In the media discourse, accountability * is used to explain a media channel’s functioning to the

higher authority or a group of persons in the event that its behaviour be deemed as questionable.
The media is often accused of violating professional norms, and hence, its actions call for certain
explanations. The press plays a vital role in democracy in disseminating information to the public
to have the latter well informed. For this purpose, the press gathers news from various sources
and disseminates it to the public. However, while gathering and disseminating the news, the press
though is cautious may be blamed of acting in unfair and biased manner by violating the
professional code of ethics. In the age of market-driven journalism, the media indulge in
sensationalism to maximise profits and commercialism is said to be the motive for such
behaviour. Therefore, society expects the press to be accountable to its constituents and press
accountability is central to its behaviour. Pritchard (1991, 2000) defined press accountability as a
process by which press organizations may be expected or obliged to render an account to their
constituents. A constituent is an individual, group, or organization whose goodwill is important
for any media organization. Moreover, a media organization can have many constituents
including audience members, advertisers, news sources, peers in other organizations and
regulatory authorities. In support of this definition, Plaisance (2000) observed that accountability
is a manifestation of the interaction between the claims of one autonomous agent and the set of
values of another. Further, these definitions discuss accountability of the
* The word accountability in language originates from the metaphor of ‘keeping an account of one’s conduct’.
It means that an account has to be made available to a higher authority or another person (Buttny, 1993). The
word 144
press to news sources, readers and others, while the press is increasingly becoming accountable to
the employer. Thus in the classification of accountability by Klaidman and Beauchamp (1987),
one can find only three classifications viz., accountability to employers, accountability to subjects
and accountability to sources.
Accountability to employers.Though the profession of journalism is considered to be a public
service, journalists as employees are obliged to render an account to their employers. The
employer considers his enterprise as a profit-earning enterprise instead of a public service unit to
work for the welfare of society. A classic example is an editor failing to publish a legitimate news
story that is potentially detrimental to the interests of an important advertiser because the
advertiser declares that he will discontinue the advertising if the story appears. For instance, the
case of Observer in the United Kingdom can be considered (Hamlin, 1992, p. 42). Publisher Tiny
Rowland owns Lonorho International, which has a group of newspapers with business interests in
Africa. In 1984, Donald Trelford, the editor of Observer published a full-page report alleging
atrocities by the army in Zimbabwe where Lonorho companies earned £ 1500 million profit
annually. Rowland cabled an immediate apology to Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwe President and
sternly rebuked Trelfod (p. 42).
Furthermore, the owners are also complacent about certain public issues to satisfy an advertiser.
They highlight specific issues to bring them to the public view while suppressing certain other
issues by placing them in the inside pages to keep them off from public view. For example, Allen
(1990) observes that the American media are not totally accountable to women as they ignore
women’s issues in their coverage. For example, she said that some years ago when 145
Thereafter, accountability is used in various contexts to render accounts to one’s behaviour to another person.
women were injured, and many were dying from the use of the Dalken Shield contraceptive
device, the mass media reported the information only on their financial pages where the many
lawsuits were shown to affect profits. And hundreds of women continued for many years to use
the device, and be injured and die, because they lacked information about the harm and deaths it
already had caused. According to Allen, this catastrophe could have been averted if the male
media owners had so wished.
Accountability to subjects.The press is also expected to be accountable to the subjects involved in
incidents while reporting stories. Journalists may get sensational stories when public personalities
are the subjects involved in the issue. For example, the shooting incident that took place in
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, in which prominent film star, Bala Krishna was allegedly involved.
He reportedly shot at two other people over a financial issue (The Hindu, June 4, 2004). Though
it was the job of the police or the court to pronounce the verdict whether he was guilty or not, the
newspapers as well as the TV channels ran special stories and arraigned the film star allegedly
involving him in the shoot-out.
Sometimes, institutional heads, elected representatives, civic officials or film stars get involved in
scandals or controversies. The public is entitled to know about these people through media
channels. However, if these subjects are misrepresented in the media, can they take legal recourse
against the media? In such a situation, the media are expected to be accountable to the subject. A
misjudgement on the part of the media tantamount to negligence and an error of this kind and its
consequent harm may be excusable. But a valid excuse does not remove an obligation to accept
accountability. For example, The Statesman of Kolkatta published a news 146
item ‘Homeless children come home to slave’ in its issue dated April 30, 1999. The news item
focussed on the issue of alleged exploitation of children by an NGO, Nikhil
BangaKalyanSamithi, a social welfare organisation. The organization filed a complaint to the
Press Council of India against the newspaper for defaming the organization as well as
misrepresenting the case. The paper later rendered an apology (The Press Council of India
Quarterly Review, 2001).
Accountability to sources.In the process of gathering news from different sources, journalists are
liable to be accountable to their sources of information. Because the source places faith and trust
on the journalist not to disclose the identity of the source, the disclosure of the source’s identity
will harm him/her and consequently his/her privacy will be invaded. Although a journalist’s main
goal is to provide information to the public, the information given by the source should serve the
interests of the public or the society. For example, the source may disclose some information
related to a policy decision of the government and asks the reporter to maintain secrecy of the
source. Sometimes, the source may say `off the record’, the journalist is bound to keep the
information from being disclosed. However, the journalist can use his discretion in disclosing the
information when it is related to a crime, national security, and financial loss to the organization,
and so on. On the other hand, in securing the information to reveal the truth, the journalist gathers
information by deceiving the source of his identity, and it is unethical on the part of the journalist
to disclose secrecy of his identity. However, Christians, et al. (1991) argue that public good is
more important than the means adopted to secure information.
Accountability to the public.Klaidman and Beauchamp (1987) classify accountability in the three
previously mentioned categories. However, a fourth classification can be added as public
accountability. In a democracy, society depends on the mass media for information, and society
and mass media are interdependent. Mass media reflect the society in the news contents, and
therefore, mass media and society share a symbiotic relationship. DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach
(1989, p. 303) observe that the media system is assumed to be an important part of the social
fabric of modern society, and it is seen to have relationships with individuals, groups,
organizations, and other social systems. These relationships may be conflict-ridden, or
cooperative; they may be dynamic and changing or static and orderly. They also may range from
being direct and powerful to being indirect or weak. Whatever the particulars of the relationship,
it is the relationship that carries the burden of explanation.
This relationship makes mass media being accountable to the public. In the dissemination of
news, newspapers establish credibility and respectability among readers and therefore they
patronise the newspapers. Because newspapers require continuous support from the readers, they
render an account to them. In being accountable to the readers or the public, journalists report
events. Though journalists do not witness the events, they construct the events in a language that
is meant for communication. Rather, in the case of newspapers, the responsibility is much more
than electronic media. In reporting an event, two dimensions must be taken into consideration.
They are: a) construction of social reality, and b) objectivity.
a) Construction of social reality. In constructing the social reality of an event, journalists must be
endowed with skill in projecting such reality. Thus, journalists learn the art of professionalism in
which journalistic principles of accuracy, factuality and truthfulness play a key role. In the
absence of good communication skills, journalists or newspapers distort social reality and they
are held responsible for the consequences. For example, in reporting communal riots or accidents,
the journalist by using inflammatory language may invoke passions and 148
thereby disturb the public tranquillity and peace. On many such occasions media behaviour is
questionable. In projecting reality, the press defends it by saying that lack of space is a constraint
in reporting details of an event. When news is written in an inverted pyramid style as practised by
J P Reuter in which intro summarises the event, the loss of details will affect the credibility of the
newspaper. Furthermore, when media act as `windows of the world’ to the reading public, the
windows must let the viewer understand the reality truthfully. DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach (1989,
p. 259) observed again that press’s interpretations of events can radically alter people’s
perception of reality and their consequent patterns of action.
b) Objectivity. Objectivity can be defined as a value-neutral projection of reality and therefore
objective view of an event is equally important while constructing social reality. Therefore, what
can be objectivity in journalism? Objectivity, according to Boyer (1981), consists of six elements:
a) balance and even-handedness in presenting different sides of an issue; b) accuracy and realism
of reporting; c) presentation of all main relevant points; d) separation of facts from opinion, but
treating opinion as relevant; e)minimising the influence of the writer’s own attitude, opinion or
involvement; and f) avoiding slant, rancour or devious purpose.
However, Bagdikian (1987, p. 179) pointed out that objectivity is losing its sanctity and
journalists often violate it. Nelkin (1987) also opined that journalists no longer believe that real
objectivity is possible, but they are expected to approach the ideal of neutrality and unbiased
reporting by balancing diverse points of view by presenting all sides fairly, and by maintaining a
clear distinction between news reporting and editorial opinion. However, bias in news reports
occurs unintentionally. Klaidman and Beauchamp (1987, p. 61) indicate that bias in journalism is
149
a distorted and unfair judgement or disposition caused by the values of a reporter, editor, or
institution. Bias is not necessarily ideological, partisan, or manifest over an extended period, and
it need not be introduced intentionally. In order to be objective, newspapers adopt various
practices to prevent manipulation of information by giving by-lines, credit line to the sources or
by writing explicit interpretive stories.
Nevertheless, objectivity is a virtue in the profession, and therefore in public accountability,
journalists should not deviate from it. In the profession of journalism, one newspaper may deviate
from it while other newspapers may represent reality as it is. Hence, in such an event, the
credibility of the newspaper as well as the individual journalist’s will be at stake. Ryan (2001)
commented that objective journalists are accountable to their audiences, to the highest ethical and
professional standards of objective journalism, and, finally, to their employers. They should never
assume that employers, not themselves, bear the ultimate responsibility for their behaviour.
Mechanisms to monitor media accountability
Accountability means rendering an account of one’s deeds to justify his/her actions when he/she
is deviating from a set of rules or regulations. In such an event, he/she faces a variety of
responses for his/her deviance. Generally, the responses, according to Buttny (1993, p. 3), are:
i) Invoking legal sanctions and institutional authority
ii) Verbal rebuke, accusations or criticism
iii) Questioning, prompting or calling for accounts
iv) Waiting for the offender to initiate an explanation
v) Letting it pass or overlooking the offence 150
Normally, these accounts are distinguished into two main kinds: excuses and justifications. The
offender will seek an excuse for his deviant behaviour or may explain his actions. However,
when an institution like the press deviates from the ethical code, what can be done? Is there any
ethical code for the press? In spite of having an ethical code, it may vary from country to country
and from individual to individual because the value system is not constant, and it keeps on
changing from time to time. However, countries as well as newspapers have evolved codes of
ethics for journalists and newspapers. Former Chairman of the Press Council of India, P. B
Sawant (2001) observed, “The ethics are essentially the self-restraints to be practised by the
media persons voluntarily, to preserve and promote the trust and credibility of the people”.
Collection and dissemination of information is the duty of the press. Because, the press as a mass
communication channel that operates in a public sphere for the benefit of the readers, the actions
of the press are expected to be above ground. The public scrutinizes the actions of the press on all
occasions and expects the press to reflect values and ethics of the profession. In the process of
collection and dissemination of information, the press adopts different means to obtain
information and occasionally suppresses news from the public because of extraneous reasons.
The press is, therefore, expected to have certain norms and ethics in the collection and
dissemination. When the press does not impose self-restraints on its gathering and dissemination
process, a regulating mechanism is required. Sawant (2001) also noted that the code of ethics all
over the world emphasises the following: a) honesty and fairness, b) reply to critical opinions, c)
objectivity in reporting, d) prohibition to receive gifts, e) respect for privacy, f) distinction
between fact and opinion, g) not to inflame hatred, h) not to use dishonest means to obtain
information, and i) general standards of decency and taste. Nevertheless, in a study done in 31
countries on the ethical code, it is found that journalists adhere to 57 principles and 10 principles
151
are found to be common in all these countries. These 10 principles are: truthfulness, honesty,
accuracy of information, correction of errors, prohibition of discrimination on the basis of
race/ethnicity/ religion etc., respect for privacy, prohibition to accept bribes or any other benefits,
fair means in information collection, prohibition to allow any outsider to have influence on the
journalistic work, prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex/class etc., freedom of speech,
expression, comment, criticism, and professional secrecy (Sonnenberg, 2004). Though these
codes specifically mention that public accountability and privacy of the individual seem to be
important, the media violate them while asking for absolute freedom to discharge its duties. Thus,
in many countries, certain elements of free press are regulated, such as press freedom, freedom of
expression, privacy, libel/defamation/slander, right to reply, access to public information,
discrimination, pre-condemnation and court proceedings, responsibility of the publication,
censorship, source protection and minors. For example, the Indian Government imposes
restrictions on the press not to disclose certain information. The government, according to
Sorabjee (1990), considers the following as secret under Official Secrets Act, 1923 although the
entire information is not officially secret:
i) International relations and national security;
ii) Law enforcement and prevention of crime;
iii) International deliberations of the government;
iv) Information obtained in confidence from some source outside the government;
v) Information which, if disclosed would violate the privacy of an individual;
vi) Information, particularly of an economic nature, which if disclosed, would confer an unfair
advantage on some person or subject some person or government to an unfair disadvantage;
vii) Information which is covered by legal professional privilege, like communication between a
legal adviser and his/her client;
viii) Information about scientific discoveries and inventions and improvements, essentially in the
field of weaponry 152
Despite the code of ethics and the law in certain countries, if the press violates the code, what can
be done to enforce the code and make the media accountable? Interestingly, five ways can be
adopted to make the media accountable, viz., individuals, pressure groups, newspaper
ombudsmen, Press Councils and other mechanisms.
Individuals.When the press intrudes into an individual’s privacy or defames him/her, the press is
liable for punishment. Hence, an individual can seek the reddressal of the problem by going to a
Press Council or a court of law. For example, in India and Sweden, if an individual is affected by
the coverage of the news, he can go to a Press Council first for reddressal of the problem, and if
he is not satisfied by the Press Council’s enquiry, he can approach a court of law for defamation.
In India, the law of Torts and the Indian Penal Code deal with specific aspects of defamation to
help the individual and gives the press an opportunity to defend its actions. ‘The law of Torts’
says that defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. If a person injures the reputation of
another person, he does so at his own risk as in the case of an interference with the property. A
man’s reputation is his property, and if possible, more valuable than other (materialistic)
property. For example, in the case of D P Choudhary vs. Manjulatha(AIR 1997 Raj 170), a news
item was published in a local Hindi daily, DainikNavjyothiin Jodhpur on December 18, 1977 that
17-year-old Manjulatha went out of her house at 11 pm on the day earlier on the pretext of
attending night classes with a boy named Kamlesh. She was a graduate student and belonged to
an educated family. The news item, which was untrue, was published with utter irresponsibility
and without any justification. Such publication resulted in her being ridiculed and affected her
marriage prospects. Since the news item is defamatory in nature, the court held the press liable
for defamation (Bangia, 1999, p. 170). 153
Nevertheless, the press has to function in a democracy and the press is given an opportunity to
justify its actions in the face of a plaintiff’s claim of being defamed. The defences are i)
justification or truth, ii) fair comment, or iii) privilege which may be either absolute or qualified.
In justifying its actions, the press must prove that the statement or news item is made in public
good. Making a fair comment on matters of public interest is a defence to an action for
defamation. For this defence to be available, three essentials are required viz., i) it must be a
comment i.e. an expression of opinion rather than assertion of fact, ii) the comment must be fair,
and iii) the matter commented upon must be of public interest. The other essential is privilege in
which there are certain occasions when the law recognises that the right of free speech
outweighed plaintiff’s right to reputation. The law treats such occasions to be privileged and a
defamatory statement made on such occasions is not actionable. For example, the press has
freedom to cover the parliamentary proceedings, which are not liable for defamation.
Pressure groups.Pressure groups can be formed to fight for media accountability. Normally,
groups of people rely on media for information for their day-to-day information. In fact, media
may sensationalise the news and may exaggerate the situation. For example, an overzealous
hockey fan, Andrew Linnehan, posted a letter on the Internet on May 23,2002 questioning the
media coverage of sports events. The important part of the letter is as follows:
Brittanie Cecil, a spectator at the Blue Jackets-Calgary Flames game at Nationwide Arena, was
struck in the temple by an errant puck. After the accident that resulted in her death two days later,
people all over the nation called for more safety precautions in National Hockey League (NHL)
rinks, an attack that every 154
professional sporting league has experienced at least once during its existence.
While Cecil’s death was a terrible and unfortunate tragedy, it marked the first time in the NHL’s
85-year existence that a fan has died as a result of a puck flying into the stands. Not to say that
the NHL should disregard the incident, but neither they nor any other professional sports league
should attempt to drastically alter the way a fan views the sporting world.
The main problem with this tremendous uproar from the press is that they’re making an
unpreventable, unforeseen accident turn into bad publicity for the sporting world.
The press has a duty to report the truth and to raise questions that wouldn’t normally be asked,
but how much analysing is too much? The NHL says that they do not plan to put nets up behind
the goals to prevent pucks from flying into the audience, even after Cecil’s death. This is a smart
move, and the press and American public alike should stop overreacting to an unfortunate
accident.
According to the American Lung Association, about 430,000 deaths are attributed each to
smoking. And we’re panicking over one death in 85 years at a hockey event?
The letter writer raised an important issue of media credibility and accountability of the press in
the US. It is not only the press, but also television’s role in society that is questionable. Television
serials, news and current affairs programmes are also scrutinized by pressure groups, peers in the
profession and lawyers. The increasing amount of television violence has its impact on the young
and women. Various media studies corroborated TV violence with real life events. For example,
Dee (1987) listed a few cases that linked TV violence with real life incidents. The case of Olivia
N vs National Broadcasting Company involved a specific television programme that became the
catalyst for an act of violence. The case was the result of a broadcast of NBC’s TV movie Born
Innocent. The movie exposed the savage conditions in girl’s reform schools. The movie was aired
at 8 pm on September 10, 1974. A scene depicting four teenage girls use a plumber’s helper to
sexually assault a new girl in the school. Four days later a 15-year-old and three teenage were
arrested for assaulting a 9-year-old girl Olivia Neimi and her friend, whom 155
they had “raped” with an empty beer bottle. When questioned by the police, their leader said that
she had gotten the idea from Born Innocent. Neimi’s mother sued NBC seeking damages for its
alleged negligence in airing the sexual assault scene. The case reinforces the belief that television
violence has impact on the people. This apart, many TV programmes contain explicit violent
scenes. Thus, a pressure group, ‘Our Media Voice’ campaigning for media accountability came
into existence in 1999 in the US launched by two people, Helen Grieco and Kimberly Weichel
(www.ourmediavoice.org). The group stated that its campaign although is concerned about all
forms of mass media, its initial focus is on broadcast television as most people get most of their
information about the world from the TV. TV broadcasts use the public airwaves and so, their
first priority is “to serve the public interest”.
Ombudsman.The institution of ombudsman is intended to protect an individual from media
assault on his personal and private life. Sweden is the first country to set up an ombudsman in
1916 for the newspapers to monitor its behaviour. In order to curb the misuse of information, the
Swedish law, Freedom of the Press Act, 1766, empowers every citizen to access every official
document irrespective of his position, like a journalist or civil servant or a lawyer. The
information thus collected can be used without defaming any individual. In order to curb the
misuse of information, the media in Sweden drafted a code of ethics in not violating the
individual privacy. The code said: the press, radio, and television shall have the greatest possible
degree of freedom, within the framework of the Freedom of the Press Act and the constitutional
right of freedom of speech, in order to be able to serve as disseminators of news and as
scrutinizers of public affairs. In this connection however, it is important that the individual be
protected from unwarranted suffering as a result of publicity. Ethics do not consist primarily in
156
the application of a formal set of rules, but in the maintenance of a responsible attitude in the
exercise of journalistic duties (Jigenius, 2003). In order to control the media in not abusing the
information, newspapers set up a press ombudsman to monitor press behaviour when the latter
treated an individual unethically. In India, The Times of India was the first newspaper in the
country to appoint a press ombudsman in 1988. Former chief justice of India P.N.Bhagwati was
appointed ombudsman and during one year of his office, he received 180 complaints. Out of these
complaints, the majority focussed on non-publication of their letters in the column meant for it.
After adjudicating some complaints, Bhagwati (1989) observes: “The fledgling institution of the
ombudsman in our country needs the goodwill and support of media men and it must be viewed
with understanding and should receive encouragement from senior and experienced journalists
and the public at large. If this institution strikes roots in Indian soil, the result will only be
improved credibility and effectiveness of the Fourth Estate and its role in our democracy.”
However, after 10 months, the newspaper management decided to disband the office of the
ombudsman. Nevertheless, internal monitoring of the press is necessitated in the modern times
and all newspapers can appoint an ombudsman to look after the paper functioning. Hence, the
media organisations all over the world are increasingly recognising the importance of
ombudsman in dealing with complaints because the governments are passing specific laws to
protect the individuals’ privacy.
Press councils. In regulating press behaviour, institutions like Press Councils can be of vital
importance. Normally, a Press Council is constituted by a government with the help of a statute
like in Indian or by big newspapers like in Sweden, Germany or others. A Press Council, 157
according to Bertrand (1996), is a group of people whose concern for the quality of media leads
them to use what moral influence they have on public opinion to improve it. Hence, any Press
Council is entrusted with two tasks: improve the quality of media, and defend media freedom. In
improving the quality of the media, the Press Council is expected to monitor the media behaviour.
In its observance of media behaviour, the Press Council has the onerous task of seeing that the
media is not distorting the news or suppressing it. Often, the press is known for distorting the
reality keeping its priorities in view. Therefore, when it receives any complaints, the council will
enquire and adjudicate the complaint. This apart, the council can train the journalists in upholding
the media ethics. By the same token, the council can safeguard the freedom of the press. In
defending the media freedom, the council can fight against the governments when the latter
interfere with it. For example, the Press Council of India acted firmly on getting a clause removed
when the Indian government is about to pass an Ordinance on Prevention of Terrorism. The
clause hampers the freedom of the journalist in reporting issues related to terrorism. The other
aspect is monitoring the influence of ownership on contents and concentration of ownership in a
few hands to stifle diversity of views. One important function of media is plurality of opinion for
the survival of democracy, and the Press Councils can monitor ‘media monopoly’ of certain
media moguls.
In view of these roles, the Press Councils function to make the media more accountable to the
public. Although Press Councils function in all these countries, they lack effective laws to impose
penalties on the wrongdoer. In practice, the Press Councils can act as deterrent to curb excessive
media misbehaviour. 158
Other mechanisms.Media scholars observe that the mainstream media all over the world have
assumed an unhealthy role in public affairs. Since profit making is the goal of the media,
newspapers publish news stories, features and even headlines on an individual or a government
servant or a public issue. The newsroom agenda decides the issue even before the final copy
arrives from the reporting desk. Stories are published without acknowledging the source or
attributing to a non-existent or a false source to strengthen the news credibility. For example,
newspapers use words like ‘allegedly’, ‘reportedly’, ‘prima facie’ and so on to justify their stories
and some times cases that are sub-judiceare reported in the newspapers. Mostly, the public may
not be aware of newspaper practices. In such a situation, what can be done? Instead of regular
media accountability systems which may not be effective, alternative mechanisms can be
considered.
Regular media sections or newspaper columns can analyse the issues of the mainstream media.
For example, SevantiNinan’s column in The Hindu in India on Sunday’s analysis of media issues
throws light on certain inside happenings of the media, which may call for media accountability.
Journalism criticisms are of vital importance to inform and educate the media people. For
instance, American Journalism Review, British Journalism Review and Columbia Journalism
Review and so on act as agents of accountability.Columbia Journalism Review, which was
established in 1961 at the Columbia University School of Journalism, remains the leading review
of the American media. These apart, books written by academicians examine the accountability
of media critically and may offer suggestions to further improve media accountability. Peer
reviews of news items within the newspaper establishment will also influence journalists in
pursuing ethics. Further, Bertrand (2003) noted some other media 159
accountability systems that are in operation in other countries. Some of them are: a) Citizens
appointed to the editorial board; b) Liaison committees set up by media and some others with
which they often clash like the police, lawyers, etc. c) Special quality groups like media-related
groups (Reporters sans frontiers in France), professional associations and non-governmental
organisations; d) Consumer associations, especially associations of media users, using awareness
sessions, mail campaigns, opinion polls, evaluations, lobbying, even boycotts