Media Accountability and Transparency in Europe (MediaAcT) D18: Media Index for MAS in the participating countries Due date of deliverable: 33 Actual submission date: March 2013 Lead beneficiary: Medienhaus Wien (MHW) Work package: 1 Start date of project: February 2010 Duration: 42 months, until July 2013 Website: http://www.mediaact.eu The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° 244147. Dissemination Level PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) The project MediaAcT The research project "Media Accountability and Transparency in Europe" (MediaAcT) examines media accountability and transparency in twelve Eastern and Western European states as well as two Arab countries. The project analyzes the development and impact of established media accountability instruments (e.g. press councils, codes of ethics) as well as new media accountability instruments emerging in the Internet (e.g. media criticism in blogs). The project is a joint interdisciplinary effort of a team of 14 partners from Eastern and Western Europe as well as from the Arab World, using a multi‐method approach (survey, desk studies and expert interviews) for the analysis. MediaAcT receives funding of approximately 1.5 million Euro from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme and has a duration of 3 1/2 years, starting in February 2010. For further details on the project, news and outcomes please visit http://www.mediaact.eu 2 D4: Dissemination plan of the project Introduction The quality of media accountability in a country serves as one key indicator for media pluralism and media freedom. Claude-Jean Bertrand, one of the pioneers in international comparative media accountability research, defined media accountability systems resp. instruments as “any non-State means of making media responsible towards the public.”1 Other definitions include co- regulatory tools as well. This does not, however, mean state interference, but clear frames for responsible media, financial support for press councils, or other financial subsidies bound to ethical regulations. As part of its research, the MediaAcT consortium has developed a media accountability index as a tool to regularly monitor the status quo of media accountability in EU member states, and furthermore in candidate countries. The media accountability instruments considered in this index help observing media developments in terms of media ethics and responsibility towards multiple stakeholders. Journalism and its production of a (informative, entertaining and advertising) public sphere bring along a special responsibility of media companies as they have certain society privileges and should be orientated towards the common good. Especially in times of “big media” resp. economic changes (digitalization, convergence, web 2.0 etc.) and media concentration, an index as such helps monitoring the state-of-the-art of the media accountability infrastructures in EU member states, highlights deficits in a country’s media system and identifies benchmark countries. Furthermore, this index can show decision makers the state-of-the-art of EU candidate countries in the process of accession talks. The status quo of media accountability as one key indicator of media freedom helps to evaluate the situation of freedom of expression in these countries (other key indicators and how to include them can be found in point 2). The MediaAcT media accountability index also pays tribute to the policy recommendations recently issued by the High Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism. The report of the group concludes that free and pluralistic media systems are a key factor to sustain European democracy. The recommendations state: „All EU countries should have independent media councils with a politically and culturally balanced and socially diverse membership. (..) Such bodies would have competences to investigate complaints, much like a media ombudsman, but 1 Bertrand, Claude-Jean (2000): Media Ethics & Accountability Systems. New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers. 108. 3 D4: Dissemination plan of the project would also check that media organizations have published a code of conduct and have revealed ownership details, declarations of conflicts of interest, etc. Media councils should have real enforcement powers” and “should follow a set of European-wide standards and be monitored by the Commission to ensure that they comply with European values.“ The report also suggest that the EU “could establish an independent monitoring center, ideally as part of academia, which would be partially funded by the EU but would be fully independent in its activities.“2 The index the MediaAcT team proposes can serve as an important instrument in following these recommendations: It monitors the activities of media professionals and media organizations in EU countries, as the index evaluates the status quo of media accountability in EU member states. It enables decision‐makers to create a ranking in order to find country‐specific deficits – where media policy makers might wish to set incentives to improve the situation – and best practice countries – which might serve as a model and “laboratory” for successful media accountability practices. Furthermore, the index can also be used as an instrument in order to set up a European standard in the field of media accountability expected for example from ascending countries. The instruments and practices evaluated in this index, online or offline alike, create transparency on different levels: news production, ownership, working conditions, sources etc. They contribute to public debates on media freedom and editorial independence by opening up the journalistic process of selecting and framing news. The analyzed tools also help citizens to participate in this process of news production. Furthermore, these instruments help the audience reflecting their own media consumption and the process of opinion-making. As a result, these instruments are a major prerequisite for pluralistic media in a functioning democracy, and they are important for strengthening the media’s position as the fourth estate. As Bertrand defines, these tools help to “improve the services of the media to the public; restore the prestige of media in the eyes of the population; diversely protect freedom of speech and press; 2 Vīķe-Freiberga, Vaira; Däubler-Gmelin, Herta; Hammersley, Ben; Poiares Pessoa Maduro, Luís Miguel (2013): A free and pluralistic media to sustain European democracy. Accessed January 28, 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media_taskforce/doc/pluralism/hlg/hlg_final_report.pdf 7. 4 D4: Dissemination plan of the project obtain, for the profession, the autonomy that it needs to play its part in the expansion of democracy and the betterment of the fate of mankind”.3 One major goal in the creation of this index is repeatability, as we suggest measuring the status quo of media accountability across countries on an annual or bi-annual basis. Therefore this index also includes emerging practices of online media accountability which will most likely gain more power in the near future. In order to facilitate tracking of the development of media accountability structures in different countries, we suggest updating and repeating the index in regular intervals by a coordinating institution. A regular monitoring of media accountability structures in EU states – as well as in candidate countries and countries beyond Europe – will allow media policy makers to better assess the state-of-the-art of media accountability of each country and help to base policy decisions upon solid evaluation. Moreover, it will stimulate a discussion about media accountability practices among media professionals on a European and national level. The media coverage achieved by an index as such will increase awareness of media accountability issues among viewers and readers. Similar to the Reporters without Borders annual press freedom index, the EU Index of Media Accountability will generate responsiveness across borders. To guarantee the highest level of transparency and accessibility the EU Index of Media Accountability will be promoted by an manageable publication (e.g. as a free download “Green Book Media Accountability”). 3 Bertrand, Claude-Jean (2000): Media Ethics & Accountability Systems. New Brunswick, London: Transaction Publishers. 151. 5 D4: Dissemination plan of the project MediaAcT: Instruments, practices and journalists' perception The MediaAcT research consortium has collected over one hundred practices and instruments of media accountability through desk research and qualitative studies. After analyzing and identifying the most important and promising ones, the research consortium created a typology of media accountability practices, distinguishing between their degree of institutionalization within the journalistic profession or news organizations (high versus low), and by their position as internal or external tools in journalism. MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY INSTRUMENTS INSIDE JOURNALISM – HIGH DEGREE OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION Ombudsman: Is usually a senior editor within a media organization taking audience complaints and following up on them with the respective journalists. Complaints regarding