Public/Private Priority

Journalists have two lives that are meant to be kept separate but are invariably intertwined.

They are observers of the public and members of the public itself.

They are keepers of the public interest and have self interest.

They are watchdogs that are watched.

So what is their main role? And how is that role upheld?

Some of journalists’ most important roles (serving a watchdog, informing and seeking the truth) are included in the larger concept of accountability. A journalist’s role is to keep public and private institutions accountable for their actions. But news media are usually private institutions that operate in the public interest.

News councils are intended to uphold journalists’ role as keepers of accountability.
These councils are accessible to the public, and even incorporate laypersons to hear complaints against the media. The accessibility of the councils is certainly positive for the media because courts are avoided. News councils enable complaints to be settled without legal involvement, which means no legal fees and no legal reparations – a benefit for citizens and the media.

Doesn’t the public already hold the media accountable for its actions? We run corrections, we avoid libel, we use direct quotes …. And if wrongdoing is done, there are consequences in place in accordance with the legal system. Why is the legal system not good enough? Are the decisions the courts make lacking in some way?
I don’t think so.

And the courts are arguably just as public as a news council would be. If anything, I think journalists take the courts more seriously than they would a news council. Harsher punishments are a good way to stave off libel.

A benefit of complaints filed through a news council and not the courts is accessibility. By involving laypersons and journalists in the decision-making process, complainants’ and journalists’ interests are well represented. The Minnesota News Council requires a waiver from complainants “agreeing to use the News Council, rather than the courts to resolve” their issues with the news organization.
But does working directly with the public to solve discrepancies help journalists’ credibility more than stepping around the court system could hurt accountability?
It seems that by instituting a news council, the media would be saying to the public: we need to be regulated more than the courts regulate us, and we need the public to hold us accountable for more than they already to. Is that the truth? Do the courts not work enough? Does the public feel so disconnected from the media that they feel stepped on by the same entity that is meant to help them?

The public needs to know that the media’s role is accountability – to them and to itself. Audiences should be able to tell from a medium’s news coverage that the media are accountable to them and are serving them. If audiences don’t see that, then they either aren’t being served correctly or the audiences’ opinion of the media has been warped by negative experiences or naiveté. Instead of instituting news councils, the media should start by evaluating their practices and how they are serving the public before they consider how they are serving themselves as a private business.