils play a key role in any public consultation organised by the Trust. This means that they must be consulted before the BBC launches a new service; when the Trust is reviewing a service; and when the Trust is considering how well the BBC is doing in delivering its Public Purposes”.

Finally, the Corporation is planning to use a wide range of tools, depending on the situation, as public meetings, specific interest groups and an “enhanced complaints procedure”.

* With the new Royal Charter, in place from 1 January 200,7 the Audience Councils for Northern Ireland (
   
      ), for Scot- land (
       ), Wales (
        ) and England (
      ) were constituted. †
          
 (Accessed 27 December 2008). ateur in France, the Defensora del Es- markets. But where in Britain the Voice ferent levels of hearings and focus pectador, el oyente y el usuario de of Listener and the Viewer (VLV) helps groups were organised and “a ten- medios interactivos in Spain and the to articulate viewers’ and listeners’ dency to develop self-regulation and Publikumsstelle in Germany. concerns directly, fourteen European to create specific self-regulatory It could be argued that, in an ideal countries do not have any viewers’ as- bodies, audiences and civil society market viewers and listeners have the sociations, and where they do exist, in actors or platforms” that might lead to freedom to decide what to buy (or not) most cases, have low political rele- new forms of participation from the but due to the dominance of a re- vance. Some positive signals, though, public has emerged (Baldi and Hase- stricted number of actors in the media are the ones used for the process of brink 2007:13-14). content supply chain, barriers at the modernisation for the “Television entrance are still high in all European without frontiers” directive where dif-

Community/third sector media A report commissioned by the Council The substantial difference here is that, owned, managed and produced by a of Europe Group of Specialists on compared with national and local group that is representative of a com- Media Diversity, prepared by Peter mainstream broadcasting, members of munity of place or of interest. In other Lewis and published in 2008, explored the audience can participate more di- words, the participation and possibil- the role of community media and their rectly in the media production proc- ity of influencing directly the output of contribution to social cohesion. In the esses in their community station, the station as a member of an advisory board, as well as producer or pre- context of this report, perhaps the where mechanisms of accountability are in principle stricter for the nature senter: most important feature to discuss is of this medium. the described level of audience in- “The community participates in formulating volvement in the programming of the plans and policies for the radio service and in The “Community Radio Charter for defining its objectives, its principles of manage- station. Europe” (AMARC, 2008) recalls the Uni- ment, and its programming.” (Fraser and Resepo versal Declaration of Human Rights “The use of volunteers by community media, Estrada, 2001:16) and, specifically, sets communication the regular collaboration with civil society or- as a fundamental human right, The organisational structures of a com- ganisations in the community and the represen- meaning not only the “access” or the munity broadcaster then have to tation of community individuals and groups on right to reply being present in public permit to the community a substantial the bodies that own and control community and commercial broadcasting, but also influence on the station’s policies and media projects mean that audiences are in- the possibility of having one’s own tool administration. These stations all share volved in defining needs, researching, produc- to exercise this right, independently the concern of giving representation ing and presenting programmes and from politics, institutions and commer- to social groups that are underserved, participating in policy and fundraising.” (23) cial interests, run not for profit and marginalised, neglected or misrepre-

14 Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

Box 3. France: Les médiateurs

Public Service television channels France 2, 3 and 5 have set up two médiateurs , the first named “mediator for programmes”,* the second “mediator for information”.† The mediator for programmes deals with the production teams of the programs on behalf of members of the public dissatisfied with the response to questions by the programmers. This excludes news bulletins and magazines, which are covered by the mediator for information. The latter has an interactive site, where recent messages from the public are displayed and discussed and includes the possibility to send video messages to the mediator. The mediator himself comments on current programming issues prompted by the public in The Word of the Mediator , a weekly video clip that can be viewed by accessing its website.

The mediator for information collects observations, criticisms and analyses that aim to improve the programmes of the channels and es- tablish a more direct connection with the public. He passes the received feedback to the Directorate for Information and Magazines. The mediator publishes La lettre du médiateur de l’information , which is sent to the journalists of the three public service channels, and has the duty to write an Annual Report addressed to the Director of France Télévisions. However, this body is independent from the management of the channel in order to fulfil its mission and is irremovable in the course of its 3-year mandate.

More in detail, the mediator:

– examines all the requests received and decides to take action or not in regard to the complaints (the mediator has guaranteed access to all the necessary information to investigate the complaint);

– communicates this information to the concerned departments and decides, if necessary, to make the information public, for example on websites of the channels;

– considers the usefulness of explaining to the public the choices made by the newsrooms or programming units, possibly describing the difficulties met by them during the production process;

– facilitates internal discussion in the channels, possibly leading to the development of good practices to be share across their staff members;

– can request access to the programming space of France 2, 3 and 5 if needed in order to discuss relevant topics, with the agreement of the managing director of the channel.

As for the latter point, the OCSE guide on Media Self-Regulation cites L’Hebdo du Médiateur (The Mediator’s Week), a 20-minute pro- gramme broadcast on Saturdays at 1 p.m., and highlights its the success, stating that “the confidence in it shown by viewers stems above all from the special status of the ombudsman – total independence from the management, editorial orientation and hierarchy” (the Rep- resentative on the Freedom of the Media, 2008:82-83)

Finally, is worth remembering that the Mediator acts a posteriori and not a priori , as he/she can not interfere directly in the choice of topics and production of news bulletins or magazines.

*
        
 . †
        .

Box 4. Spain: La defensora del espectador, oyente y usuario de medios interactivos

The Defensora del Espectador, oyente y usuario de medios interactivos * (Defender of the viewer, listener and interactive media user) has been introduced by the Spanish public broadcaster RTVE to give the public the possibility of communicating complaints, claims and make suggestions directly to the Corporation. It aims to help citizens to exercise the right to truthful, independent and pluralistic infor- mation, as well as entertainment; to improve the transparency and self-regulation processes and, ultimately, the relationship between the public and media professionals thus improving the programme proposal of RTVE’s channels. The defender’s feedback to the public is then published on its website or sent directly to the person who made the claim in the first place.

!
  "#$%&#$'#()(*+, ---./-0 11/ 02 220 -1 22310 10/--2   32 2/-2002. 2 /.0  2 0 1  1-2 sented from mainstream media from media can have a cohesive function as allows these communities to speak for the local up to international level. these small-scale stations, with their themselves and shape their own iden- Access of community groups to the local outreach, can be a tool that tity, discussing issues relevant with

15 Ways in which the public can be involved in consultative programming structures

Box 5. Germany: Die Publikumsstelle

Introduced in 2004 by the regional public broadcaster Westdeutschen Rundfunk (WDR),* the Publikumstelle (“Audience Interface Unit”) is a reference point for positive and negative feedback, receiving responses and possible complaints. It was introduced as part of the 11th Interstate Treaty on Broadcasting in Germany and is regulated by its Article 10. Even though previously the public would have been able to submit feedback to WDR via the Director General’s office, which was dealing with the collection of such cases, the new unit has surely improved the broadcaster’s organisational procedures. However, the Publikumsstelle does not decide how to deal with complaints (unlike those which deal with programming matters or content of programmes, including protection of minors), which fall within the compe- tence of the Directorate General itself.

* See full text available at:
    
      ' 4   56  ,78'(89":#$9;8<=>7?; . their own channel of communications Moreover: airtime in consequence (see footnote and in their own terms. In other words, 6). “citizens need access to the means of “The Steering Group has been constituted to be communication and voice in order, representative of the local community by fol- Public service broadcasters can be at also, to be able to speak with one an- lowing the demographic (Census Information) times slower to adapt to changing other, to discuss their conditions and of the local community in its recruitment policy. social environments (e.g. ethnic com- aspirations, and to develop the capac- […] The main way ALL FM intends to make its position of a population in a particular ity for engagement” and “community- service accountable to the community is area), given their national/regional di- based and some public service broad- through the work of the Steering Group which mension or, locally, due to processes casters, in particular, tend to be highly will recruit and maintain a representative body that involve often the need for ap- participatory and to encourage imme- of people to discuss and guide programming proval from the centre. Community- diate feedback and discussion over the policy. […] We hold regular Open Days where based media are usually more respon- airwaves” (Buckley et al. 2008:17, 34). the Public can come into the station, meet the sive as, by nature, they are in closer For example, the Community Radio presenters and staff and let us know what they contact with their community. As ibid Order 2004, the legislation that has think of the service we provide.” ( ., 36-7) Lewis has remarked in his report, “in permitted the establishment of a full many of the western European coun- time and distinct third sector of radio However, as community broadcasters tries, the older minority communities broadcasting in the United Kingdom, aim to be more accountable to the had to wait a long time before seeing states that community they serve rather than some concession in mainstream mainstream broadcasters, a careful media” (2008:27). A selection of rele- “it is a characteristic of every community radio planning of their access and participa- vant examples of successful multilin- service that members of the community it is in- tion policies have to be planned. Due gual community broadcasters, ranging tended to serve are given opportunities to par- to social and cultural differences, some from OOG Radio (Groningen, the Neth- ticipate in the operation and management of groups may have problems in coming erlands), to Invandrer TV (Aarhus, Den- the servic.e’ forward and asking for a slot in the mark), Radio Droit de Cité (Paris, In practical terms, as a successful com- schedule. In this sense, a thorough France), Radio Dreieck (Freiburg, Ger- munity radio licensee 5 in the United knowledge of the demographics and many) and Cross Radio (across ex-Yu- Kingdom stated in its application. social dynamics of the community, goslavia states) are cited (for further “All of the programme ideas at ALL FM are gen- possibly supported by a full-time com- details, ibid ., 28-29) erated by the local residents and groups within munity developer, helps in involving the community who make up our volunteer the more marginalised groups. In fact, At the European level, a valuable con- base. The staff supports the volunteers to gen- ALL FM has such a full-time position in tribution in this sense has also been erate and produce their ideas. We engage in its structure, whose aim is to do out- given by organisations like Online/ outreach work with various community organi- reach work with groups to encourage More Colour in the Media (OLMCM), a sations and networks and offer the opportunity their involvement at the station. In network of NGOs, broadcasters, train- through this for individuals or groups to get in- practice, this means “identifying gaps ing institutes and researchers, that was volved and make programs for their commu- in representation at ALL FM and en- set up in 1997 to improve the repre- nity. We train groups to produce their own radio gaging positive action through recruit- sentation of minorities and other programmes and generate their own content ment to address this”, as well as diverse groups in the media, that has […].” (ALL FM, 2004, 25) engage with local community and vol- supported, among other things, the
 untary networks ( ibid ., 13) The sta- networking of experiences and the cir- 5. ALLFM is a full-time community radio station tion’s varied and eclectic schedule culation of information about on mi- broadcasting to the central and south-eastern does indeed reflect the composition of 6
areas of Manchester, United Kingdom. Further in- nority/ethnic community media. formation and the current schedule are available at the targeted community, trying to
    . balance the voices and allocation of 6. Further details at
   .

16 Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

Newspapers/print media “Beyond offering information, newspapers must described as “someone employed by a adapted selection of case studies re- also solicit new ideas from citizens. Therefore, newspaper, acting as an intermediary garding single newspapers and na- letters to the editor selected for publication between readers and the newsroom, tionwide bodies, as reported by ENPA, should not merely address normative concerns handling complaints, questions or is listed in the box on the following as reflected in ongoing stories placed on the remarks about the content of the page. agenda by the news organisation itself. They paper”; however, in some cases its ENPA also stated that some tools to fa- should also allow for members of the public to function has been to “build customer cilitate consultative programming introduce topics, and open them up to the criti- relationships, rather than making the structures are already incorporated in cal scrutiny of public debate.” (Habermas, paper accountable” (van Dalen and the layout of the paper: in both inter- quoted in Wahl-Jorgensen, 2002:72) Deuze, 2006:461). net and print versions readers now The newspaper landscape, like the As cited earlier in the report, OCSE has have the opportunity to contact the broadcasting sector, has undergone published a Media Self-Regulation journalists directly. The e-mail address no less profound changes and the Handbook that also gives extensive ex- is printed or will be visible alongside or most successful ones have online edi- amples of ombudsmen and best prac- at the end of the article;, and readers tions that now include news updates tices especially in the area of printed can express their own opinions (e.g. “by the minute”, embedded audio and media, with a useful map that illus- use of the “your reactions/your views” video-clips, podcasts and the possibil- trates the current situation with option). More institutionalised forms ity to comment and discuss the pub- regards to press councils in Europe of reader feedback are the press coun- lished articles or develop a blog (Representative on Freedom of the cils who deal with the complaints of discussion about a particular hot topic Media, 2008:48-49) and devotes a citizens when they are not directly at any time. whole section to the ombudsman dealt by the newspaper itself. (ibid ., 83), this is especially helpful for Historically, the primary spot for the However, the possibility of submitting those countries that would aim to public’s interaction, and possibility to feedback, comments and opinions (an improve or establish such a body. influence the output of newspapers, option that has been facilitated by the have been the “Letters to the Editor” In 2007, the above mentioned Group development of the so-called Web 2.0 (“a place where democracy blossoms of Specialists on Media Diversity circu- sites that make interaction, social net- because regular citizens are allowed a lated a questionnaire among relevant working and the circulation of media voice of their own”, Wahl-Jorgensen, industry representative groups and products from ordinary citizens more 2004:90), a section that has been ap- these included the European Newspa- easier) does not automatically mean preciated for its function of “engaging per Publishers’ Association (ENPA), an that there will be an increased degree local communities in newspaper cov- organisation that represents over of influence of the public, in all its di- erage” (Wahl-Jorgensen, 2002:69) and 5 200 national, regional and local versity, on the editorial choices and a main device to give feedback in the newspapers across 23 member states programming structures of main- print media (for a study of the Belgian of the European Union plus Norway stream media. As Collins and Sujon context see also Antoine, 2000). and Switzerland. 7 warn: However, there is a risk that only the In its response ENPA stated that con- “Although it may be too early to observe out- more “committed” will be the ones sultative structures at newspapers are comes, it is clear that internet sites, chat rooms airing their voices and, therefore, “in-built into the very nature of the and new media tools are significantly affecting making these spaces not very repre- newspaper product in several ways” not only how viewers can interact with broad- sentative of the general public: whatever their format and whether in casters, but also how broadcasters form rela- print or online. Different types of these “The letters section, far from being a microcosm tionships with their viewers.” (2005:307) structures have been established in of a diverse society, and a forum for the voice- Therefore, what needs to be studied order to suit best each title or media less, appears to be dominated by groups with a further here is what newspapers make group. The Association claims that relatively narrow range of interests.” ( ibid ., 91) of all this input, how are the comments they have all been “very effective” out- processed (online/offline) and to what In other words, as Raeymaeckers puts comes, this being part of “the advan- extent the public can really influence it, it is important to remember some tages created by a self-regulatory editorial policy, especially in the case crucial questions: system which can permit the press the of self-regulating bodies. As said ear- “who are the people who write letters to news- flexibility and independence that it re- lier, even when civil society is involved paper editors, what is the true value of their quires, whilst still ensuring that the in co-regulation processes, when deci- contributions, and to what degree do their readers’ and wider public’s concerns sional powers lie elsewhere, the real opinions reflect public opinion?” (2005:200). are taken effectively into account” outputs might take very partially (Council of Europe 2007:7). An More recently ombudsmen and read- account of the public’s needs and re- ers’ councils have also been intro- 7. Source:
    (accessed 20 October quests. In recent times there has been duced. The ombudsman has been 2008). a a growth in the number of Internet

17 Ways in which the public can be involved in consultative programming structures

Readers’ ombudsman: Dagens Nyheter , Sweden*

Dagens Nyheter is the biggest daily morning newspaper in Stockholm. The Readers’ Ombudsman deals with the receipt of complaints, views or just anything that the readers want to communicate to the newspaper. Once a week, the ombudsman has a half or full page in the newspaper, publishing contacts and views from the readers, interviewing relevant people at the newspaper on the matters dis- cussed, who give their own views on the subject of the complaint.

Newspaper’s website discussion forum: La Montagne/Blognaute.fr , France

The online readers of the French newspaper La Montagne can discuss articles further on the newspaper’s website discussion forum linked from an article’s web page or from the main menu, by using the blog tool at Blognaute.fr.† The “blog de la rédaction” is a service set up to allow readers to comment on the published news, as well as to offer their own views and suggestions about the newspaper itself. All the comments which are legal and not insulting /discriminatory in nature are published on the blog’s website. A selection of the suggestions from Blognaute.fr each Monday are featured in the print version of the newspaper: in this way the electronic versions of newspaper are contributes also to its print version.

Letters to the Editor: Aftonbladet , Sweden

At Aftonbladet , the largest tabloid newspaper in Sweden, the editor in chief, Anders Gerdin, every Sunday publishes Hörru Anders! (Hey, Anders!), where mainly critical letters and comments from the readers are published, sometimes together with a comment or reflection on the criticism from the editor himself.

Readers’ council: Vorarlberger Nachrichten , Austria

In June 2007 this local newspaper established a readers’ council, composed of 30 members, that has close contact with the editor-in- chief, with whom it meets every two months and discusses its concerns and proposals directly.

Ombudsman for printed media: Leseranwaltschaft der Printmedien , Austria

In June 2007 an ombudsman for all printed media in Austria was established.‡ This is an institution of self-regulation based on the code of ethics. The readers’ complaint institution ( Leseranwaltschaft ) in Austria does not give legal advice, but it issues guidance to all readers who feel themselves affected by possible violations of the code of ethics by printed media. The readers’ ombudsman understands him/ herself primarily as a mediator between readers’ complaints and concerned newspaper. In the current debate this is considered as a first step to a new model of a press council: it must be pointed out that in Austria a very strict media law is in force.§

Finally, in Sweden, the Press Ombudsman¶ and the Press Council are the structures that receive readers’ complaints. The system is fi- nanced by the associations of newspapers and magazines, as well as the journalists.

* At the time of writing other readers’ ombudsmen exist in Denmark ( Politiken ), Great Britain ( The Guardian and The Observer ), the Netherlands ( De Volkskraant, Brabants Dagblad and Eindhoven Dagblad ), Spain ( El Pais ) and Turkey ( Sabah). Source: The Organisation of News Ombudsmen (ONO), available online at
         
 (accessed 30 December 2008). †
     @ 
+ 0---0A  A   . ‡ The Ombudsman is online at
   
   . § Further information in a study on media self regulation in Austria in: Franzisca Gottwald, Andy Kaltenbrunner and Matthias Karmasin, Medienselbstregulierung zwischen Ökonomie und Ethik Erfolgsfaktoren für ein österreichisches Modell , Schriftenreihe des Medienhaus: Vienna, 2006 (in German). ¶
   . sites which include what has been Furthermore, as Bardoel has sug- the (mass) communication process, due to the called “user-generated content”; at gested: potential of new technologies, more competi- tion between media and, last but not least, a times going so far as to refer to these Media professionals want to work ‘for the peo- more self-conscious and better educated citi- examples of “citizen journalism”. But ple’, but often see accountability to the public zenry (2007:455) how far citizens are effectively contrib- and to society as no less threatening than the uting to mainstream media output forces of the market or the state. More than ever In other words, new media are facilitat- needs still to be put in perspective. in the past, the citizen becomes an active part of ing to challenge the monopoly of pro-

18 Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

fessional journalists’ in the area of than individual blogs and the user- between a part of the audience that news production and open to discus- generated platforms available on will be more involved in news-making sion their practices and ethics. A mainstream publications. In the last (also through social networking tools recent study by Thurman (2008) on the decade access to information has as Facebook and, more recently, Twit- user generated content featuring on become more open, authoring tools ter) and others that will remain “rela- British news websites has also shown have become much cheaper (or free) tively passive consumers of some of the conflicts between the edi- to obtain, as well as the hardware re- information” ( ibid ., 141). tors’ professional gatekeeper roles and quired to do such work. As Quandt and their perceptions of user participation Singer have described, participation Finally, there are cases like the Nether- and how the often claimed readers’ can now possibly happen in any stage lands, where the introduction of the participation is very often pre-medi- of the process: news gathering and ed- Newspaper Ombudsman has had, ac- ated and edited. Moreover, Thurman is iting, organisation and display of news, cording to van Dalen and Deuze, con- also concerned by the “extent to which coordination and control of editorial siderable positive effects: users are interested both in participat- processes and delivery of information. ing themselves, and viewing other For both journalists and journalism re- “At the beginning of the 21st century, Dutch readers’ contributions”, given that a searchers there is a need to redefine newspapers became more open to their readers “popular” debate on the BBC News “the new roles and the news stages in than ever before. The rise of ombudsmen in the website’s post-moderated comments the communication process to accom- Netherlands is directly related to this attitude system had attracted just 0.5 percent modate an expanded range of collec- change. On the one hand, readers are quicker to of the site’s daily unique audience. tors, editors and disseminators” respond to the newspaper; on the other hand, Journalistic user-driven online news (2008:140). Divisions between infor- the newspaper is more open about its practices. such as OhMyNews, Indymedia and mation producers and consumers will For ombudsmen, their work has changed the Wikinews have shown clearly the po- continue to blur, they argue, and there way they think about their public: readers are tential of collaborative forms more might be an emerging division taken more seriously. (2004:471)

The contribution of civil society organisations Hasebrink et al. (2007) analysed the organising public debates, seminars Then, there is a group of countries that participation in programming struc- and workshops, representing viewers’ had traditionally strong welfare state tures through civil society organisa- interests within the industry, offering systems (as Sweden, Germany, Austria tions and remarked that the possible complaints services, and providing in- and the Netherlands) which is charac- absence of viewers’ organisations does formation and discussion forums to terised by developed media accounta- not necessarily mean that their partici- media users. bility systems in place and strong PSBs, pation is low, as there might be other but no independent viewer organisa- mechanisms to ensure participation. Reflecting the differences previously tions activities, even though the On the other side, if they are present it described among European countries, change “from government to govern- does not mean that they are necessar- the picture that emerges here is de- ance” regulation will probably modify ily politically relevant, with the excep- scribed as a “colourful map of different the scenario in the near future. tion of the United Kingdom-based kinds of activities advancing the view- Most of the southern European coun- Voice of Listener and the Viewer (VLV). ers’ interests”. Again, the United Kingdom is described as a unique case tries, as Hasebrink et al. continue, have Hasebrink et al. ( ibid . 83-88), in tracing for its “highly elaborated accountabil- poor accountability systems and the contours of viewers’ organisations ity systems” and organisations that are rather weak PSBs, but include a con- in Europe, identified five main aims able to influence the political and sistent number of organisations that and motives: policy debate as the VLV. At the conti- have been operating for a long time
General representation of view- nental level, the European Alliance of and whose activities to encourage ers’ interests Listeners and Viewers Association quality programming and pressure
Protecting family/children/youth (EURALVA), a group founded in 1996, from the public are still regarded as interests that now includes eight associations very important.
Defending pluralism and diversity from seven countries (United King- Finally, in most of the CEE countries dom, Germany, Finland, Sweden,
Ensuring gender interests there is no presence of independent Norway, Spain and Portugal) have organisations in this area, as well as
Safeguarding religious values. united forces to represent viewers and rather weak traditions of PSB and ac- The type of activities carried out by listeners, support PSB and organise countability systems, and a strong these organisations include media common activities as responding to foreign-owned commercial media monitoring, research, lobbying gov- Europe-wide consultations and direc- ernment, authorities, and institutions, tives, and international conferences. 8 8. Further information at
    .

19 Ways in which the public can be involved in consultative programming structures

presence. The developing civil society couragement to “develop public Table 4 summarises the associations sector in these countries, the research- attention and the interests of viewers”. and their activities cited in their study. ers conclude, would need a lot of en-

Table 4. Viewers’ organisations in Europe (based on Hasebrink et al. 2007:83-88)

Name Country Features Gezinsbond Belgium Founded in 1920. Has 300,000 members and aims to protect minors and preserve diversity in Broadcasting. Ligues de Families Belgium Founded in 1920. Has 80,000 members and has similar objectives to Gezinsbond Zorra Belgium Watchdog for gender questions in advertising. Pro Yleisö Finland Founded in 2003. Aims to foster media quality and strengthen PSB ob- jectives Collectif Interassociatif Enfance Média (CIEM) France Founded in 2002. It aims to protect young viewers’ right and includes parents, educators and associations Observatoire Français des Médias France Founded in 2003. Has 300 members among professionals, users and ac- ademic. Promotes free and pluralist information Association for the Protection of Television Greece Founded in 1996. Aims to protect minors from violence and vulgar pro- Viewers (APTV) gramming. Mira Media Netherlands Founded in 1986. Includes the major migrant organisations and aims to achieve more diversity and pluralism Association of Television Viewers and Radio Spain Founded in 1985. Encourages self-regulation and audience participa- Listeners (ATR) tion in broadcasting Association of Users of Communication (AUC) Spain Founded in 1980. Has a membership of 10,000 and defends citizens as users, receivers and targets of media. Spectators Forum Spain Founded in 2002. Has 150,000 members, promotes self-regulation, defends viewers rights, gives awards to quality programmes Associated Televiewers’ of Catalunya (TAC) Spain Founded in 1985. Has 15,000 members and aims to act as a bridge between audience and tv stations Arbejdernes Radio og Fjernsynsforbund (ARF) Sweden Founded in 1930, has 30,000 members and 150 local clubs. Voice of the Listener and the Viewer (VLV) United Kingdom Founded in 1983. Has a membership of 2,500, produces high quality re- search and maintains high reputation with government

Conclusions Can we measure at this stage the influ- “Overall, people expressed a low level of per- awareness of the Audience Councils. (BBC (on- ence of the public in programming? sonal participation and interaction, both with line), 2007) Are consultative programming struc- the BBC and with other organisations. Fifteen Therefore, recent research done on a tures contributing to social cohesion? per cent of people in the quantitative survey large scale in the area of consultative said they regularly shared their opinions, views Following the review of European programming structures seems to and feedback with organisations. Only 8% have viewers’ organisations, Hasebrink et al. agree that, at the national level, with a ever given feedback to the BBC. What participa- (2007:91) claim that the overall con- few exceptions, civil society organisa- tion there was tended to be at a local level on sciousness of being an active actor in tions and accountability systems are issues which affected everyday life such as local media governance, and programming still under-used or unknown to large council services, schools, hospitals or utilities? structures, of mainstream broadcast- parts of the public. This, perhaps, also When asked about specific Trust activities or ing is “rather poorly developed”: because of a “distance” felt from the decisions, only 6 to 14% of people surveyed said “Despite the large number of initiatives and ac- broadcaster especially in the case of they would want to be personally involved in tivities the overall impression is that viewers as audiences living far away from the giving their views on each type of activity […] civil society actors do not play a substantial role broadcasting centre, where engage- in European media systems […] as far as ac- ment at the local level seems to be Respondents said that they only wanted to take countability systems include elements of viewer more effective as people can relate part in a consultation if it was clear what might participation, these do not get much attention their everyday lives to them more di- change as a result […] or are even unknown to large parts of the popu- rectly. lation ( ibid .) There was a great deal of support […] for the Whereas many steps forward have This seems to be confirmed by re- idea of Audience Councils. However, very few of been done in terms of putting in place search done by the BBC, preceding the those who took part in any element of the con- improved mechanisms of accountabil- introduction of the Audience Councils sultation knew about the councils and their ity, awareness of consultative pro- (discussed earlier) in 2007: work. The Trust will look at ways of raising gramming structures is still low and

20 Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

would need to be more effectively In conclusion, structures are in place the ways on how this could be communicated to audience members. but there is still too little real interac- achieved. Whereas it is up to all the Moreover, even though the research tion between the media institutions stakeholders involved in this process discussed above has surely helped to and the audiences. Civil society organi- to discuss ways of supporting plat- accumulate a range of quantitative sations, especially in Eastern Europe forms where the public and civil and qualitative data about the exist- have too little knowledge, skills and re- society can interact with media, Euro- ence and the activities of consultative sources to fulfil this role, while often pean institutions should strive to structures and audiences’ organisa- individual citizens are not aware and improve what should become a real tions, further European research empowered enough to make full use and meaningful involvement of the should focus also on the causes that of all available possibilities of interac- public, in all its diversity, in consulta- might motivate, or not, audience tion. What has to be stressed then is tive programming structures. members to interact actively with the the need of further empowerment of media. the media user, viewer or listener and

Recommendations Recommendations for future actions should further analyse how current system and be involved in co-regula- to be promoted in the next term of the systems are working, assessing the tion processes aiming to improve the Council of Europe, to be followed by effects of audience participation in the accountability of media outlets. Where the stakeholders involved in the proc- media. A comparative study on how civil society organisations are weak or esses that have been discussed in the positive and negative feedback proce- non-existent, European institutions report are listed below. dures on programmes and suitable should consider ways of supporting public involvement are organised in the establishment of such organisa- Council of Europe different countries, could surely help tions, for example through workshops The Council of Europe should keep further discussion, even though it has and training events where best prac- monitoring progress in this area by to be taken into account that the inter- tices can be showcased, networked giving such a mandate to one of its relation of programming, public recep- and discussed. working groups of specialists. Further- tion and public feedback and response more, a European workshop that could are specifically related to the cultural National regulators bring together media institutions, and social background in the respec- National media regulators should aim policy makers and civil society could tive country or constituency, and that to further improve and support initia- help to raise awareness and level of there possibly are no “one fit for all” so- tives in the area of media literacy in discussion on the issues emerged from lutions available in this case. The order to offer the audiences and this report, as well as the opportunities emerging issues of how to involve groups in society the skills and infor- and challenges of digital media, high- more effectively civil society organisa- mation necessary to exercise their lighted by Karol Jakubowicz in his tions in the regulatory bodies for new rights. background paper for the 1st Council media structures at the European level of Europe Conference of Ministers re- should also deserve attention and pos- Media organisations sibly further research. sponsible for Media and New Commu- In a constantly changing media envi- nication Services (28-29 May 2009, ronment, media organisations, operat- Reykjavík, Iceland). National governments ing on any platform, need to redefine Future research to be commissioned in Member states of the Council of the relationship with their audience this area could include the collection Europe should be encouraged to and open their content to real conver- of successful case studies, on a country provide an enabling environment in sation in order to build and maintain a by country basis, of encouraging which civil society organisations can constant dialogue with the public with public participation in the media. This achieve a recognised role in the media clear and accountable procedures.

References
ALL FM (2004) Community Radio
AMARC Europe (2008) The Com-
Antoine, F. (2000) Le Feedback des License Application form , available at munity Radio Charter for Europe , availa- usagers dans les médias. Edition Fonda-
       ble at
    @ 
+, tion Roi Baudouin Brussels.  
   > 9 # 9
  > (ac- %
B    (accessed 24 Novem- cessed 29 November 2008)
Baldi, Paolo (2005) Broadcasting ber 2008) and Citizens. Viewers’ participation and

21 Ways in which the public can be involved in consultative programming structures

media accountability in Europe. Euri- to Policy, Law, and Regulation , Univer-
European Commission (2001) Ap- spes: Rome sity of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor plication of State Aid Rules to Public C 320/04: Brussels
Baldi, Paolo and Hasebrink, Uwe
Celot, Paolo and Gualtieri, Fausto Service Broadcasting, (2007) Broadcasters and Citizens in Eur- (2005) “TV viewers’ rights in the Euro-
Ferrell-Lowe, Gregory and Bar- ope. Trends in Media Accountability and pean Union” in Baldi, Paolo (ed.) Broad- doel, Jo (2007) “From Public Service Viewer Participation, Intellect Books: casting and Citizens. Viewers’ Broadcasting to Public Service Media. Bristol and Chicago participation and media accountability The Core Challenge” in Ferrell-Lowe, in Europe., pp. 329-356, Eurispes: Rome Gregory and Bardoel, Jo (eds.) (2007)
Baldi, Paolo and Hasebrink, Uwe From Public Service Broadcasting to (2007b) “Introduction: overview of a
Collins, Richard; Finn, Adam; Mc- Public Service Media , Nordicom: Gote- European study”, in Baldi, Paolo and Fayden, Stuart, and Hopkins, Colin. borg Hasebrink, Uwe (eds.) Broadcasters and (2001) “Public Service Broadcasting Citizens in Europe. Trends in Media Ac- Beyond 2000: Is there a Future for
Feintuck, Mike (1997) “Regulating countability and Viewer Participation, Public Service Broadcasting?”, Cana- the Media Revolution: In Search of the Intellect Books: Bristol and Chicago dian Journal of Communication , 25:3- Public Interest”, JILT :3 15
Baldi, Paolo (2007) “Media ac-
Fraser, Colin and Resepo Estrada,
countability in Europe: a fragmented Collins, Richard and Sujon, Zoe Sonia (2001) Community Radio Hand- picture”, in Baldi, Paolo and Hasebrink, (2005) “United Kingdom” in Baldi, book , Unesco: Paris Paolo (ed.) Broadcasting and Citizens. Uwe (eds.) Broadcasters and Citizens in
Frau-Meigs, Divina (2006a) La pa- Viewers’ participation and media ac- Europe. Trends in Media Accountability lette des interactions : autorégulation, countability in Europe. pp . 307-327, and Viewer Participation, Intellect régulation et co-régulation . UNESCO: Eurispes: Rome Books: Bristol and Chicago Paris
Collins, Richard and Sujon, Zoe
Bardoel, Jo and Brants, Kees.
Frau-Meigs, Divina (2006b) Media (2007) “UK Broadcasting Policy: the (2003) “From Ritual to Reality. Public education: a kit for teachers, students, ‘long wave’ shift in conceptions of ac- Broadcasters and Social Responsibility parents and professionals , UNESCO: countability” in Baldi, Paolo and Hase- in the Netherlands”, in Lowe, G.F. and Paris brink, Uwe (eds.) Broadcasters and Hujanen, T. (eds.), Broadcasting and Citizens in Europe. Trends in Media Ac-
Girard, Bruce (1992) A Passion for Convergence: New Articulation of the countability and Viewer Participation, Radio. Radio, Waves and Community . Public Service Remit , Nordicom: Gote- Intellect Books: Bristol and Chicago Montreal: Black Rose Books borg, 167-187
Council of Europe (2007) Compila-
Gumucio-Dagron, Alfonso (2001)
Bardoel, Jo and d’Haenens, Leen tion of responses to the questionnaire on Making Waves: Stories of Participatory (2004) “Media Meet the Citizen. the ways in which the public in all its di- Communication for Social Change , Beyond Market Mechanisms and Gov- versity can be involved in consultative Rockefeller Foundation, New York ernment Regulations”, European Jour- programming structures , MC-S-MD
nal of Communication , Vol. 19 (2):165- Hasebrink, Uwe (1994) “Country (2007) 006, document prepared by the 194 Report Germany”, in Mitchell, Jeremy; Secretariat, 24 August 2007, Group of Blumer, Jay G.; Mounier, Philippe;
Bardoel, Johannes (2007) “Con- Specialists on Media Diversity (MC-S- Bundschuh, Anja (eds.) Television and verging Media Governance Arrange- MD): Strasbourg the Viewer Interest. Explorations to the ments in Europe”, in Terzis, Georgios
Committee of Ministers (2006) Responsiveness of European Broadcast- (ed.) European Media Governance. Na- Submission to the Internet Governance ers . John Libbey: London tional and Regional Dimensions. Intel- Forum . Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Hasebrink, Uwe; Herzog, Anja and lect: Bristol and Chicago
Committee of Ministers (2007) Elders, Christiane (2007) “Media users’s
BBC Trust (2007a) Our Promise To Recommendation Rec (2007) 3 on the participation in Europe from a civil so- You: How the Trust will engage with au- Remit of Public Service Media in the In- ciety perspective”, in Baldi, Paolo and diences , BBC Trust: London formation Society. Council of Europe: Hasebrink, Uwe (eds.) Broadcasters and
BBC Trust (2007b) “Our Promise Strasbourg. Available at
   Citizens in Europe. Trends in Media Ac- To You: How the Trust will engage with C D 6 + ,-13.3 . countability and Viewer Participation, audiences. Key Findings”. Available at
European Commission (1997) Pro- Intellect Books: Bristol and Chicago
       tocol on the System of Public Broadcast-
Holznagel, Bernd and Jungfleisch,       
 (accessed ing in the Member States attached to the Christiane (2005) “The Netherlands” in 23 December 2008) Treaty of Amsterdam , X 340/109: Brus- Baldi, Paolo (ed.) Broadcasting and Citi-
Buckley, Steve; Duer, Kreszentia; sels zens. Viewers’ participation and media Mendel, Toby, and Ó Siochrú, Seán,
European Commission (1998) accountability in Europe. pp . 293-306, with Price, Monroe and Raboy, Marc Report from the High Level Group on Au- Eurispes: Rome (2008) Broadcasting, Voice and Ac- diovisual Policy , European Commission:
Holznagel, Bernd and Jungfleisch, countability . A public interest approach Brussels Christiane (2007) “The protection of

22 Salvatore Scifo, June 2009

viewer right in Europe”, in Baldi, Paolo (eds.) (1994) Television and the Viewer Regional Dimensions. Intellect: Bristol and Hasebrink, Uwe (eds.) Broadcasters Interest. Explorations to the Responsive- and Chicago and Citizens in Europe. Trends in Media ness of European Broadcasters . John
Representative on the Freedom of Accountability and Viewer Participa- Libbey: London the Media (2008) The Media Self-Regu- tion, Intellect Books: Bristol and Chi-
Nissen, Christian. S (2006) Making lation Guidebook, Organisation for Se- cago a Difference: Public Service Broadcasting curity and Co-operation in Europe
Jakubowicz, Karol (2007) “Public in the European Media Landscape, John (OCSE): Vienna. Service Broadcasting in the 21st Cen- Libbey Publishing: Eastleigh, United tury” in Ferrell-Lowe, Gregory and Bar- Kingdom
Thurman, N. (2008) “Forums for doel, Jo (eds.) From Public Service citizen journalists? Adoption of user
Quandt, Thorsten and Singer, Broadcasting to Public Service Media , generated content initiatives by online Jane B. (2008) “Convergence and Nordicom: Goteborg news media”, New Media & Society , 10 Cross-Platform Content Production”, in (1):139-157.
Jakubowicz, Karol (2009) A new Wahl Jorgensen, Karin and Hanitzsch, notion of media?, Background text to Thomas Handbook of Journalism Stud-
van Dalen, Arjen and Deuze, Mark the 1st Council of Europe Conference ies, Routledge: Abingdon, United King- (2006) “Readers’ Advocates or News- of the Ministers responsible for Media dom papers’ Ambassadors? Newspaper and New Communication Services, Ombudsmen in the Netherlands”, Euro-
Raeymaeckers, Karin (2005) “Let- Council of Europe: Strasbourg pean Journal of Communication, Vol. 21 ters to the Editor: A Feedback Oppor- (4):457-475
Lewis, Peter Maynard and Jones, tunity Turned into a Marketing Tool. Susan (2006) (eds.) From the margins to An Account of Selection and Editing
Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin (2002) the cutting edge. Community Media and Practices in the Flemish Daily Press”, “Understanding the Conditions for Empowerment. Creskill, NJ: Hampton European Journal of Communication , Public Discourse: Four Rules for Select- Press. Vol. 20 (2):199–221. ing Letters to the Editor”, Journalism
Lewis, Peter Maynard (2008) Pro-
Schreier, Torsten (2001) Das Studies 3 (1):69–81. moting social cohesion. The role of com- Selbstverwaltungsrecht der offentlich-
Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin (2004) “A munity media , Council of Europe: rechtlichen Rundfunkanstalten . Peter ‘legitimate beef’ or ‘raw meat’? Civility, Strasbourg Lang: Frankfurt am Main Multiculturalism and Letters to the Edi-
Mitchell, Jeremy; Blumer, Jay G.;
Terzis, Georgios (ed.) (2007) Euro- tor”, The Communication Review , Vol. 7 Mounier, Philippe; Bundschuh, Anja pean Media Governance. National and (1):89-105

23

Media and Information Society Division Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex www.coe.int/media