Media Accountability Systems (sr)

M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

Foreword

Freedom of expression and freedom of the media are among fundamental rights at the core of a democracy. Establishing a legal framework and setting ethical stan- dards for the profession are critical to ensure that inde- pendent, pluralistic and responsible media can develop without being subject to undue interferences or hardship. In Serbia and in any democracy, a free press is in eve- ryone’s interest. The OSCE Mission to Serbia has been assisting all interested and competent parties in the media field to face the challenges to achieve best standards and practices. These challenges are not over and never will be, here or anywhere. The industry is evolving constantly and new ethical issues arise as the world changes. Yet the imperative of applying high professional standards remains. Ethics does matter. Ethics posits prin- ciples and rules, which need to respected. Hence, the concept of non-governmental accountability mecha- nisms presented by Professor Claude-Jean Bertrand in this booklet. They should be part of the solution, as they aim at engaging media, journalists and society in a constant and fruitful dialogue. Ambassador Hans Ola Urstad Head of OSCE Mission to Serbia

3 4  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

Claude-Jean Bertrand Professor emeritus at the Institut Français de Presse University of Paris-2

M*A*S

MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS The basic idea is that both the freedom and the regulation are indispensable if we want news media to provide the public with the service needed for democra- cy. BUT they are not enough and they can be dangerous. Ethics is indispensable too, including “media accounta- bility systems”, M*A*S. , non-governmental means of inducing media and journalists to respect the rules set by the profession: The purpose of the M*A*S is triple 1. To help journalists serve the public better, 2. To help journalists form a profession, feel soli- darity among themselves, 3. To help them recover public trust and thus pub- lic support to resist political and economic pres- sure. 5  It is not usual to gather such different items into one concept. It is justified because they all share a basic feature: they all aim at improving the news services that media supply to the public – and most enable media to listen to the public. Now let us have a look at some VIRTUES that M*A*S possess – which explains why they deserve atten- tion. 1. M*A*S are harmless. 2. M*A*S are diverse. They can be documents: texts or broadcasts, or people (individuals or groups) or processes (fast or slow). They can be internal to media, or external to them, or they involve co-operation of media people and non- media people. Besides, one may distinguish between M*A*S that function at local or region- al or national or international level – or even at all four levels (like press councils). Or again between those that produce an effect that is immediate, or short term or long term. 3. M*A*S are flexible. They can easily be adapted to circumstances. 4. They complement each other. While none is suf- ficient, all are useful. And they can all function with one another. 5. They are democratic. With very few exceptions, they are all initiated by the profession or by the public (not by the State). 6  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

6. They are efficient. If only because they can oper- ate where other means of influence prove power- less. For instance, the law or market forces can- not do much about the flaws in the journalistic tradition. With such virtues, why then M*A*S so little accepted, so little used? For one thing, they are not known. And if known, they are disliked simply because they are new. Generally speaking, what are the ACCUSATIONS brought against them? 1. That M*A*S belong with public relations. If that is so, then why are media decision makers hos- tile to them? 2. That they are part of a conspiracy against free- dom of expression and free enterprise: govern- ments will use them to censor the news media. That has never happened. 3. That they are unacceptable by journalists, on principle. According to the code of the International Federation of Journalists (1954), “the journalist recognizes, in professional mat- ters, the jurisdiction of his colleagues only; he excludes every kind of interference by govern- ments or others“. These days, journalists need “others”. 4. That M*A*S are inefficient: good media do not need quality control; the bad ones will never accept it unless the Law forces it upon them. 7  5. Real power is in the hands of media owners: for them sales are enough to evaluate public satis- faction. If the public is truly angry, let them go to court. Journalists cannot afford to antagonize their employers by insisting on respect of ethical rules. As for the public, it is heterogeneous, unorganized. It believes that it is powerless. It does not have the time, the competence, the motivation to get involved.

6. Some M*A*S are costly, if they are to do their job well, meaning quickly and visibly. And it is better not to ask the State for funds, journalists do not have money to spare and media owners are reluctant to pay.

7. Last, most valid, objection: M*A*S do not aim at the right targets. Journalists commit minor sins and media companies commit mortal sins. Yet, traditionally, media ethics focuses on jour- nalists, who are thus turned into scapegoats.

That last argument has led me to believe that media ethics is not just about making media ethical, but about making journalists independent thanks to the support of the general public.

The resistance and obstacles to M*A*S are such that, if you look around on the media landscape, you may see very few and decide that they have failed to get a foothold. 8  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

ACTUALLY many M*A*S have become such a normal part of the environment that they are not noticed anymore, especially the less spectacular, the less contro- versial M*A*S, like codes of ethics, critical books, uni- versity level training for journalists, correction boxes, regular newspaper pages devoted to the media, readership surveys, etc. In their fight for independence, journalists cannot expect much support from media owners or from legisla- tors. So, since they are relatively few in number and are merely employees of a company, the only way for them to be autonomous is to make an ally of the public, to join forces with the masses. M*A*S are extremely diverse but all aim at improving news media, using evaluation, monitoring, education, feedback and communication. Here is a list of over 110, but more can, and will, be invented (see www.media-accountability.org). The most obvious classification of the M*A*S is into three groups according to their intrinsic nature: documents (printed or broadcast) / people (individu- als or groups) / processes (long or short).

9  Text, Broadcast or Website

– A written code of ethics, or an “ethics handbook”, listing rules which media professionals have discussed and/or agreed upon with, preferably, input by the public. And which should be made known to the public. – An internal memo reminding the staff of ethical principles (maybe the “tradition” of the paper1) and pro- viding it with guidelines as to behavior in particular cir- cumstances. – A daily internal self-criticism report circulated in the newsroom.2 – A correction box, or column3, published, very vis- ibly. Or time taken to correct an error on the air. – A regular “Letters to the Editor“ column/pro- gram, including messages critical of the newspaper/ mag- azine/ station. – An accuracy-and-fairness questionnaire, mailed to persons mentioned in the news or published for any reader to fill out.

1 To its “Standards & Ethics” code, the Washington Post appends Eugene Meyer’s (its former owner) 1933 “Principles”. 2 Like at Zero Hora, a daily of Porto Alegre in Brazil. 3 As in The Guardian, the British quality daily.

10  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

– A public statement about media by some eminent decision-maker, abundantly quoted in the news 4. – A space or time slot purchased by an individual, a group or a company to publish an “open letter” about some media issue 5. – An occasional “Letter from the editor”, expound- ing values and rules, or explaining how media function. – A sidebar explaining some difficult editorial deci- sion to publish or not to publish. – An “Editors’ blog” by senior staff to explain oper- ations and decisions; also to take the reader/viewer “behind the scenes” and respond to his/her remarks.6 – A newsletter to readers, inserted or mailed, to keep them informed of what goes on at the newspaper or station. – A regular media column, page, section7 in a news- paper, newsmagazine, trade review – or a program on radio or television, that does more than just mention new appointments and ownership changes. 4 A huge ballyhoo greeted US Vice-President Spiro Agnew’s two 1969 speeches against “liberal” media. 5 Like the one against toxic popular culture published in newspa- pers all over the US by 56 eminent Americans in July 1999. 6 As initiated in 2005 by the CBS network and the New York Times. 7 Like the Media Guardian within the Monday edition of the Guardian (London).

11  – A regular ethics column in a trade magazine.8 – Regular reports by media-oriented citizens’ asso- ciations that are published by newspapers. – A daily online clearing house carrying info on events in the media world, quotes and criticism.9 – A web site systematically posting corrections of media errors, 10 – or the grievances of working journalists11, – or abuses by advertisers.12 – A website offering journalists information and advice on “promoting accountability”.13 – A website devoted to debate on media issues (e.g. media and the children). – A section of a newspaper’s web site devoted to immediate feedback by readers to a particular article.14

8 As the monthly “Ethics Corner” in Editor & Publisher since 1999. 9 Like the Romenesko column since 1998, on the Poynter Institute website. 10 Like www.slipup.com in the US. 11 Like, in the US, the News Mait site maintained by Maurice Tamman for 3 years until 1999. 12 Like www.adbusters.org in Vancouver, run by former Madison Avenue types. 13 Like the IFJ (International Federation of Journalists) website for African news people: www.ifj.org/regions/africa. 14 The online edition of the French daily Le Monde actively solicits such feedback. Also BBC News Online.

12  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

– A website teaching the public how to evaluate media.15 – A satirical presentation of the news implicitly exposing the failings of regular TV newscasts.16 – An online newspaper whose material is entirely supplied by citizens.17 Or readers’ blogs within a newspa- per’s site to cover neighborhood news and issues. A print- ed newspaper can also make good use of readers’ input.18 – An alternative periodical (esp. published by a minority), non-profit station or website, that publishes facts and gives viewpoints which regular media ignore, including criticism of the said media. – A “journalism review”, on paper or the air or the Web19, devoted principally to media criticism, exposing what media have distorted or omitted, and whatever other sins reporters or media companies have committed .

15 Like John McManus’ San Francisco Bay Area website focussed on television news: www.gradethenews.org 16 Like Jon Stewart’s Daily Show on Comedy Central (USA), very popular with young viewers. 17 Like Ohmy News in South Korea which uses thousands of amateur reporters and scores 2 million page-views a day. Similar is Scoop.co in Israel. 18 Two pages in the Spanish daily El Correo. The French Dépêche du midi has thus widened its staff to several thou- sands. 19 Like the American JR (University of Maryland) or the On-Line JR (U. of Southern California).

13  – “Darts and Laurels”, a page or website consisting of short stories in criticism or praise of some media action, such as most journalism reviews have had.20 – Guides to “media empowerment” i.e. getting involved in media policy.21 – An annual report by a newspaper presenting a social and ethical audit of its contents and services, based on the opinions of thousands of readers.22 – Publication on the Web of full transcriptions of interviews and emails by news sources angered by bias or distortion. – A petition signed by hundreds or thousands to put pressure on media directly or via advertisers or via some regulatory agency. – A yearbook of journalism criticism, written by reporters and media users, edited by academics.23 – A weblog run by a journalist, or by an amateur, that scrutinize mainstream media, critiquing what they say and don’t say.24 20 See also the internal bulletin circulated by the New York Times, called “Winners and Sinners”. 21 Like that produced in the US for the Consumers’ Union. Or a book by anti-dysinformation militants on how to access the columns of Le Monde. 22 As the British Guardian and Observer have done since 2003. In Sweden, a similar audit is produced by the University of Göteborg and an association of publishers. 23 Like the one put out by the University of Tampere, in Finland, after an annual seminar on the topic. 24 Like university-based Media Lens in the UK “correcting the distorted vision of corporate media”.

14  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

– An article, report, book, film, TV series about media, informative about media and, to some extent at least, critical. – Newsletters emailed to subscribers by media- watch organizations.25 – The review of a consumer group (regional or national) which occasionally deals with media. – A website showing how foreign media report on your country , with translation of stories.26 – A television network27 or weekly newsmagazine28 entirely made up of material borrowed from foreign media, enabling users to evaluate their own media. – A non-profit regular daily newspaper, immune from share-holder and advertiser pressure.29 – (Very exceptional) A newspaper given by its pub- lisher to a journalism school to serve as a “teaching hos- pital”.30

25 Like FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) or Project Censored in the US. 26 Like Watching America in the US, with articles and audio and video clips. 27 Like SBS in Australia. 28 Like Courrier International in France. 29 Like the St Petersburg Times (Florida) whose profits go to the excellent Poynter Institute. 30 The Anniston Star, whose assets were given in 2003 to a foun- dation that will join the University of Alabama in running a “community journalism” program.

15  Individuals or groups

– An in-house critic, or a “contents evaluation com- mission“ 31, to scrutinize the newspaper, or monitor the station, for breaches of the code – without making their findings public. – An ethics committee or a “staff review group“ (a rotating panel of journalists) set up to discuss and/or decide ethical issues, preferably before they occur. – An ethics coach operating in the newsroom, occa- sionally, to raise the reporters’ ethical awareness, to encourage debate and advise on specific problems. – A media reporter assigned to keep watch on the media industry and give the public full, unprejudiced reports 32. – An outside critic paid by a newspaper to write a regular column about the paper. – A whistle-blower who dares to denounce some abuse within the media company.

31 Like the shinsa-shitsu set up by Japanese dailies as early as the 1920s. 32 The best-known, David Shaw (of The Los Angeles Times) was awarded a Pulitzer prize in 1991.

16  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

– A consumer reporter who warns readers/viewers against misleading advertising – and intervenes on their behalf.33 – An ombudsman, “editor in charge of reader rela- tions”, or a team of reporters, employed by a newspaper or station, to listen to suggestions and complaints from customers, investigate, obtain redress if need be and (usu- ally) report on his activities. – A Complaints bureau or Customer service unit to listen to grievances and requests.34 – A disciplinary committee set up by a union or other professional association to obtain that its code be respected – under pain of expulsion. – Unions of journalists have shown everywhere a keen interest in media ethics, drafted codes and initiated press councils. – A watchdog’s watchdog, monitoring established M*A*S.35 – A liaison committee set up jointly by media and a social group with which they may occasionally clash 36.

33 Like the “Action Line” teams common in US newspapers in the 1970s. 34 Like that of the BBC in Britain. 35 Like the FPS association in Germany watching over the press council and other M*A*S. 36 Like the police or some immigrant minority.

17  – A citizen appointed to the editorial board; or sev- eral (often chosen among users who have complained) invited to attend the daily news meeting. – A panel (or several specialized panels) of readers/ listeners/ viewers regularly consulted37 – a Readers Advisory Committee to serve as the eyes and ears of the newspaper in their communities.38 – A club (of readers / listeners / viewers) that uses perks to attract members and leads them into a dialogue about the medium (most often a magazine). – A radio club, to listen together and debate issues, to provide local news and suggestions to the regional broadcaster which supplies equipment and training.39 – A local press council, i.e. regular meetings of some professionals from the local media and representa- tive members of the community. – A national (or regional) press council set up by the professional associations of media owners and of journalists, and normally including representatives of the public – to speak up for press freedom and to field com- plaints from media users.

37 In Mexico, the Reforma group of newspapers uses 60 “reader boards” assigned to various fields. In Argentina, La Nacion has 1500 readers it consults twice a month. 38 Such as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel uses. 39 Common in sub-Saharan Africa, e.g. in Burkina, Benin, Niger, and Congo.

18  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

– A national ombudsman appointed by the press to deal with complaints, either in association with a press council (Sweden) or independent (South Africa).

– A watchdog agency set up by a media-related industry (like advertising) to filter contents – and ask that some not be made public, for ethical reasons 40.

– A militant association dedicated to media reform41 or to helping persons with grievances against media 42.

– “Media observatories” set up by journalists to monitor attacks on press freedom and adherence to a code, receive complaints, debate ethical issues with pub- lishers.

– An single-issue federation of many kinds of NGOs (civil rights groups, labour unions, consumer asso- ciations etc.) to fight a battle for better media.43

– A foundation that funds projects or institutions aiming at the improvement of media. 44

40 Like the BVP (Bureau de vérification de la publicité) in France or the Advertising Standards Authority in Britain. 41 Like FAIR in the US (www.fair.org) . 42 Like PressWise in Britain (www.presswise.org.uk) 43 Such a federation in the US in 2004 obtained from Congress that some media deregulation be nullified. 44 Like the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the Friedrich- Naumann Foundation in Germany or the Pew Charitable Trusts in the US.

19  – A media-related institution, national45 or interna- tional, that has a direct or indirect interest in promoting media quality 46 through conferences, seminars, publica- tions etc. – A “combination M*A*S” like the Poynter Institute in Florida, involved in research, data-gathering, publication, training, advice – A national or international NGO to militate on behalf of journalists’ freedom and welfare.47 – An NGO that trains personnel, and provides free services to media, in emerging democracies (Eastern Europe) and under-developed nations. – An NGO that organizes regular public debates or campaigns on media issues. 48 – A citizen group (like a labor union or a parents’ association) which, for partisan and/or public interest reasons (e.g. the welfare of children49), monitors the media – or attacks a special target, like advertising50.

45 Like the AEJMC (Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication) in the US. 46 Like the International Press Institute or the World Association of Newspapers. 47 Like RSF, Reporters Sans Frontires or the US Committee of Concerned Journalists. 48 To be found in the UK (MediaWatch) or the Czech Republic. 49 Like ANDI in Brasilia which monitors Brazilian media, and reports on how they deal with children. 50 Like “Résistance l’agression publicitaire” in France.

20  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

– A consumers’ association, especially one of media users, using awareness sessions, monitoring, opi- nion polls, evaluations, lobbying, mail campaigns, even boycotts to obtain better service.51 – A commission set up by Parliament52 but inde- pendent, in order thoroughly to study a major media issue, like concentration of ownership. – A team assigned by a social group (women, eth- nic minority, physicians etc.) to monitor the media cover- age they are receiving. – A representative group of journalists in the news- room, endowed with some rights, as allowed by law in Germany or required in Portugal. – An Order of journalists, statutory but totally inde- pendent, one of whose purposes is to formulate and enforce ethical rules.53 – An association of publishers and editors to debate issues and promote quality.54

51 Like the Spanish FIATYR, a federation of associations of media users in every province or People For Better TV, a US broad- based national coalition. 52 Called Royal Commission in the UK and Australia. 53 Likle the Ordine dei Giornalisti in Italy. 54 Like the Verein für Qualitt in Journalismus in German-speaking countries.

21  – A team formed by a group of specialized journal- ists (investigative reporters, women etc.) to exchange information and promote their interests.

– A “société de rédacteurs”, an association of all newsroom staff, that demands a voice in editorial policy – and preferably owns shares in the company so as to make itself heard.55

– A “société de lecteurs”, an association of readers which buys, or is given, shares in the capital of a media company and demands to have a say.56

It seems reasonable also to place in this category three types of institutions that some experts would leave out of the M*A*S concept. Provided they do not take orders from government, to the extent that their purpose is to improve media service, it does not seem possible to leave them out completely. They might be called associ- ate M*A*S or para-M*A*S:

– The regulatory agency, set up by law, provided it is truly independent, especially if it takes complaints from media users.57

55 The first was set up at the French daily Le Monde (1951). 56 As is the case at Le Monde , of which it owns about 11%. 57 Like the Italian Ordine dei giornalisti (Order of Journalists) or the French Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (equivalent to the FCC in the US)Two very different types of institutions.

22  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

– The international broadcasting company, public or private, using short wave radio or satellites, that makes it difficult for national media to hide or distort the news.58 – The autonomous non-commercial broadcasting company59, whose sole purpose is to serve the public and which constitutes implicit criticism of commercial media. That category might be widened to include all high qual- ity media whose primary aim is good journalism and which can serve as models.

58 Like the BBC World Service or CNN – or a Polish radio station aimed at Belarus. 59 Like NSK in Japan or ARD in Germany

23  Processes

– A higher education, a crucial M*A*S. Quality media should only hire people with a university degree, preferably (though this is controversial) one in mass com- munications.

– A separate course on media ethics required for all students in journalism.

– Further education for working journalists: one- day workshops, one-week seminars, six-month or one- year fellowships at universities. Such programs, quite common in the US60, are very rare elsewhere.

– An in-house awareness program to increase the attention paid by media workers to the needs of citizens, especially women and cultural, ethnic, sexual or other minorities; or

– Offering readers a news menu and asking them to pick what they want to see on the front page next day.61

60 Like the Knight fellowships at Stanford University and the Nieman Fellowships at Harvard U. 61 Like Chile’s Las Ultimas Noticias or , in the US, the Wisconsin State Journal.

24  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

– Teaching journalists how to respond appropriate- ly to readers/ listeners/ viewers on the phone or on the Web. – Internally investigating major failures by a media (serious inaccuracies, unfounded reports, lack of ade- quate coverage, etc.)62 – Teaching journalists, through seminars and publi- cations, how to organize and fight for quality.63 – Building a data-base, within a media outlet, of all errors (type, cause, person involved) so as to discern pat- terns and take measures. – An internal study of some issue involving the public (like a newspaper’s relations with its customers). – An ethical audit: external experts come and eval- uate the ethical awareness, guidelines, conduct within the newspaper or station. – Giving the email addresses and/or telephone numbers of editors and of journalists (whenever a story of theirs is published). – The (controversial) “readback” of quotes to sources to avoid errors.64

62 As done by CBS on a Dan Rather blunder (2004) and by the New York Times on Jayson Blair’s plagiarism and its uncritical pre-war coverage of Iraq. 63 What MediaWise does in the UK. 64 As the Wall Street Journal encourages its reporters to do.

25  – A “media at school” program to train children from an early age in the understanding and proper use of media. – A “media literacy” campaign to educate and mobilize the general public. – A listening session: once a week or irregularly, editors man the phones to answer calls from readers.65 – The regular encounter of news people with ordi- nary citizens in a press club , on the occasion of neighbor- hood meetings – or even on a cruise66! – A regular (e.g. quarterly) opinion survey (polls, public meetings, internet forum), commissioned by the media, to get feedback from the person-in-the-street; also a questionnaire on a newspaper or station website. – A nation-wide survey of public attitudes towards all or some media (e.g. towards public broadcasting). – Polling the public or groups within it so as to operate a barometer of satisfaction as opposed to the con- ventional systems of sales, ratings and shares. – Non-commercial research, done mainly by aca- demics in the universities, but also in think-tanks or sci- entific observatories67, studies of the contents of media (or the absence of them68), of the perception of media messages by the public, of the impact of those messages.

65 As is done at some Brazilian papers. 66 The Belgian daily La Libre Belgique has organized such cruises. 67 Like the European Institute for the Media in Düsseldorf, Germany. 68 Like Project Censored in the US.

26  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

– Organizing an occasional street demonstration to promote some cause.69 – Sponsoring a national or regional forum on a big issue (e.g. The Hutchins Commission in the US -1937- 1947) or limited issue, like local reporting. – An annual conference bringing together media decision-makers, political leaders and representatives of citizens’ groups of all kinds70. – An annual seminar on journalism criticism organ- ized by a Journalism School.71 – Attracting the finest minds to journalism by cre- ating bridges between academe and media.72 – International cooperation to promote media qual- ity and accountability.73 – A prize, and other tokens of satisfaction, to reward quality media and ethical journalists74 – or an anti-prize75.

69 In 2005, media watchdog organizations in Romania set up an “Information Fair” to protest harassment by government. 70 Like, until 2005, the “Université de la communication” in late August, in Carcans-Maubuisson, later in Hourtin, SW France. 71 Like the one at the University of Tampere in Finland. 72 E;g. Reuters creating a Journalism Institute at Oxford. Millionaire publisher Steven Brill by endowing such training at Yale University. 73 Like the European alliance of press councils (AIPCE) or the Ibero-American Federation of Ombudsmen. 74 Like that started in 1999 by the J-School at the University of Oregon. 75 Like the “Silver Sewer Award” bestowed by Empower America, a conservative media watchdog.

27  Internal, external and cooperative

Another classification of M*A*S depends on who is involved: some M*A*S function exclusively inside the newspaper or broadcast station; some exist outside of it and escape its control; others require that media and non- media people work together. Those boxes, however, are not air-tight: they allow variants of one M*A*S to slip from one into either of the other two. • The internal M*A*S constitute self-regulation proper, quality control in the narrow sense. • External M*A*S prove that accountability can be applied to the media without their acceptance; their aim is not reparation to aggrieved individu- als but benefit to the public as a whole. • Cooperative M*A*S are certainly the most inter- esting since they imply that press, professionals and public can join together for quality control.

28  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

Internal M*A*S Correction box, column Code of ethics Media page/ program Ethics committee Letter from the editor, sidebar Disciplinary committee Behind-the-scenes blog Training to organize Newsletter to subscribers Whistle-blower Media reporter Newsroom committee Consumer reporter Media observatory In-house critic Order of journalists Daily self-criticism report Company of journalists Investigative panel Assoc. of specialized reporters Media weblog by journalist Assoc. of publishers & editors Evaluation commission International defense org. Filtering agency Publishing foreign material Internal study of issues Foreign views on own country Readership survey Non-profit newspaper Ethical audit (Public broadcasting) Ethics coach Internal memo (International broadcasting) Awareness program (Quality service-oriented media)

29  External M*A*S Readers’ info blogs Public statement by VIP Alternative media Higher education Satirical news show Required ethics course Daily report on media Non-profit research Journalism review Opinion survey on media “Darts and laurels” Media literacy campaign Critical blogs Media literacy website Media-related website Media-at-school program Blog by sources Consumer group Critical book / report / film Association of militant citizens Guides to influence Monitors for profession groups Watchdog watchdog Media-serving NGO Petition to pressure media Royal commission Ad hoc federation (Indep. regulatory agency)

30  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

Co-operative M*A*S Letter to the editor Citizen on board On-line message board Club of readers/ viewers Outside media columnist Local press council Ombudsman Annual conference Complaints bureau Seminar on media criticism Listening session by editors Training foreign bloggers Accuracy & fairness question. Yearbook on media crit. Annual self-audit report National press council Grading the news National ombudsman Media barometer Liaison committee Paid advertisement Occasional demonstration Encounter with public Media-related association Website for public reaction International cooperation Panel of media users Training NGO Inviting in readers Multi-purpose center Readers chose Page One Continuous education Citizens journalism Bridge institution Radio clubs Prize or other reward Journalists’ email and phone

31  For more information, see the two books by Claude-Jean BERTRAND (cjbertrand@noos.fr ): – Media Ethics and Accountability Systems, New Brunswick (NJ), Transaction, 2000 – 164 pages [Originally published in French, translated in Armenia, Brazil, China, Georgia, Greece, Italy, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Romania & Turkey). (Albanian, Polish and Russian translations in progress) – An Arsenal For Democracy: Media Account- ability Systems , Cresskill (NJ), Hampton Press, 2003 – 420 pages. (Originally published in French (Economica, 1999), translated in Brazil (2002) and Japan (2003)).

32  M*A*S MEDIA ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

33

M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

Uvodna re~

Sloboda izra`avanja i sloboda medija spadaju me|u osnovna prava same su{tine demokratije. Izgradnja zakon- skog okvira i uspostavljanje eti~kih standarda profesije su od presudnog zna~aja, jer obezbe|uju razvoj nezavisnih, pluralisti~kih i odgovornih medija bez podvrgavanja pre- komernom uplitanju i te{ko}ama. U Srbiji, kao i u svakoj demokratiji, sloboda {tampe je u interesu svih. Misija OEBS u Srbiji poma`e svim zainteresovan- im i kompetentnim stranama u oblasti medija da se suo~e sa izazovima kako bi postigli najbolje standarde i praksu. Ovim izazovima nema kraja, niti }e im ikada biti, ovde ili bilo gde drugde. Ta industrija je u stalnom razvoju i nova eti~ka pitanja se postavljaju kako se svet menja. Me|utim, imperativ primenjivanja visokih profe- sionalnih standarda ostaje. Etika jeste va`na. Etika postavlja principe i pravila, koja treba da se po{tuju. Odatle poti~e koncepcija mehanizama nevladine odgov- ornosti koje je predstavio profesor Claude-Jean Bertrand u ovoj bro{uri. Oni treba da budu deo re{enja, po{to imaju za cilj da uklju~e medije, novinare i dru{tvo u stalni i plodonosni dijalog. Ambasador Hans Ola Urstad [ef Misije OEBS u Srbiji

3 4  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

Claude–Jean Bertrand Profesor Emeritus na Francuskom institutu za {tampu Univerzitet u Parizu-2

M*A*S Media Accountability Systems

SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

Osnovna ideja je da su i sloboda i regulacija nu`ni ako `elimo da mediji koji se bave izve{tavanjem pru`e javnosti informacije koje su potrebne za demokratiju. ALI oni nisu dovoljni, i mogu da budu opasni. Nu`na je i etika, uklju~uju}i sisteme medijske odgovornosti (M*A*S), nevladina sredstva koja navode medije i novinare da po{- tuju pravila koja je uspostavila profesija. M*A*S ima trostruki cilj: 1. Da pomogne novinarima da bolje slu`e javnosti, 2. Da pomogne novinarima da razvijaju profesiju, da osete me|usobnu solidarnost, 3. Da pomogne novinarima da povrate poverenje javnosti i, time, podr{ku javnosti kako bi se odu- prli politi~kim i ekonomskim pritiscima. 5  Nije neuobi~ajeno tako razli~ite pojedinosti okupi- ti u jedan koncept. Ali to se opravdava time {to sve one dele osnovnu karakteristiku: sve one imaju za cilj po- bolj{anje izve{tavanja javnosti od strane medija–i ve}ina njih omogu}ava medijima da oslu{nu javnost. Pogledajmo sada neke PREDNOSTI kojima se M*A*S odlikuje – {to obja{njava za{to zaslu`uje pa`nju. 1. M*A*S je ne{kodljiv. 2. M*A*S je raznolik. To mogu da budu dokumen- ti: tekstovi ili emisije, ljudi (pojedinci ili grupe) ili procesi (brzi ili spori). Oni mogu da budu interne ili eksterne medijske prirode, ili da uklju- ~uju saradnju ljudi iz medija i ljudi van njih. Pored toga, mo`e da se napravi razlika izme|u M*A*S-a koji deluje na lokalnom, regionalnom, nacionalnom ili me|unarodnom nivou ili ~ak na sva ~etiri nivoa (poput saveta za {tampu). Ili, opet, razlika izme|u onih koji proizvode efekat koji je trenutni, ili kratkotrajan ili dugotrajan. 3. M*A*S je fleksibilan. On mo`e lako da se pri- lagodi razli~itim okolnostima. 4. Elementi M*A*S-a dopunjavaju jedni druge. Dok nijedan nije dovoljan, svi su korisni. I svi mogu da funkcioni{u jedan sa drugim. 5. M*A*S je demokratski. Osim nekoliko retkih izuzetaka, sve elemente M*A*S-a pokre}e pro- fesija ili javnost (a ne dr`ava). 6  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

6. M*A*S je efikasan, ako ni zbog ~ega drugog, onda zbog ~injenice da deluje tamo gde su se druga sredstva uticaja pokazala nemo}nim. Na primer, zakon ili sile tr`i{ta ne mogu mnogo da uti~u na slabosti novinarske tradicije. Imaju}i u vidu sve ove prednosti, za{to je M*A*S tako malo prihva}en i tako malo kori{}en? Zbog jedne stvari, on nije poznat. A ukoliko su upoznati s njim, odbo- jnost vlada zato {to M*A*S, jednostavno, predstavlja novinu. Uop{teno govore}i, koje su OPTU@BE koje se iznose protiv njega? 1. M*A*S pripada odnosima sa javno{}u. Ako je to ta~no, za{to su oni koji donose odluke u mediji- ma tako neprijateljski raspolo`eni prema njemu? 2. On je deo zavere protiv slobode izra`avanja i slobodnog preduzetni{tva: vlade }e ga koristiti da bi cenzurisale izve{tavanje. To se nikada nije dogodilo. 3. On je, u principu, neprihvatljiv za novinare. Prema Kodeksu Me|unarodne federacije nov- inara (1954), „novinar priznaje, u profesionalnoj materiji, samo nadle`nost svojih kolega; on isklju~uje svaku vrstu uplitanja vlade ili drugih“. Danas, novinarima su potrebni ti „drugi“. 4. M*A*S je neefikasan: dobrim medijima nije potrebna kontrola kvaliteta; lo{i mediji ga nika- 7  da ne}e prihvatiti ukoliko ih zakon na to ne primora. 5. Stvarna mo} le`i u rukama vlasnika medija: za njih je prodaja dovoljan pokazatelj procene satisfakcije javnosti. Ako je javnost zaista ljuta, neka idu na sud. Novinari ne mogu sebi da priu{te neprijateljst- vo poslodavaca, insistiraju}i na po{tovanju eti~kih pravila. [to se ti~e javnosti, ona je heterogena i neorganizovana. Ona veruje da je nemo}na. Nema vremena, merodavnost i motivaciju da se me{a. 6. Neki M*A*S su skupi, ako treba valjano da obave posao, {to zna~i brzo i o~igledno. I bolje je da se od dr`ave ne tra`e finasije, novinari nemaju novac za to, a vlasnici medija nisu skloni da plate. 7. Poslednji, i najosnovaniji, prigovor: M*A*S ne poga|a pravi cilj. Novinari ~ine manje grehove, a medijske kompanije ~ine smrtne grehove. Pa ipak, tradicionalno, medijska etika se fokusira na novinarima, koji, na kraju, budu `rtveni jarci. Poslednji argument me je naveo da poverujem da medijska etika nije samo u tome da mediji postanu eti~ki orjentisani nego da novinari postanu nezavisni, zahvalju- ju}i podr{ci {iroke javnosti. Otpor i prepreke prema M*A*S-u su takve da, ako pogledate medijsko okru`enje, mo`ete da ih primetite tek nekoliko i da steknete utisak da nisu uspeli da na|u upori{te. 8  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

U STVARI, mnogi elementi M*A*S-a su postali normalni deo tog okru`enja da se vi{e i ne prime}uju, naro~ito oni manje spektakularni, manje sporni, kao {to su eti~ki kodeks, knjige kritika, univerzitetska obuka za novinare, rubrike za ispravke, redovne strane novina posve}ene medijima, ankete ~italaca, itd. U svojoj borbi za nezavisnost, novinari ne mogu da o~ekuju preveliku podr{ku vlasnika medija ili zakono- davaca. Pa, po{to je njihov broj neznatan i po{to su oni samo radnici u kompaniji, jedini na~in da budu autonom- ni je da od javnosti naprave svoje saveznike, da udru`e snage sa masama. M*A*S je izuzetno raznolik, ali svaki deo ima za cilj da pobolj{a izve{tavanje, koriste}i evaluaciju, nad- ziranje, edukaciju, povratnu informaciju i komuni- kaciju. Navodimo listu od preko 110, a mogu se, i ho- }e, smisliti novi. (Pogledaj www.media-accountability.org). Najo~iglednija klasifikacija M*A*S-a je u tri grupe, u skladu sa njihovom stvarnom prirodom: dokumenti ({tampani ili emitovani) / ljudi (pojedinci ili grupe) / procesi (dugotrajni ili kratkotrajni).

9  Tekst, emisija ili vebsajt

– Pisani eti~ki kodeks, ili „eti~ki priru~nik“, koji sadr`i pravila koja su profesionalci u medijima raspravili i/ili o kojima su se slo`ili, po`eljno uklju~uju}i upliv javnosti, i o kojem javnost treba da bude obave{tena. – Interni memorandum koji podse}a osoblje na eti~ke principe (mo`da „tradiciju“ novine1) i koji pru`a smernice za pona{anje u odre|enim situacijama. – Dnevni interni samokriti~ki izve{taj koji je pode- ljen u redakciji.2 – Rubrika za ispravke ili kolumna3, {tampana tako da bude vidljiva. Ili da se izdvoji vreme da se ispravi gre{ka za vreme emitovanja. – Redovna kolumna/program „Pisma uredniku“, uklju~uju}i poruke koje kritikuju novine/~asopis/stanicu. – Upitnik koji se odnosi na ta~nost i pravi~nost, a {alje se osobama pomenutim u vestima ili se {tampa da ga ~itaoci popune.

1 Washington Post je svome „Standardi i etika“ dodao „Principe“ Eugene Meyera (nekada{njeg vlasnika) iz 1933. 2 Kao u Zero Hora, dnevne novine u Porto Alegreu u Brazilu. 3 Kao u Guardianu, britanskim kvalitetnim dnevnim novinama.

10  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

– Javna izjava nekog uglednog donosioca odluka o medijima, obilno citirana u vestima4. – Prostor ili vremenski okvir koji je otkupio pojed- inac, grupa ili firma da objave „otvoreno pismo“ o nekom medijskom pitanju5. – Povremeno „pismo urednika“, koje tuma~i vred- nosti i pravila i obja{njava kako mediji funkcioni{u. – Legenda koja tuma~i neku te{ku ure|iva~ku odluku da li ne{to da se objavi ili ne. – „Ure|iva~ki blog“ iskusnijih kolega koji obja- {njava aktivnosti i odluke; koji, tako|e, uvodi ~itaoca/gledaoca „iza kulisa“, i odgovara na njego- ve/njene primedbe6. – Periodi~ni bilten namenjen ~itaocima, {tampan kao dodatak ili poslat po{tom, u cilju informisanja o de{avanjima u novinskoj redakciji ili televizijskoj stanici. – Redovna kolumna, strana ili rubrika7 u novinama, ~asopisu, profesionalnoj reviji–ili radio ili televizijski

4 Dva govora podpredsednika SAD Spiro Agnewa protiv „liberal- nih“ medija iz 1969 do~ekana su velikim publicitetom. 5 Poput onog uperenog protiv toksi~ne popularne kulture koje je {tampano {irom SAD-a od strane 56 istaknutih Amerikanaca u julu 1999. 6 Kao {to su 2005. pokrenuli CBS mre`a i New York Times. 7 Poput Media Guardian koji se {tampa u izdanju Guardiana ponedeljkom (London).

11 program, koji se bavi pitanjima koja zadiru dublje nego {to su nova postavljenja i promene vlasni{tva u mediju. – Redovna kolumna o etici u stru~nom ~asopisu8. – Redovni izve{taji medijski orjentisanih gra|an- skih udru`enja, {tampanih u novinama. – „On-line“dnevnik, koji sadr`i informacije o do- ga|anjima u svetu medija, citate i kritike9. – Vebsajt strana koja sistematski objavljuje is- pravke medijskih gre{aka10. – ili `albe zaposlenih novinara11, – ili zloupotrebe ogla{iva~a12. – Vebsajt strana koja pru`a novinarima informacije i savete o „promovisanju odgovornosti“13. – Vebsajt strana posve}ena diskusijama o medi- jskim pitanjima (npr. mediji i deca).

8 Kao {to je mese~no izdanje„Ethics Corner“ u ~asopisu Editor & Publisher koje se {tampa od 1999. 9 Kao {to je Romenesko kolumna koja izlazi od 1998., na vebsajt strani Poynter instituta. 10 Kao {to je www.slipup.com u SAD 11 Kao {to je News Mait vebsajt u SAD koje je tri godine, do 1999., odr`avao Maurice Tamman. 12 Kao {to je www.adbusters.org u Vancouveru, koje su vodili ljudi iz biv{e Madison Avenue 13 Kao {to je IFJ (International Federation of Journalists) vebsajt za novinare iz Afrike: www.ifj.org/regions/africa.

12  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

– Deo novinske vebsajt strane posve}en trenutnoj reakciji ~italaca na neki odre|eni ~lanak14. – Vebsajt strana koja podu~ava javnost kako da procenjuje medije15. – Satiri~na prezentacija vesti, koja indirektno razotkriva slabosti redovnih TV vesti16. – „On-line“ novine ~iji celokupni materijal dostavl- jaju gra|ani.17 Ili ~itala~ki blogovi na novinskom sajtu, koji pokrivaju vesti i pitanja iz susedstva. [tampane novine mogu isto tako dobro da iskoriste priloge ~italaca.18 – Alternativni periodi~ni ~asopis (naro~ito onaj koji {tampaju manjine), neprofitna stanica ili vebsajt koji objavljuju ~injenice i daju gledi{ta, ignorisanih od strane glavnih medija, uklju~uju}i i kritike pomenutih medija. – „Novinarski pregled“, {tampan, emitovan ili objavljen na vebu19, posve}en, pre svega, kritici medija, 14 „On-line“ izdanje francuskih dnevnih novina Le Monde aktivno podr`ava takve povratne informacije. Isto tako i BBC News Online. 15 Kao {to je vebsajt San Francisco Bay Area John McManusa koja se fokusira na televizijske vesti: ww.gradethenews.org. 16 Kao {to je Daily Show on Comedy Central Jon Stewarta, veoma popularan kod mla|e publike. 17 Kao {to je Ohmy News u Ju`noj Koreji, koji koristi hiljade novinara-amatera i dnevno ima 2 miliona posetilaca. Sli~no je sa Scoop.co u Izraelu. 18 Dve strane u {panskim dnevnim novinama El Correo. Francuski Dépeche du midi je na ovaj na~in pove}ao osoblje na nekoliko hiljada 19 Kao {to je American JR (univerzitet Merilend) ili On-Line JR (univerzitet Ju`na Kalifornija).

13 koji razotkriva {ta su mediji iskrivili ili izostavili, i sve ostale grehove koje su reporteri i medijske ku}e po~inili. – „Strelice i lovorike“, stranica ili vebsajt, sastavlje- na od kratkih pri~a koje kritikuju ili hvale neku aktivnost medija, kakvu imaju mnogi novinarski pregledi.20 – Vodi~i „Ja~anje medija“ tj. uklju~ivanje u poli- tiku medija.21 – Godi{nji izve{taj novina koji prezentira socijalni i eti~ki pregled sadr`aja i usluga, i zasniva se na mi{ljen- jima hiljada ~italaca.22 – Objavljivanje na vebu celokupnih transkripata intervjua i mejlova od strane novinskih izvora u znak protesta zbog pristrasnosti ili iskrivljenja informacija. – Peticija, sa potpisima stotina ili hiljada ljudi, kako bi se izvr{io pritisak na medije, direktno ili putem ogla{iva~a ili preko neke regulatorne agencije. – Godi{nja zbirka novinskih kritika, koju su sas- tavili reporteri ili korisnici medija, a uredili akademici.23

20 Vidi, isto tako, interni bilten „Winners and Sinners“ koji dis- tribuira New York Times. 21 Kao onaj koji se {tampa u SAD za Sindikat potro{a~a. Ili knji- ga boraca protiv dezinformacija na temu kako dobiti pristup kolumnama dnevnika Le Monde. 22 Britanski Guardian i Observer to ~ine od 2003. U [vedskoj, sli~an pregled {tampaju univerzitet u Geteborgu i udru`enje izdava~a. 23 Poput one koju je izdao univerzitet u Tampere, Finska, nakon jednog godi{njeg seminara na istu temu.

14  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

– Blog koji vodi novinar ili amater, a koji pa`ljivo prati glavne medije, kritikuju}i {ta ovi objavljuju, a {ta ne.24 – ^lanak, izve{taj, knjiga, film, TV serija o mediji- ma, koji informi{u o medijima i koji su, bar u izvesnoj meri, kriti~ki orjentisani. – Periodi~ni bilten, poslat mejlom pretplatnicima od strane organizacija koje nadgledaju medije.25 – Pregled grupa potro{a~a (na regionalnom ili nacionalnom nivou) koji se povremeno bavi medijima. – Vebsajt koji otkriva kako strani mediji izve{tava- ju o va{oj zemlji, sa prevedenim ~lancima.26 – Televizijska mre`a27 ili nedeljni ~asopis28, sastavl- jen u potpunosti od materijala preuzetog iz stranih medi- ja, koji omogu}ava korisnicima da procene svoje sop- stvene medije. – Neprofitni dnevni list, imun na pritiske akcionara ili ogla{iva~a.29 – (Veoma izuzetno) Novine koje je izdava~ dodelio novinarskoj {koli da poslu`e za „uve`bavanje“.30 24 Kao univerziteski Media Lens u Britaniji koji „ispravlja izo- bli~enu viziju korporativnih medija“. 25 Kao {to je FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) i Project Censored u SAD. 26 Poput Watching America u SAD, koji sadr`i ~lanke, audio i video snimke. 27 Kao {to je SBS u Australiji. 28 Poput Courrier International u Francuskoj. 29 Kao {to je St Petersburg Times (Florida), ~ija zarada odlazi odli~nom Poynter Institutu. 30 Anniston Star, ~ija su sredstva predata 2003. fondaciji koja }e zajedno sa univerzitetom Alabama voditi program „@urnalisti- ka u zajednici“.

15  Pojedinci ili grupe

– Interni kriti~ar ili „komisija koja se bavi pro- cenom sadr`aja“31, u cilju pomnog pra}enja novina ili nadgledanja stanica koje kr{e kodeks–bez obelodanjivan- ja nalaza javnosti. – Eti~ki komitet ili „grupa sastavljena od osoblja koje vr{i recenzije“ (rotiraju}i panel novinara), ustanovl- jena da raspravlja i/ili odlu~uje o eti~kim pitanjima, po`eljno pre nego {to se ona pojave. – Instruktor etike koji povremeno radi u redakciji, u cilju podizanja eti~ke svesti reportera, podsticanja debate i pru`anja saveta o specifi~nim problemima. – Reporter iz medija, zadu`en da prati medijsku industriju i dostavlja javnosti potpune, nepristrasne izve{taje.32 – Kriti~ar sa strane kojeg novine pla}aju da pi{e redovnu kolumnu o istim novinama. – „Duva~ u pi{taljku“ (prim. prev. slu`benik koji obelodani nezakonite radnje dr`avnog organa ili

31 Kao {to je shinsa-shitsu, osnovana od strane japanskih dnevnih novina jo{ 1920. 32 Najpoznatiji David Shaw (Los Angeles Times) dobio je nagradu Pulitzer 1992.

16  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

funkcionera, ili radnje unutar neke druge ustanove) koji se odva`i da objavi neku zloupotrebu unutar medijske ku}e. – Novinar–potro{a~ koji upozorava ~itaoce / gledaoce na zloupotrebu ogla{avanja–i interveni{e u nji- hovu korist.33 – Ombudsman, „urednik zadu`en za odnose sa ~itaocima“, ili tim reportera zaposlenih u novinama ili stanici, koji primaju sugestije i `albe potro{a~a, istra`uju, ostvaruju nadoknadu, ako je potrebno, i (obi~no) izve{tavaju o svojim aktivnostima. – Biro za `albe ili servis za potro{a~e koji prima- ju `albe i zahteve.34 – Disciplinski odbor, ustanovljen od strane sindika- ta ili nekog drugog profesionalnog udru`enja, koji se brine da kodeks bude po{tovan – po cenu isklju~enja. – Sindikati novinara su svuda pokazivali veliki interes za medijsku etiku, sastavljali kodekse ili pokretali savete za {tampu. – Kontrola kontrolora, koja nadgleda ustanovljeni M*A*S.35

33 Kao timovi „Action Line“, uobi~ajeni u novinama u SAD od 1970-ih. 34 Kao BBC u Britaniji. 35 Kao FPS udru`enje u Nema~koj, koje nadzire savet za {tampu i druge elemente M*A*S-a.

17  – Odbor za vezu, zajedni~ki osnovan od strane medija i neke dru{tvene grupe sa kojom mediji dolaze u povremene sukobe.36 – Gra|anin, primljen u ure|iva~ki odbor; ili njih nekoliko (~esto izabranih izme|u potro{a~a koji su se `alili) koji se pozivaju da prisustvuju dnevnom sastanku novina. – Grupa (ili nekoliko stru~nih grupa) ~italaca/slu- {alaca/gledalaca koja se redovno konsultuje37 – ^itala~ki savetodavni odbor koji slu`i kao o~i i u{i novina u svojim zajednicama.38 – Klub (~italaca/slu{alaca/gledalaca) koji koristi razne pogodnosti da privu~e ~lanove i podstakne ih na dijalog o nekom mediju (naj~e{}e ~asopisu). – Radio klub u kojem se zajedno slu{aju i raspravl- jaju razli~ita pitanja, dostavljaju lokalne vesti i predlozi regionalnom emiteru koji, sa svoje strane, obezbe|uje opremu i obuku.39 – Lokalni savet za {tampu, tj. redovni sastanci pro- fesionalaca iz lokalnih medija i predstavnika zajednice.

36 Npr. policija ili neka imigrantska manjina. 37 U Meksiku, asocijacija novina Reforma koristi 60 „~itala~kih odbora“ zadu`enih za razli~ite oblasti. U Argentini, La Nacion ima 1500 ~italaca koje konsultuje dva puta mese~no. 38 Kakav koristi Journal Sentinel u Milvokiju. 39 Uobi~ajeno u sub-saharskoj Africi, npr. Burkini, Beninu, Ni- geriji i Kongu.

18  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

– Nacionalni (ili regionalni) savet za {tampu, ustanovljen od strane profesionalnih udru`enja vlasnika medijskih ku}a i novinara, i koji, naravno, uklju~uje predstavnike javnosti–da se zala`e za slobodu {tampe i da razmatra `albe korisnika medija. – Nacionalni ombudsman, postavljen od strane {tampanih medija da razmatra `albe, bilo zajedno sa savetom za {tampu ([vedska) ili nezavisno (Ju`na Afrika). – Kontrolna agencija, koju je osnovala neka indus- trija povezana sa medijima (npr. ogla{iva~ka) da filtrira sadr`aj–i zahteva da se neki sadr`aji ne objave, iz eti~kih razloga.40 – Borbeno nastrojeno udru`enje posve}eno reformi medija41 ili pomaganju ljudima koji imaju pritu`be protiv medija.42 – „Medijske opservatorije“ koje su osnovali nov- inari u cilju pra}enja napada na slobodu {tampe i pridr- `avanja kodeksa, primanja `albi, raspravljanja eti~kih pi- tanja sa izdava~ima. – Udru`enja mnogih nevladinih organizacija koja se bave odre|enom materijom (grupe za gra|anska prava, radni~ki sindikati, potro{a~ka udru`enja itd.) i bore za bolje medije.43

40 Kao {to je BVP (Bureau de vérification de la publicité) u Francuskoj ili Advertising Standards Authority u Britaniji. 41 Npr. FAIR u SAD (www.fair.org) 42 Npr. PressWise u Britaniji (www.presswise.org.uk) 43 Jedno takvo udru`enje u SAD je primoralo Kongres da poni{ti odre|enu deregulaciju medija 2004.

19  – Fondacija koja finansira projekte ili institucije ~iji je cilj pobolj{anje medija.44

– Institucija povezana sa medijima, nacionalna45 ili me|unarodna, koja ima posredni ili neposredni interes u promovisanju kvaliteta medija46 putem konferencija, sem- inara, publikacija itd.

– „Kombinacija M*A*S -a“ kao {to je institut Poynter na Floridi, koji se bavi istra`ivanjem, skupljan- jem podataka, izdavanjem publikacija, obukom, pru`a- njem saveta.

– Nacionalna ili me|unarodna nevladina organi- zacija koja se bori za slobodu i dobrobit novinara.47

– Nevladina organizacija koja obu~ava novinare i pru`a besplatne usluge medijima u demokratijama u razvoju (Isto~na Evropa) i u nerazvijenim zemljama.

– Nevladina organizacija koja organizuje redovne javne debate ili kampanje o pitanjima koja se ti~u medija.48

44 Poput fondacije Friedrich Ebert ili fondacije Friedrich- Naumann u Nema~koj ili Pew Charitable Trusts u SAD. 45 Kao npr. AEJMC (Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communications) u SAD. 46 Kao {to su International Press Institute ili World Association of Newspapers. 47 Npr. RSF, Reporters Sans Fontieres ili Committee of Concerned Journalists u SAD. 48 Mogu se na}i u Britaniji (MediaWatch) i u ^e{koj.

20  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

– Grupa gra|ana (kao {to je sindikat ili udru`enje roditelja) koja iz posebnih interesa koje zastupa i/ili zbog javnih interesa (npr. dobrobit dece49) nadgleda medije–ili napada odre|enu metu, kao sto je ogla{avanje.50 – Udru`enje potro{a~a, naro~ito medijskih korisni- ka, koji koriste informativne sastanke, nadgledanje, ankete javnog mnjenja, evaluacije, lobiranje, kampanje putem po{te, ~ak i bojkot, kako bi dobili bolje usluge.51 – Komisija koju je osnovao parlament52, ali koja je nazavisna, sa zadatkom da temeljno prou~ava glavna pitanja medija, kao {to je koncentracija vlasni{tva. – Tim, koji je imenovala neka dru{tvena grupa (`ene, etni~ke manjine, lekari itd.), da nagleda pokrive- nost u medijima koju dobijaju. – Grupa predstavnika novinara u redakciji, kojima su data odre|ena prava, kao {to to zakon dozvoljava u Nema~koj ili kako se to zahteva u Portugalu. – Esnaf novinara, regulisan pisanim zakonom, ali potpuno nezavisan, ~ija je svrha da formuli{e i sprovodi eti~ka pravila.53

49 Kao ANDI u Braziliji koja nadgleda brazilske medije i izve- {tava na koji na~in tretiraju decu. 50 Kao„Résistance a l’agression publicitaire“ u Francuskoj. 51 Kao {to je {panski FIATYR, federacija udru`enja medijskih ko- risnika u svakoj provinciji. 52 U Britaniji i u Australiji, ona je nazvana Royal Commission. 53 Npr. Ordine dei Giornalisti u Italiji.

21  – Udru`enje izdava~a i urednika koji raspravljaju o pitanjima i promovi{u kvalitet.54 – Tim koji je formirala grupa specijalizovanih nov- inara (novinari koji se bave istra`ivanjem, `ene itd.) u cilju razmenjivanja informacija i promovisanja sop- stvenih interesa. – „Société de rédacteurs“, udru`enje celokupnog osoblja u redakciji, koje zahteva uticaj na ure|iva~ku politiku– po`eljno je da poseduju akcije u firmi tako da svoj glas u~ine bitnim.55 – „Société de lecteurs“, udru`enje ~italaca, koji su kupili ili su im date akcije neke medijske ku}e i koji zahtevaju uticaj.56 Zvu~i razumno da se u ovu kategoriju, tako|e, uklju~e tri tipa institucija, koje bi neki stru~njaci isklju~ili iz koncepcije M*A*S-a. Pod uslovom da ne primaju naloge od vlade, i u onoj meri u kojoj je njihova svrha pobolj{anje medijskih usluga, ne ~ini se mogu}im da se one potpuno izostave. Njih mo`emo da nazovemo po- mo}ni M*A*S ili para-M*A*S. – Regulatorna agencija, ustanovljena zakonski, pod uslovom da je zaista nezavisna, naro~ito ako prima `albe korisnika medija.57

54 Kao {to je Verein fur Qualitat in Journalismus u zemljama nema~kog govornog podru~ja. 55 Prvo je osnovano u francuskom dnevnom listu Le Monde (1951) 56 Kao {to je slu~aj sa Le Monde, od kojeg poseduju oko 11%. 57 Kao {to je italijanski Ordine dei Giornalisti (Stale` novinara) ili francuski francuski Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovisuel (ekvi- valent FCC u SAD). Dva veoma razli~ita tipa institucija.

22  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

– Me|unarodna radiodifuzna kompanija, javna ili privatna, koja se emituje putem kratkih radio talasa ili satelita, a koja ote`ava nacionalnim medijima da prikri- vaju ili izobli~uju vesti.58 – Autonomna nekomercijalna radiodifuzna kom- panija59, ~ija je jedina svrha da slu`i javnosti i koja pred- stavlja indirektnu kritiku komercijalnih medija. Ova kat- egorija mo`e da se pro{iri i uklju~i sve visoko kvalitetne medije ~iji je primarni cilj dobro novinarstvo i koji mogu da poslu`e kao model.

58 Npr. BBC World Service ili CNN – ili jedna poljska radio stan- ica usmerena protiv Belorusije. 59 Kao {to je NSK u Japanu ili ARD u Nema~koj.

23  Procesi

– Visoka {kolska sprema, od presudnog zna~aja za M*A*S. Kvalitetni mediji bi trebalo da zapo{ljavaju samo ljude sa univerzitetskom diplomom, po`eljno (ma- da je ovo sporno) iz oblasti masovnih komunikacija. – Poseban kurs o medijskoj etici, obavezan za sve studente `urnalistike. – Dodatno obrazovanje za zaposlene novinare: jednodnevne radionice, jednonedeljni seminari, {estome- se~ne ili jednogodi{nje stipendije na univerzitetima. Ta- kvi programi, sasvim uobi~ajeni u SAD60, u drugim zem- ljama veoma su retki. – Interni program podizanja svesti kako bi se po- ve}ala pa`nja koju medijski radnici posve}uju potrebama gra|ana, naro~ito `enama i kulturnim, etni~kim, seksual- nim i drugim manjinama; ili – Da se ~itaocima ponudi bilten vesti i da se kon- sultuju {ta bi `eleli da vide slede}eg dana na naslovnoj strani.61

60 Kao {to su stipendije Knight na univerzitetu Stanford ili Nieman na univerzitetu Harvard. 61 Kao {to to radi Las Ultimas Noticias u ^ileu, ili Wisconsin State Journal u SAD.

24  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

– Podu~avanje novinara kako da na odgovaraju}i na~in odgovore ~itaocima, slu{aocima, gledaocima tele- fonom ili putem veba. – Interna istraga velikih propusta u mediju (ozbiljne neta~nosti, neosnovani izve{taji, nedostatak odgovaraju}eg izve{tavanja itd.)62 – Obuka novinara, putem seminara i publikacija, kako da se organizuju i bore za kvalitet.63 – Sastavljanje baze podataka svih gre{aka unutar neke medijske ku}e (tip, uzrok, ume{ane osobe) kako bi se spoznali obrasci i preduzele odre|ene mere. – Interna studija nekog pitanja koja uklju~uje javnost (kao {to su odnosi novina sa potro{a~ima). – Eti~ki revizor: stru~njaci sa strane dolaze i ocen- juju svest o etici, smernice, pona{anje unutar novinske ku}e ili stanice. – Davanje imejl adresa i/ili telefonskih brojeva urednika ili novinara (kad god se {tampa neki njihov ~lanak) – (Sporno) „pripisivanje“ citata izvorima kako bi se izbegle gre{ke.64 – Program „Mediji u {koli“ kako bi se deca od ranog uzrasta nau~ila razumevanju i pravilnom ko- ri{}enju medija. – Kampanja „Medijska pismenost“ kako bi se edu- kovala i mobilisala javnost.

62 Kao {to je to uradio CBS prilikom grube oma{ke Dan Rathera (2004) ili New York Times prilikom plagijata Jayson Blaira i njegovog nekriti~kog predratnog izve{tavanja iz Iraka. 63 Ono {to ~ini MediaWise u Britaniji. 64 Kao {to Wall Street Journal ohrabruje svoje novinare da ~ine.

25  – Vreme za slu{anje: jednom nedeljno ili povre- meno, urednici odgovaraju na telefonske pozive ~italaca.65 – Redovni susreti novinara sa obi~nim gra|anima u pres klubu–prilikom sastanaka lokalne zajednice–ili ~ak organizovana gostovanja66! – Redovna (npr. tromese~na) istra`ivanja javnog mnjenja (ankete, javni sastanci, internet forumi), naru~ena od strane medija kako bi se dobila povratna informacija od anonimnih ljudi; isto tako, upitnik na veb- sajtu novina ili stanice. – Nacionalno istra`ivanje stava javnosti prema svim ili nekim medijima (npr. prema javnoj radiodifuziji). – Anketiranje javnosti ili odre|enih grupa kako bi se pratio nivo zadovoljstva za razliku od konvencionalnih sistema prodaje, visine tira`a i akcija. – Nekomercijalno istra`ivanje, koje obavljaju, uglavnom, akademici na univerzitetima, ali isto tako insti- tuti za intelektualne usluge ili nau~ne ustanove67, studije sadr`aja u medijima (ili njihovo odsustvo68), ili kako javnost prima poruke u medijima ili uticaj tih poruka. – Organizovanje povremene uli~ne demonstracije kako bi se promovisala odre|ena stvar.69

65 Kao {to je to praksa u nekim brazilskim novinama. 66 Belgijske dnevne novine La Libre Belgique su organizovale ta- kva gostovanja. 67 Kao {to je Evropski institut za medije u Dizeldorfu, Nema~ka. 68 Npr. Project Censored u SAD. 69 Godine 2005., organizacije koje nadziru medije u Rumuniji osnovale su „Sajam informacija“ u znak protesta protiv uznemi- ravanja od strane vlade.

26  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

– Sponzorisanje nacionalnog ili regionalnog foru- ma povodom nekog krupnog pitanja (npr. Hutchinsova komisija u SAD 1937–1947) ili pitanje ograni~enog zna~aja, kao {to je lokalno izve{tavanje. – Godi{nja konferencija koja okuplja ljude koji donose odluke u medijima, politi~ke lidere ili pred- stavnike gra|anskih grupa svih profila.70 – Godi{nji seminar na temu novinarske kritike koji organizuje {kola `urnalistike.71 – Privla~enje najinteligentnijih umova u `urnalis- tiku kreiraju}i, na taj na~in, mostove izme|u akademije i medija.72 – Me|unarodna saradnja kako bi se promovisali kvalitet i odgovornost medija.73 – Nagrada ili drugi znakovi satisfakcije, kako bi se nagradili kvalitetni mediji, eti~ki-orjentisani novinari74 ili anti-nagrada75.

70 Poput one koja se odr`avala do 2005., „Université de la Communication“ krajem avgusta, u Carcans-Maubuisson, kas- nije u Hourtin, u jugozapadnoj Francuskoj. 71 Kao onaj na univerzitetu Tampere u Finskoj. 72 Npr. Reuters koji je osnovao Journalism Institute u Oxfordu. Izdava~ milioner Steven Brill koji je ustanovio takvu obuku na univerzitetu Yale. 73 Kao {to je AIPCE (European Alliance of Press Councils) ili Ibero-American Federation of Ombudsmen. 74 Kao ona koja je ustanovljena 1999. od strane J-School na uni- verzitetu Oregon. 75 Npr. „Silver Sewer Award“ koju dodeljuje Empower America, konzervativna medijska kontrolna ustanova.

27  INTERNI, EKSTERNI I KOOPERATIVNI M*A*S

Druga klasifikacija M*A*S -a zavisi od toga ko u~estvuje u njemu: neki elementi M*A*S -a funkcioni{u isklju~ivo unutar novina ili emiterske stanice; neki posto- je van njih i uspevaju da izbegnu kontrolu; drugi zahteva- ju da ljudi iz medija i van njih sara|uju. Me|utim, ove odrednice nisu striktne: one dozvoljavaju opcije da se jedan elemenat M*A*S -a pretopi u bilo koja druga dva. • Interni M*A*S se sastoji od prave samo-regu- lacije, kontrole kvaliteta u u`em smislu. • Eksterni M*A*S pokazuje da se odgovornost mo`e primeniti na medijima bez njihovog prih- vatanja; njegov cilj nije reparacija o{te}enih poje- dinaca, ve} korist za celokupnu javnost. • Kooperativni M*A*S je, sigurno, najzanimljiviji po{to podrazumeva da {tampa, profesionalci i javnost mogu da se udru`e u cilju postizanja kon- trole kvaliteta.

28  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

Interni M*A*S Rubrika za ispravke, kolumna Eti~ki kodeks Medijska strana/program Eti~ki odbor Pismo urednika, legenda Disciplinski odbor Blog sa prilozima {ta se de{ava Organizovana obuka iza scene Periodi~ni bilten Duva~ u pi{taljku za pretplatnike Medijski reporter Redakcijski odbor Potro{a~ki reporter Medijska opservatorija Interni kriti~ar Esnaf novinara Dnevni samokriti~ki izve{taj Udru`enje novinara Istra`ni panel Udru`enje specijalizovanih novinara Medijski blog koji vodi Udru`enje izdava~a i urednika novinar Komisija koja vr{i evaluaciju Organizacije me|unarodne za{tite Agencija koja filtrira sadr`aj Izdavanje materijala iz inostranstva Interna studija razli~itih pitanja Inostrani stavovi o sopstvenoj zemlji Anketa ~italaca Neprofitne novine Eti~ki revizor Instruktor etike (Javna radiodifuzija) Interni memorandum (Me|unarodna radiodifuzija) Program podizanja svesti (Mediji orjentisani na pru`anje kvalitetnih usluga)

29  Eksterni M*A*S Blog sa informacijama ~italaca Javna izjava ugledne li~nosti Alternativni mediji Visoka {kolska sprema Satiri~ni prikazi vesti Obavezni kurs etike Dnevni izve{taji o medijima Istra`ivanje javnog mnjenja o medijima Novinarski pregled Kampanja medijske pismenosti „Strelice i lovorike“ Vebsajt medijske pismenosti Kriti~ki blogovi Program Mediji u {kolama Vebsajt strane povezane Potro{a~ka grupa sa medijima Blog koji vode izvori vesti Udru`enje borbeno nastrojenih gra|ana Kriti~ka knjiga/izve{taj/film Nadzornici profesionalnih grupa Vodi~i tipa kako posti}i uticaj Nevladine organizacije koje slu`e medijima Kontrola kontrolora Parlamentarna komisija Peticija da se izvr{i pritisak na medije Ad hoc udru`enje (Nezavisna regulatorna agencija)

30  M*A*S Media Accountability Systems – SISTEMI MEDIJSKE ODGOVORNOSTI

Kooperativni M*A*S Pisma uredniku Gra|anin u redakciji On-line razglasna tabla Klub ~italaca/gledalaca Kolumnista sa strane Lokalni savet za {tampu koji pi{e o medijima Ombudsman Godi{nja konferencija Biro za `albe Seminar na temu kritike medija Vreme za slu{anje Obuka inostranih blogera koje obavljaju urednici Upitnik ta~nosti i pravi~nosti Godi{nja knjiga posve}ena kritici medija Godi{nji samokontrolni Nacionalni savet za {tampu izve{taj Gradiranje vesti Nacionalni ombudsman Medijski barometer Odbor za vezu Pla}eni oglasi Povremena demonstracija Susreti sa javno{}u Udru`enje povezano sa medijima Vebsajt posve}en reakciji Me|unarodna saradnja javnosti Panel korisnika medija Obuka nevladinih organizacija Pozivanje ~italaca u redakciju Vi{enamenski centar ^itaoci biraju naslovnu stranu Kontinuirano obrazovanje Gra|ansko novinarstvo Institucije koje slu`e kao mostovi Radio klubovi Nagrada ili druga vrsta stimu- lacije Imejl adresa i broj telefona novinara

31 Za vi{e informacija, pogledajte dve knjige ~iji je autor Claude-Jean BERTRAND (cjbertrand@noos.fr): – Sistemi medijske etike i odgovornosti, New Brunswick (NJ), Transaction, 2000–164 strane (Original {tampan na francuskom jeziku, prevedena u Jermeniji, Brazilu, Kini, Gruziji, Gr~koj, Italiji, Japanu, Koreji, Portugalu, Rumuniji i Turskoj). Prevo|enje na albanski, poljski i ruski u toku. – Arsenal za demokratiju: sistemi medijske odgov- ornosti, Creskill (NJ) Hampton Press, 2003–420 strane. (Original {tampan na francuskom jeziku (Economica, 1999), prevedena u Brazilu (2002) i Japanu (2003)).

32