Transcript Defining a ‘democratic elite’: Key media in the battle for

Defining a ‘democratic elite’: Key media
in the battle for social responsibility
Lee Duffield

Journalism Education
and Research
Association of
Australia (JERAA)
Annual Conference,
UTS Sydney, 2527.11.14
QUT
Abstract …

This paper offers a definition of elite media arguing their content focus will sufficiently meet social
responsibility needs of democracy. Its assumptions come from the Finkelstein and Leveson Inquiries
and regulatory British Royal Charter (2013). These provide guidelines on how media outlets meet
‘social responsibility’ standards, e.g. press has a ‘responsibility to be fair and accurate’
(Finkelstein); ethical press will feel a responsibility to ‘hold power to account’ (Leveson); news
media ‘will be held strictly accountable’ (RC). The paper invokes the British principle of media
opting-in to observe standards, and so serve the democracy. It will give examples from existing
media, and consider social responsibility of media more generally. Obvious cases of ‘quality’ media:
public broadcasters, e.g. BBC, Al-Jazeera, and ‘quality’ press, e.g. NYT, Süddeutscher Zeitung, but
also community broadcasters, specialised magazines, news agencies, distinctive web logs, and
others. Where providing commentary, these abjure gratuitous, extreme, unreferenced opinion –
instead meeting a standard of reasoned, informational and fair. Funding is almost a definer, many
such services supported by the state, private trusts, public institutions or volunteering by staff.
Literature supporting discussion on elite media will include their identity as primarily committed to
a public good, e.g. the ‘Public Value Test’, Moe and Donders (2011); with reference also to recent
literature on developing public service media. Within its limits the paper will treat social media as
participants among all media, including elite, and as a parallel dimension of mass communication
founded on inter-activity. Elite media will fulfil the need for social responsibility, firstly by providing
one space, a ‘plenary’ for debate. Second is the notion of building public recognition of elite media
as trustworthy. Third is the fact that elite media together are a large sector with resources to
sustain social cohesion and debate; notwithstanding pressure on funds, and impacts of digital
transformation undermining employment in media more than in most industries.
Abstract …

This paper offers a definition of elite media arguing their content focus will sufficiently meet social
responsibility needs of democracy. Its assumptions come from the Finkelstein and Leveson Inquiries
and regulatory British Royal Charter (2013). These provide guidelines on how media outlets meet
‘social responsibility’ standards, e.g. press has a ‘responsibility to be fair and accurate’
(Finkelstein); ethical press will feel a responsibility to ‘hold power to account’ (Leveson); news
media ‘will be held strictly accountable’ (RC). The paper invokes the British principle of media
opting-in to observe standards, and so serve the democracy. It will give examples from existing
media, and consider social responsibility of media more generally. Obvious cases of ‘quality’ media:
public broadcasters, e.g. BBC, Al-Jazeera, and ‘quality’ press, e.g. NYT, Süddeutscher Zeitung, but
also community broadcasters, specialised magazines, news agencies, distinctive web logs, and
others. Where providing commentary, these abjure gratuitous, extreme, unreferenced opinion –
instead meeting a standard of reasoned, informational and fair. Funding is almost a definer, many
such services supported by the state, private trusts, public institutions or volunteering by staff.
Literature supporting discussion on elite media will include their identity as primarily committed to
a public good, e.g. the ‘Public Value Test’, Moe and Donders (2011); with reference also to recent
literature on developing public service media. Within its limits the paper will treat social media as
participants among all media, including elite, and as a parallel dimension of mass communication
founded on inter-activity. Elite media will fulfil the need for social responsibility, firstly by providing
one space, a ‘plenary’ for debate. Second is the notion of building public recognition of elite media
as trustworthy. Third is the fact that elite media together are a large sector with resources to
sustain social cohesion and debate; notwithstanding pressure on funds, and impacts of digital
transformation undermining employment in media more than in most industries.
Elite media - standard set by the
inquiries …

This paper offers a broad
definition of elite media and
argues their content focus, and
best practice in other respects will
sufficiently meet social
responsibility needs of democracy.

It is a response to anxiety that
mass media fail in a responsibility
to provide society with enough
information about itself, to support
democratic life.

The assumptions behind such
concerns are articulated in the
reports of the Finkelstein and
Leveson Inquiries and in the
United Kingdom Royal Charter
pursuant to the latter, all flowing
from the News of the World
scandal.
Prescriptions …

The paper borrows thought-out
understandings and prescriptions of
these government-instigated
actions to propose a frame or set
of guidelines on how media
producers meeting a ‘social
responsibility’ standard can get
formal recognition. It goes on to
suggest that such recognition will
separate elite media, being those
recognised, from all other media,
in practical terms.
Standards as indicated by these sources:

Finkelstein (2012:7), on ‘common ground among
all those who think seriously about the role of
the news media and about journalistic ethics’,
considers:

‘a free press plays an essential role in a
democratic society …, has a responsibility to be
fair and accurate …, is a powerful institution
which can, and does affect the political process
…, can cause harm, should be publicly
accountable, and has codes of ethics regarding
accuracy, fairness, impartiality, integrity and
independence …’

Leveson (2012:55-83), asserting the ‘importance
of a free press to democracy is surely
incontrovertible’ and setting out a ‘framework
of understanding which is relatively
uncontroversial’, prescribes: ‘If a free press in a
democracy has a special role in facilitating free
communication and in constituting a public
forum, then an ethical press will want to …
enable people to recognise and assess the
material being provided. Where it provides
information, that information will be reasonably
intelligible and accurate ... If a free press in a
democracy has special privileges to keep its
sources secret, then an ethical press will be
mindful of the reasons for and effects of that
privilege … If a free press in a democracy has a
special place because of its ability to hold power
to account, an ethical press will consider itself
to have responsibilities to do just that… A free
and autonomous press within a democracy will
be mindful of the democratic freedoms and
autonomies of others.’
Standards as indicated by these sources:

The Royal Charter (2013), now proclaimed, having
survived legal challenges, awaits implementation after
the 2015 British elections, and declares as a first
principle it ‘supports the integrity and freedom of the
press, the plurality of the media, and its independence,
including from Government, while encouraging the
highest ethical and professional standards.’ It is to
establish a standards code, taking into account: ‘the
importance of free speech, the interests of the public
(including but not limited to the public interest in
detecting or exposing crime or serious impropriety,
protecting public health and safety and preventing the
public from being seriously misled), the need for
journalists to protect confidential sources of information,
and the rights of individuals ...’ Standards of conduct will
include respect for privacy … and accuracy, and the need
to avoid misrepresentation… The regulatory mechanism
will include ‘a service to warn the press and other
relevant parties such as broadcasters and press
photographers, when an individual has made it clear that
they do not welcome press intrusion …’, and ‘subscribers
[from the news media] will be held strictly accountable
under the standards code for any material that they
publish …
“Framework of understanding”,
“standards of conduct”


Further, the Royal Charter contains
provisions for mediation, voluntary
corrections of material published
wrongly, mandatory orders requiring
corrections, funding of research into
standards performance, and ultimately
sanctions geared to the financial turnover
of the media organisation, up to £1million (A$1.84-million; xe.com 6.10.14).
COMMUNITY - public accountability; see
capacity for harm; facilitate free
communication and a public forum; give
reasonably intelligible and accurate
information; respect the democratic
freedoms and autonomies of others…

COMMUNITY – Note importance of free

The regulatory mechanism will include “a
service to warn the press and other
relevant parties such as broadcasters and
press photographers, when an individual
has made it clear that they do not
welcome press intrusion.”
speech and public interests incl. exposure
of crime or serious impropriety, protect
public health and safety, and prevent the
public from being seriously misled.
Protect confidential sources, rights of
individuals, respect privacy. As can cause
harm, so public accountability.
“Framework of understanding”,
“standards of conduct”, stipulations

POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT,
FREEDOM AND AUTHORITY

Free press’s essential role in
democratic society …; a powerful
institution, able to affect the
political process, must be publicly
accountable – and may hold power
to account.

State to support, integrity and
freedom of the press, plurality of
the media, and its independence,
including from Government.

ETHICAL CONDUCT

Note codes of ethics - accuracy,
fairness, impartiality, integrity and
independence … Enable people to
recognise and assess material.
With special privileges to keep
sources secret, must be mindful of
the reasons and effects of privilege
…

NOTE … to be enforceable
Opting in … divide “the media”

The principle of media producers
opting-in to observe such standards,
(as in the Royal Charter), and come
under specific regulation, can
separate them from those with other
missions, e.g. all-advertorial.

This paper secondly supports the
implication of the Royal Charter, that
those opting out will be known as
exceptions, so that ultimately mass
media, while still uniformly enjoying
the right to publish, will be in two
separate and recognised fields.
Functions of elite media

It will suggest thirdly that the first
group, opting in, and depending on
how they fare under the regulatory
regime, may obtain the status of
elite media.

It will suggest fourthly that media
operations meeting that definition
will adequately serve the
democratic function, especially
where maintaining a public record
of events and publishing
information in the public interest.

Not an argument here for universal
adoption of the forthcoming British
regulatory scheme; but use it, and
a formulation of standards from
the inquiries, to advance the
concept of elite media – identified
by commitment to public interest.

Unlike the public inquiries, no call
to consider the code / standards
for all mass media -- not alarmed if
some, even most opt out.
Exclusions, sanctions …

Note, as raised in the Royal
Charter, perpetrators of egregious
breaches of the standards, e.g.
breach of privacy, if they are not
subscribers, can be denied access
to redress and relief processes of
the charter.

A psychology and practice of
exclusion, precaution and delegitimisation, e.g. grounds to
object if a journalist invited onto
Q.and A. was from an unaccredited
newspaper.
Definitions: who qualifies for this
“elite”?

Consider cases and existing likely candidates; then consider social responsibility of
media more generally, to fill out background to the concept.

Existing ‘quality’ media outlets already get wide, informal recognition for application
of the standards, referred to above, associated with serving the public interest.

Characteristics of their services: focus on content, e.g. providing journals of record; focus on
audiences, though not on consumerist or commercial models. Most observe a liberal ethic, e.g.
maturity with commentary - made to a standard of reasoned, informational and fair. Important
branches of activity include investigative journalism. Funding is almost a point of definition, many
of these services being not for profit. Alternatives are state funding (public service broadcasters),
private trusts (The Guardian), support from public institutions, subscriptions and volunteering
(community radio).

Public good or interest: Elite media are seen as those primarily committed to public good or
interest, e.g. the ‘Public Value Test’, Moe and Donders eds. (2011). Other literature analyses public
service media, flowing from the enterprise of public service broadcasters moving into online; see
RIPE 2006 conference, Ferrell Lowe and Bardoel (eds.), and elsewhere, e.g. Debrett (2010), or Burns
and Brugger (2012). Further work discusses the mixed media approach, both products and
operational, as ‘hybridisation’, e.g. Barnett and Seaton (2010).
Social responsibility and elites …

Elite media are seen as those which
are primarily committed to public
good or interest, e.g. the ‘Public
Value Test’, Moe and Donders eds.
(2011); . Other literature analyses
public service media, flowing from
the enterprise of public service
broadcasters moving into online; see
RIPE 2006 conference, Ferrell Lowe
and Bardoel (eds.), and elsewhere,
e.g. Debrett (2010), or Burns and
Brugger (2012). Further work
discusses the mixed media approach,
both products and operational, as
‘hybridisation’, e.g. Barnett and
Seaton (2010).


Donders work circa 2010, around the
EU “value test”, establishes how
after 15 years of investigation and
20 decisions, the executive European
Commission was settling on
acceptance of the transfer from
public service broadcasting to PS
media, to be regulated under its
competition policy – on the basis of
public interest. The process brought
a re-examination , and
acknowledgment of established
principles, with useful updates; all
affirming the social relevance of the
sector…
Social responsibility and elites …

Donders … continuing …

The EU work to set up a framework to assess the funding of public media, and state-aid
control under the competition policy, produced a remit to be based on evidence and
transparent, independent review of services; for example it would proportionalise financial
aid from the national state between the organisations’ public service and strictly commercial
activities … Beyond making PS “stakeholders” more accountable and responsive, the system
will acknowledge “public value related opportunities that accompany technological
revolutions”, supporting the media services: pluralism and diversity of media, choice,
inclusion, emancipation, a wide range of programs, balanced, with appreciable levels of
domestic program content, measures of individual program quality, innovation, social
“relevance”, cohesion – and social responsibility. The EU moves will professionalise
independent regulators, to achieve clarity and have “checks and balances”, consigning to
history regulation determined by bilateral negotiation between governments and PS
broadcasters. Case studies cited by Donders enforce the legitimacy of PS media, e.g. in
Germany, a study of their innovative digital services – Mediatheks- exposed better
accessibility for audiences, and overall, more public value.
Social responsibility and elites …

Donders … continuing …

The public value tests can contribute to a better definition of the remit; the
public service media organisations had not been marginalised by the new
regulatory order, set up in response to media deregulation (bringing new
commercial services into the field), and the new digital technologies (bringing
complaints from the commercial providers about being competed against).
The EU process, for a new media ecology, was not achieved without difficulty:
“This process did (and still does) not easily fit with public service
broadcasting, which is a policy project setting out from the idea that some
things (such as the contribution of broadcasting to democracy) are too
important to be left to the profit-seeking mechanisms of the free market.”
Social
responsibility and elites …

The EU case demonstrates the involvement of media and journalism in “realworld” situations of politics and government, as much as they are any
expression of civil society enacted.

Context for this is provided in the 2010 book from Christians et al, including
Denis McQuail, History of Communication: Normative theories of the media:
journalism in democratic societies. The authors provide a clear and
contextualised review the standard theories of journalism in society (Siebert
and Schramm, Merrill, Hachten, Altschull, Chadury, Williams, Habermas,
McQuail, Jakubowski, Hallin, Mancini; then Marcuse, Schiller, Chomsky, Hall),
offering a revision, at three levels of analysis: philosophical, political and
media -- where the political is democracy. Roles allocated to media are fairly
expansive, being monitorial, facilitative, radical and collaborative.
Social responsibility and elites …

The normative theories, as the philosophical level, are the corporatist, libertarian,
citizen participation models, and a revision of thought on social responsibility:

“This tradition retains freedom as the basic principle for organising public
communication, including the media, but views the public or community as also
having some rights and legitimate expectations of adequate service.”

The authors mention the disruptions of new media and trends in society, politics or
the economy, like media deregulation, as reasons to revise the theoretical posits;
as does Barbie Zelizer in an article wanting to go further.

It abjures the linkages found between successful democratic government and mass
media, by the inquiries, Finkelstein and Edelston, and the framers of the Royal
Charter, and by the historians of theory.

It criticises both democracy and media over grave shortcomings that participants
in both strive to deal with, e.g. the grapplings of the EU media and regulators
with burgeoning new media technology, neo-economics of the media business, and
updating of regulation.
Social responsibility and elites …

The article is a qualifier for the preceding work, for instance, declaring that
scandals like the News of the World phone-tapping, “reveal problematic
aspects of journalistic practice in countries that have been heavily invested in
promoting a certain traditional view of the journalism / democracy nexus”
(2013:466). The argument almost reaches a point of recommending the
democratic project itself be given up on; certainly journalism scholarship is
chastised for taking sides with it.

It proceeds to caution against positing democracy as a “necessarily
progressive, reasoned and universal phenomenon”; so that: “in retaining the
centrality of democracy in thinking about journalism, the reasons for
journalism’s existence have become aligned more with the political world
beyond the news than with reflecting the workings of journalism itself.”
(2013:470).
Main choices …

My formulation of roles and expectations
of media, from the inquiries, as well as
community relations and ethics, did
include dealing with politics and
government; with a statement about
identifying media that would meet the
demands, (and the EU case study from
Donders on public service media).

Obvious examples, of “elite” media by the
definitions given here, are public
broadcasters, e.g. BBC, Al-Jazeera, and
‘quality’ press, e.g. NYT, Süddeutscher
Zeitung, but also community
broadcasters, specialised magazines,
private subscription news agencies, e.g.
AAP, Bloomberg, distinctive web logs, or
corporate media packages with vested
interests in delivering tested information
in engaging formats. These may make a
claim to an elite media status.
Main choices …

Most observe a “liberal ethic”, e.g.
maturity with commentary - made
to a standard of reasoned,
informational and fair. Important
branches of activity include
investigative journalism. Funding is
almost a point of definition, many
of these services being not for
profit. Alternatives are state
funding (public service
broadcasters), private trusts (The
Guardian), support from public
institutions, subscriptions and
volunteering (community radio).
What about?
What about?

A debate can be conducted around
‘opinion’ media such as tabloid
press voicing strong editorial lines,
or ‘opinion as entertainment’ on
radio -- in the present era most of
it is radical right-wing politics. It
may be ‘about’ social issues and
politics of the day, but would be
severely tested if trying to obtain
certification as trusted elite
media, ‘mindful of the democratic
freedoms and autonomies of
others’ (Leveson, 2012: 83), along
the lines discussed here.
New media … social media …

In this scheme of understanding, proliferating social media are
seen in two aspects:

as participants in all media, and as the early stage of a new and parallel
dimension of mass communication founded on inter-activity, many-to-many.

Participants in all media may be subscribers to standards as specified above,
e.g. ‘fair and accurate’, ‘accountable’, ‘be mindful of the democratic
freedoms and autonomies of others’, ‘preventing the public from being
seriously misled’. They may be elite media.

Mass and interactive media models have their built-in mechanisms for
evaluating, embellishing and correcting published material, which can be
sustained by transparency, and practical expectations of users, empowered to
check on and challenge what they see.
Exclusions from discussion …

The present exercise hardly extends to discussion of futures …

It hardly extends to discussion of non-elite media, e.g. commercial
broadcasters lobbying for protection against public media as marginal but
strategic competitors …

It does not yet deal with the question of audiences, where issues such as
psychological defences against media bombardments, and proactive using of
media, would be pertinent, (e.g. Renckstorf, McQuail and Jakowski, Media
use as social action …, 1996).
How could “elite media” meet the need
for socially responsible media in society?

First -- a ‘plenary’ for debate.

Many are established organisations geared to
rationing of content through limited channels,
dating to the era of severe shortage of space and
air-time – up to the 1970s liberalising of
broadcast bands and being able to get the
Internet on personal computers after 1995.

Able to aggregate services; large established
audiences, mainly; salient in the dispersed,
crowded market.

Secondly the notion of recognition, as conveyed
in the principles of the British Royal Charter, will
allay confusion.

Thirdly there are many such outlets, collectively
well resourced and strong. Despite newspapers
and broadcasting among industries most
suffering from negative impacts “new economy”,
most have enduring resources and public
support.

They share in adaptability of media, for
example in the case of online products,
exploiting the capacity of the medium to bring
‘back of the book’ material – arts, personality,
festivals, games, personal finances – into the
traditional territory of ‘news’ pages at the top;
the subject of a current study by the present
author, see Duffield and Keshvani (2014).

With digitised media, against censoring, data
harvesting and the like, or criminal threats;
corporate strength and strength in numbers, of
this well-identified sector, will continue as a
useful defence strategy. In the case of dispersed
new media, such as the social media model
mentioned above, the multiplicity of points in a
network may ward off destruction at its core,
though individual parts will be vulnerable.
Certification …

Those which sign on and can
maintain the required performance
will have the better status in public
debate –ones to take most notice of.

Again a possible lead might come
from the Royal Charter, where it
stipulates the membership of a
Recognition Panel to oversee the
setting-up of a regulator. It can be
imagined that a board well distanced
from media interests and
involvements, e.g. funded by a
philanthropic trust, could actually
certify qualifying media.
References

Barnett S and J Seaton, Why the BBC Matters: Memo to the New Parliament about a Unique British Institution, Political Quarterly July 2010, Vol. 81 Issue 3,
pp 327-32.

Burns M and N Brugger (eds.) (2012), Histories of Public Service Broadcasters on the Web, NY, Peter Lang.

Debrett M (2010), Reinventing public service television for the digital future, Bristol, Intellect.

Donders K (2010), The benefits of introducing European competition principles into national public broadcasting policy, info, Vol. 12 Iss: 6, pp.56 - 68

Donders K (2011), Public service media and policy in Europe, Basingstoke, Macmillan.

Duffield L and N Keshvani, ‘Old Mastheads and New Media: newspapers striving to adapt in Australia and South-east Asia’, ICA Regional Conference, QUT
Brisbane, 1.10.14

Christians C, Glasser T and D McQuail (2009), History of Communication : Normative Theories of the Media : Journalism in Democratic Societies, Urbana,
University of Illinois Press

Ferrell Lowe G and J Bardoel (eds.) (2007), Public Service Broadcasting to Public Service Media, (RIPE Conference 2006), Gotenborg, Nordicom.

The Leveson Inquiry: Report into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press (2012), HM Government, London.

Moe H and K Donders (2011) (eds.), Exporting the Public Value Test: The regulation of public broadcasters’ new media services across Europe, Nordicom
(Internet Archive), SF.

Renckstorf K, McQuail D and Jakowski N (eds.) (1996), media use as Social Action: A European approach to audience studies, Acamedia Research Monograph
15, London, John Libby.

Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation by Hon. R. Finkelstein, assisted by Prof. M. Ricketson, Australian Government,
Canberra, 2012.

Royal Charter on Self-regulation of the Press (2013), HM Government, London.

Zelizer B, “On the shelf life of democracy in journalism scholarship”, Journalism, May 2013, Vol. 14, no. 4: 459-473.