The Wentegate or the rise of citizens as
Fifth estate and spontaneous
media co-regulators[1]
Full Professor
Department of
Communication
University of
Ottawa
mbernier@uottawa.ca
Introduction
September 25,
2012, Margaret Wente, a columnist for the Toronto-based newspaper The Globe and Mail, was forced to defend
herself against a growing number of plagiarism accusations. Although the
paper’s public editor, Sylvia Stead, had smoothed things over a few days prior
(Stead 2012), criticism in social media continued to mount, and the story was
beginning to appear in the traditional media.
The day before,
the paper’s editor-in-chief recognized that Wente had not followed the proper
sourcing standards. He also stated that disciplinary measures were taken,
without specifying their nature, but did mention that Wente would remain on
staff. It was also announced that, in the future, Stead would report directly
to the publisher rather than to the newsroom, which is the practice in many
news organizations, to avoid the perception of bias (Ladurantaye 2012). This action acknowledges and addresses a problem that can
potentially damage the credibility of the public editor, despite the importance
of this role as one of journalism’s self-regulatory mechanisms.
The Globe and
Mail’s publisher
added a note in the header of the electronic archive version of Wente’s column,
stating that the author had paraphrased ideas that were not hers and had not
provided proper references (Stead 2012). Wente claims, however, that the
mistake she made was reproducing notes that she had taken down some time ago.
Wente goes on to condemn the growing vigilance of the public, asserting that
journalists and the media are now under constant scrutiny. She also takes issue
with Carol Wainio, a University of Ottawa professor and editor of the Media Culpa blog dedicated to exposing
what she sees as errors in the media. Wente claims that she is persecuted by
this blog, calling it nothing more than an “obsessive” list of accusations of
plagiarism and factual errors (Wente 2012).
Without getting
into the details of this particular story, which some have referred to as Wentegate (Alzner 2012), it is easy to grasp
the magnitude of citizen vigilance as voiced in social media networks, blogs,
and other Internet forums. Wente’s case is not unique – Rathergate was likely the first warning shot of growing citizen
vigilance on social media networks, which at the time were only just emerging[2].
Another example is that of the Chicago
Tribune journalist fired for making up sources in his news story;
professional misconduct that was quickly reported in the blogosphere (Levy
2012).
These cases are more than mere
anecdotes. They reveal a trend that has been acknowledged and addressed in many
countries, namely, that the public has taken up the role of criticizing the
news media and journalism practices. There was a time when the press was
the sole gatekeeper of public discourse, especially for matters where it was
concerned, but this is no longer the case. Gone are the days when public
criticism of the media could only seldom be heard in the public sphere, a space
unavoidably guarded by journalists. Until recently, the media organizations set
the agenda. They were the ones who selected which issues were up for discussion
and which critical voices could be heard. They used to enjoy a monopoly of
sorts with the self-regulatory mechanisms they created (press councils,
ombudsman, and press mediators). However, the effectiveness, independence and credibility
of these measures are often questioned in a number of countries.
The Internet and the interactions
made possible by social media have opened the floodgates to public media criticism.
Whether or not the criticism is relevant or valid is another debate, but the
role played by ordinary citizens as standards setters is not to be ignored and
is bound to reach unprecedented significance. The media can no longer claim its
self-regulatory measures are adequate to ensure the quality and integrity of information,
since citizens are so quick to point out its shortcomings. Citizens must now be
considered as media’s co-regulators.
Media accountability
Media and
journalists claim to serve the public’s right to information and expect the
highest degree of freedom to achieve this end. Journalists’ social legitimacy
depends on an implicit social contract between themselves and civil society, whereby
they are granted certain rights and responsibilities. This also justifies the
creation of accountability measures to ensure that the responsibilities are
accepted in compliance with the terms of the social contract (Bernier 1995).
This contract
is based on three principles, namely; representation, responsibility, and
accountability. Representation hinges on the notion that journalists act on
behalf of citizens (journalists act in citizens’ interest; they ask questions and
seek information on their behalf, etc.); responsibility, that journalists are
responsible in the use of their freedoms and privileges (professional codes of
ethics set out their responsibilities and obligations in order to ensure the
quality of the information gathered on the behalf of citizens); and
accountability, that they have an obligation to account for their behaviour (to
the courts, press councils, the public, the profession, etc.). These values and
others governing media and journalistic practices are laid out in numerous codes
of ethics and professional practices, which also discusses key principles such
as serving the public interest (as opposed to personal interests), rigor in
research methods and a duty to the truth, accuracy, fairness and balance in
news-gathering and coverage, impartiality in the reporting of events, integrity
with respect to attribution of sources and avoidance of conflicts of interest
that could potentially undermine journalist impartiality (Bernier 2004).
Generally
speaking, accountability, or the obligation to be called “to account”, occurs
when an actor is required to answer for the way in which he or she has, or has
not, fulfilled his or her responsibilities. As Mulgan points out (2003), it is
similar to the agent who provides an account to his or her principal; he further
states that it commonly arises when power is delegated to individuals and
institutions with the expectation that they act in the public’s interest. In
some ways, this relates to the notion of representation in the context of an
implicit social contract between the media and citizens. Mulgan adds that,
given human nature, it may seem inevitable that this delegated power be used to
the detriment of citizens, just as in economics the agent can sometimes act
against the interests of the principal. He states that the demand for
accountability has increased following the social movements of the 1970s (e.g.,
the consumer protection movement, environmentalism, feminism, etc.). This
growing demand appears to be a symptom of mounting public discontent with
individuals and institutions (governments, businesses, religions, etc.) mandated
to serve the public interest, but which refuse to respond to the public’s
questions or demands. Individuals thus perceive a gulf between themselves and these
institutions. The same analysis may be applied to the news media, explaining
why it is the object of mounting criticism.
According to
many authors, media accountability is achieved primarily through transparency
in journalistic procedures and objectives. Accountability can thus be enacted
at three different moments: 1) before news production starts, it focuses on
transparency in the practices of actors such as journalists and news
organizations (e.g., the declaration of their interests and their adherence to professional
standards as laid out in a code of ethics); 2) during news production, it comes
into play in the transparency of news gathering procedures (e.g., identification
of sources, appropriateness of the methods used to obtain information, etc.);
3) after news production, accountability is then manifested as responsiveness
and involves openness to corrections, clarifications, additions, user’s comments,
etc. (Domingo and Heikkila 2011).
Whither self-regulation?
This brief
overview of the notion of accountability, while by no means exhaustive, underscores
some of its key dimensions: accountable for what,
accountable to whom, accountable how (Mulgan 2003)?
While
accountability in the media is an inherent part of its legal obligations, it
also belongs to an area of social responsibility governed by ethics and
professional practices. These standards are laid out in charters of professional
conduct and codes of ethics that reflect the particular traditions of the
society that created them. These texts discuss social responsibility in the
same terms as those identified by the Hutchins Commission (accountable for what?):
to provide a complete and truthful account of the day’s events in a context
which gives them meaning; to serve as a forum for comment and criticism; to
present and clarify the goals and values of a society; and lastly, to give the
public a clear picture of what is going on (Lambeth 1986).
Most authors
agree that the Hutchins Commission, in 1947, played a key role in determining
the functions of a “free and responsible press”. The Commission did not invent
the social responsibility theory that would subsequently govern the operations
of the press, as the subject had been addressed in previous writings, but it
legitimized it and made it the manifest purpose of the news media.
But while media
organizations and journalists claim that they should be accountable to the
public (to whom?), many commentators
believe that their primary responsibility is really to media shareholders and
owners. In a free market economy that favours profit maximization, it should
come as no surprise that conflict might arise between the public interest and
that of owners and shareholders, leading sometimes to the prevalence of market-driven journalism over public interest (McManus
1992, 2008).
As to the
question of which measures to employ (accountable how?), when faced with the choice of regulatory measures both media
organizations and journalists have nearly always chosen self-regulation. Self-regulation most often involves
mechanisms such as press councils, news ombudsmen and press mediators, the
development of standards frameworks, etc. These measures almost always lack the
power to impose any sanction other than moral opprobrium. Moreover, significant
confusion can arise in a profession that both regulates itself and enacts its
own disciplinary measures. In fact, while journalists and media organizations seem to agree upon the
values and standards that should govern their behaviour, they are not always
capable of ensuring that these are followed. It is even more difficult, if not
impossible, for journalists and news organizations to create the legal
mechanisms that would ensure that victims receive compensation for damages when
standards are violated (Bernier 2009).
We might add that the choice of
self-regulation has rarely, if ever, been voluntary. In most cases media
organizations have been forced to create these mechanisms (e.g., press councils,
news ombudsmen, mediators), to protect themselves against government
intervention, often brought about by public outcry over professional misconduct
(Bernier 2005, Media Standard Trust 2008, O'Malley and Soley 2000, Husselbee
1999, Prichard 1991, Ugland 2008, Unesco 2001, Bertrand 2008). This
situation occurred recently in Great Britain, where the government established
the Leveson Inquiry in 2011 to investigate the culture, the practices and the ethics
of the press in the wake of the News of
the World phone-hacking scandal (Watson and Hickman 2012). In November
2012, the Inquiry recommended the creation of a statutory press council that
would have the power to conduct inquiries and impose significant monetary
sanctions. The affair prompted other countries to evaluate the effectiveness
and independence of their respective self-regulation mechanisms; in Australia,
for instance, similar problems and oversight gaps were found, leading to
recommendations for reform (Finkelstein 2012). Moreover, Hrvatin states that the very principle of
self-regulation hinges on voluntary compliance and that any “self-regulation
system should always be open to the possibility of non-compliance” (2003, 82)
[translation]. This option is tantamount to giving news organizations and
journalists veto power over citizens’ basic rights.
Claude-Jean
Bertrand, a fervent supporter of self-regulation, has, at the end of his life,
spoken out critically regarding the effectiveness of press councils in the wake
of one of their most recent public decisions. Stating that while he is
discouraged by the criticism sometimes heaped on press councils, he adds that,
unfortunately, it was partly justified (Bertrand 2008, 115).
As yet, there
is no evidence to indicate
that self-regulation mechanisms have yielded the expected results; that they
have really helped improve the quality of information and protect the public
from unacceptable journalism practices. In this sense we have to admit that self-regulation has
failed to live up to our expectations, that as attractive as the idea may seem,
it simply doesn’t work. Its efficacy and credibility depend on the co-operation
of news organizations insofar as they are the ones who pay for and publish the
decisions – a fanciful illusion indeed (Watson 2008, 54). Furthermore, in
recent years some of the press councils in Canada (Manitoba) and the United
States (Minnesota) have disappeared, along with the ombudsman for the Washington Post in February, 2013.
According to
Watson (2008, 63), since journalists themselves have proven to be incapable of implementing
effective self-regulatory measures, it was inevitable that other institutions or
mechanisms, especially the civil courts, take their place despite the risk that
standards from outside the profession might be applied to journalists. For the
present, his analysis indicates that the United States’ Supreme Court decisions
(1947-2007) have applied a considerable number of the principles and concepts
proposed by the Hutchins Commission, that is, standards proper to the field of
journalism. Since 1994, in Quebec and the rest of Canada we have seen the
application of journalism ethics and standards by the civil courts in several
cases involving the media (Bernier 2011).
According to Gunningham and Rees (1997), two factors are essential to
the success of media self-regulation: first, there must be a high degree of
compatibility between the public interest and the private interests of the
media; second, there must be sufficient external pressure to create this
compatibility. The mere presence of such pressures, such as those placed on British
journalists in the fall of 2012 following the Leveson Inquiry, is to some
degree a refutation of voluntary self-regulation and might even be considered a
variation of models of co-regulation.
There appears
to be a growing consensus, then, that self-regulation has had its day. For this
reason, increased attention has been focused on models of co-regulation.
Toward co-regulation
Co-regulation is
incompatible with the sort of absolutist position held by advocates of unlimited
freedom of expression, chief among them the libertarian free-market worshippers
and US First Amendment fundamentalists. It is likewise not accepted by those
favouring hybrid regulation models that would rely solely on civil and criminal
law and public and government institutions. It is a response to the failure of
media self-regulation, even though it may not be a cure-all for the many
problems afflicting the media.
In Australia,
the report published by the Finkelstein Inquiry (2012) devotes an entire chapter
to theories of media regulation. Generally conceived as the imposition of rules
or principles in order to influence behaviours, it attempts to anticipate market
deficiencies and pursue equitable social ends (to reduce or manage the risk of
damages to an individual’s or a community’s health, security or well-being). These
are the two main justifications for regulation. All regulatory intervention
should nonetheless be subject to a cost-benefit analysis to ascertain whether
the benefits would indeed prevail, as this cannot simply be presumed. The report distinguishes between statutory or government
regulation (command and control regulation) and self-regulation (sometimes
known as consensus regulation). According to this model, regulation should be
seen on a continuum that ranges from full
self-regulation to full government regulation, with a range of co-regulation
possibilities (hybrid regulation or enforced self-regulation) falling somewhere between the two extremes. This continuum could be more or less detailed
and would, in some cases, include education and information or quasi regulation
when it is the government’s goal to influence or persuade organizations to act
in a certain fashion. What we have, then, is a continuum that might look like
the following:
Co-regulation
occurs when rules are developed, managed and enforced by associations, agencies
or institutions with varying degrees of government or non-government
involvement. One type of co-regulation involving a minimal amount of government
intervention would thus be situated on the continuum next to self-regulation. Co-regulation
may also entail the delegation of regulatory and enforcement powers, as is the
case in Canada with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC), which
assists in the application of broadcast standards, in accordance with
regulations established by the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC).
At the moment, most attempts at a definition suggest
that co-regulation represents a variety of bodies with different make-ups ranging
from traditional state regulation to unfettered self-regulation. These models
offer a range of more or less formal measures designed to supplement self-regulatory
shortcomings or free market imbalances. Traditionally, co-regulation has meant
significant involvement of the State or its institutions. But with the Internet
and, in particular, it’s potential for stirring debate and opposition to
established powers (Strangelove 2005), new actors are gaining prominence.
The rise of the Fifth estate
Historically, if
media self-regulatory measures have been suggested and implemented, it is
because the news media have held a quasi monopoly on access to the public arena.
This has placed a moral obligation on them to contribute to the very debate
that concerns them.
In the old
media order, citizens had only limited access to the public arena, enabled for
the most part through existing media forums (e.g., airtime, comments or open
letters to newspapers, etc.). Their messages could be easily overlooked or
filtered out based on a given set of journalistic criteria (Ericson,
Baraneck and Chan 1987). Research
suggests that journalists have routinely shown a preference for certain
official or institutional sources, while at the same time showing indifference,
or sometimes hostility, toward their audience, as a means of asserting their professional
autonomy (Williams, Wardle and Wahl-Jorgensen 2011).
With the
Internet and Web 2.0, citizens have spontaneously taken on the role of the Fifth
estate, scrutinizing, criticizing, even hurling abuse at the Fourth
estate, understood traditionally as the media and journalists. But we shouldn’t
be surprised at the public’s sudden takeover as guardians of the “watchdogs of
democracy”. There is ample evidence to show that for decades citizens have had
a very different notion of what constitutes news than the one proposed by journalists
and the media. Many studies have documented the gap, oftentimes a gulf,
separating the editorial judgment of the public and that of journalists (Tsafi,
Meyers and Peri 2006, Tai and Chang 2002, Voakes 1997) on different issues
concerning the private life of public figures and officials, for example, or whether
the public expects the media to play the role of “good neighbour” or the role
of “watchdog” (Poindexter, Heider and McCombs 2006). Admittedly, we may want to
apply a degree of scepticism to the noble, socially responsible answers the
public give to certain questions, answers that have little to do with real-life
consumption patterns (Roshier 1981, Missika 1989). But, all the same, can we
afford to ignore them? Especially when it is our manifest purpose to serve the
public’s right to information.
Perhaps a
better definition of the Fifth estate would serve us here. Does it
refer to capitalism and finance (Ramonet 1995), or to public relations
(Franklin and Carlson 2011, 11)? Or might it even be understood as those citizens
who find a place for themselves in the public and media outlets through social media
networks made possible by Web 2.0’s interactive technologies? This being the
case, might we suggest that the digitally networked public join together with
the Fourth estate in its role as the watchdog of democracy and public institutions
(e.g., the courts, parliament, etc.), at the same time as it remains watchdog
to that same Fourth estate?
To put it more formally,
what good is power that is capable only of expressing itself, albeit loudly and
clearly, without the ability to compel others to act? The power to influence? The
power of opinion, it has been proven time and again, cannot be ignored, by
either the government (the electorate), or media organizations (the market). While
the answers to these questions are beyond the scope of this paper, they
certainly point the way to lines of research worth pursuing.
Ramonet appears
to be the first to bring up the concept of the Fifth estate, without further
elaboration, by working it into a critical theory wherein the media are
perceived as a Fourth estate that is viewed to have betrayed its democratic
mission. He later mentions a Fifth estate “whose function would be to denounce
the media superpowers, those large media conglomerates, aiders and abetters” of
what he calls a “neoliberal globalisation” [“globalisation libérale”] (Ramonet 2003).
According to
Ramonet, information is as polluted as our air and water, and as contaminated
as our food is by the chemicals used in industry. In order to get “organic”
information, he says, “citizens must come together and demand that the large,
globalized media respect the truth, because only in the search for the truth is
information made legitimate” (2003). Rather than depend on social media
networks (which were only just emerging in 2003), Ramonet advocated for an
international media oversight body and founded Media Watch Global, “because the
media today are the only power that can still go unchecked, which leads to an
imbalance that can be harmful to democracy” (2003). Regarding the character of
the organization he adds that “the strength of this association is moral first
and foremost: its power to reprimand is based on ethics, and it sanctions
dishonest media practices through the reports and studies it carries out, publishes
and disseminates” (2003) [translation]. This arrangement would comprise journalists,
scholars, and citizens alike. What Ramonet is describing is in effect a world
press council.
Spontaneous,
made-to-order co-regulation
Ramonet appeared
to be positing the establishment of a mechanism typical of the old media order.
He nevertheless showed a commitment to a democratic form of co-regulation
designed to supplement the media’s own self-regulatory shortcomings. One might
well be sceptical as to the feasibility of such a mechanism on an international
scale. But its function as monitor and critic might increase tenfold by spontaneous
co-regulation – due to its disorganized, dispersed, unexpected and voluntary
nature – inasmuch as it provides made-to-order co-regulation as individuals
provide critical points of view that vary according to their own interests or
political, ideological, moral or religious convictions, to name only the most
obvious motives. Criticism from an expert or academic viewpoint would then appear
in the same arena as selective, biased, partial, partisan, ignorant or malicious
criticism, which does not detract from the ability of either to influence the
behaviours and practices of the media and journalists, as we saw with Wentegate.
Journalists and
media observers and researchers over the world continue to focus their
attention on the power exerted by ordinary citizens as more or less influential
sources of information (De Keyser, Raeymarckers and Paulussen 2011), content
generators or amateur journalists. However, the growing and continuous flow of
user-generated criticism is not reserved solely for the media; it also extends to
the political and financial elite. This role of monitoring the watchdogs of
democracy had traditionally been carried out exclusively by various groups,
institutions (e.g., the courts, unions, educational institutions and research
institutes, etc.) and professional regulatory bodies (e.g., press councils,
ombudsmen, etc.).
Bodies such as
these, by their very organizational, collective nature, were largely
predictable by media actors. If ordinary citizens wanted to show an interest in
media or journalism, precious little space was available to them. However,
since the mid 1990s the public has been able to express its opinion via online discussion
boards or dedicated sites; since 2000 these sites have become even more visible
due to the tools available on Web 2.0 (e.g., blogs, interactive media, comments
posted on social media networks, Facebook, Twitter and other emerging forums).
As media
criticism is democratized, it bypasses filters and rules designed to moderate
it; it can be condensed and go viral (e.g., on Twitter), or receive more
thorough treatment on blogs and Facebook, etc. The Fourth estate is
increasingly being confronted by the public it has always professed to
represent, and is being forced to assert its social and political legitimacy,
to defend its idea of freedom of the press and, it must be admitted, to defend
its economic interests. This can be seen as a form of market sanction (Fengler
2012) that has been able to emerge from an imposed state of latency.
According to
Jarvis (2007), all Internet users and journalists should be considered
ombudsmen. In such an arrangement, contact with the public is no longer
reserved for only one person (e.g., the ombudsman, press mediators, etc.). Rather,
journalists receive comments, corrections, information and clarification directly
from the public. This, many believe, would help improve the quality of
information. Moreover, journalism research has underscored the role of citizen
journalists as news media curators, particularly when the quality of journalism
is lacking (Bruns 2011). In this regard, Phillips (2011) has documented many occasions
when citizens have found factual errors or instances of plagiarism.
De Haan (2011)
reports that in the Netherlands there is a public demand for greater media
accountability, despite market liberalization and increasingly limited State
involvement, a situation that has prompted the media to make certain changes. He
adds that in Europe, different organizations advocate media literacy, which
results in citizens who are more informed and responsible in their media
choices. In France, the issue of public intervention in the media was addressed
during the États généraux de la presse de
2009, where the implementation of a new rule was recommended: “Journalists
must be mindful of the public’s criticism and suggestions. They will take them into
account when considering their own journalistic practices” (Ruellan 2011,
38-39) [translation].
Rosen believes
it imperative that journalists raise their standards of reliability given that
errors today have more serious consequences than in the past, for themselves,
their profession and others. The consequences are also more apparent due to the
increased oversight made possible by the dramatic rise in number of information
and comment platforms (reported by Carlson 2011). Fengler (2008) has observed
that most bloggers who follow the US media consider themselves media watchdogs
and are highly motivated to criticize, to such a degree that many readily
subscribe to conspiracy theories to explain the behaviours of journalists who
show political bias. Olav Anders Øvrebø (2008) also notes that this new form of
external criticism often tends to take the form of exaggerated accusations from
individuals not burdened by the same sourcing standards, providing fodder for
some journalists who use this argument to discredit any form of criticism. Even
so, in Germany, a study involving 20 000 users of a media criticism blog
revealed that 84 per cent of the participants stated that entertainment was
their primary reason for using the site (Fengler 2012, 186). It would be wise
therefore, not to conceptualize users purely as public-minded “citizens”,
without, however, denying the existence of “noble” motivations.
Conclusion
Some authors
believe that the interactive nature of the Internet and emerging media networks
constitute a new form of accountability that may be distinguished from
traditional mechanisms. It is thought to be more direct and effective than the
traditional institutions (Domingo and Heikkila 2011) as well as less expensive
(Fengler 2012). They add that online criticism (e.g., blogs, Facebook pages,
Internet sites) can sometimes force the media to correct errors, sanction
journalists and, in some cases, encourage individuals to take their complaints
to press councils, thus hybridizing both newer and traditional forms of
accountability.
The rise in power
of the Fifth estate as spontaneous media co-regulators comes at a
time when traditional self-regulation measures are facing a crisis in terms of
their credibility and their very legitimacy. The old media order is on the
verge of being replaced by a new order, or rather a disorder, capable of having
greater effect and impact. Granted, although we cannot guarantee the intellectual
integrity or the honesty of every citizen, the same objection can be made of
professional journalists, who are not, as a group, to be held above suspicion. In
this new order we are consigned to a sort of grey area of doubt, but we need
not accept the corporatist objection put forth by journalists.
Media
organizations and journalists cannot ignore citizen vigilance, even when the
criticism is excessive, partial or based on standards and considerations other
than those recognized in professional charters and codes of ethics. Journalists
and the media have no choice but to join the critical debate, not only to
engage in a real conversation with the public in order to understand them, but
also to consent to having their professional missteps pointed out whenever
these occur. We can even imagine falling back on some of the traditional
accountability mechanisms such as press councils, ombudsmen and press mediators
in order to guide debate and give journalists the opportunity to have their motivations understood. One thing
is certain, however: in the new media ecosystem, the traditional measures have
lost any claim they might have had to effective self-regulation and self-discipline.
From now on they will be but one voice among many.
* * *
References
ALZNER, Belinda (2012),
« Wentegate: A roundup of
the coverage and commentary », J-Source.ca,
26 septembre, (http://j-source.ca/article/wentegate-roundup-coverage-and-commentary),
lien visité le 20 octobre 2012.
BERNIER, Marc-François (1995), Les planquées: le journalisme victime des journalistes, Montréal,
VLB Éditeur.
BERNIER, Marc-François (1996), « Le public américain
mécontent de ses journalistes », Le
30, vol. 20, no 5, mai 1996, p. 16-18.
BERNIER, Marc-François (2004), Éthique et déontologie du journalisme, 2e édition revue et
augmentée, Québec, Presses de l'Université Laval.
BERNIER, Marc-François (2005), L’Ombudsman de Radio-Canada : protecteur du public ou des journalistes?
Sainte-Foy, Presses de l’Université Laval.
BERNIER, Marc-François (2009), Au-delà des mythes et limites
de l’autorégulation : la co-regulation démocratique, Communication au
colloque international Déontologie de l'Information dans un monde arabe en
mutation. Tunis, 23 et 24 avril 2009, (http://www.crej.ca/publications/mythes_limites.html).
BERNIER, Marc-François (2011), « L'appropriation par
les tribunaux civils canadiens des règles déontologiques dans le procès en
diffamation dirigés contre les journalistes », in Philosophie juridique du journalisme. La liberté d'expression journalistique
en Europe et en Amérique du nord, Paris, Edition Mare et Martin, p.
261-280.
BERTRAND,
Claude-Jean (2008), « Watching the Watchdog-Watching Dog: A Call for Active Press-Councils », in Krogh, Torbjörn von (ed.) Media accountability today... and tomorrow:
updating the concept in theory and practice, Göteborg: Nordicom, p.
115-118.
BRUNS, Axel
(2011), « Citizen Journalism and Everyday Life: A Case Study of Germany's Myheimat.de », in Bob FRANKLIN et
Matt CARLSON (ed) (2011), Journalists,
Sources and Credibility: New Perspectives, Routledge, New York, p. 182-194.
CARIGNAN, Marie-Ève (2012), «Perception de la situation
médiatique local et régionale au Québec: l'avis du public », in Nikos
SMYRNAIOS, Franck BOUSQUET et Dominique BERTELLI, Les mutations de l'information et des médias locaux et régionaux, Touloise,
Éditions du Lerass, p. 119-134
(http://smyrnaios.free.fr/Actes_Toulouse_2012.pdf), lien visité le 14 décembre
2012.
CARLSON, Matt
(2011), «Whither Anonymity? Journalism and Unnamed Sources in a Changing Media
Environment » in Bob FRANKLIN et Matt CARLSON (ed) (2011), Journalists, Sources and Credibility: New
Perspectives, Routledge, New York, p. 37-48.
CORRIVEAU, Raymond et Guillaume SIROIS (2012), L'information: la nécessaire perspective citoyenne, Montréal, Presse Université du Québec.
De HAAN, Yael (2011), Between
Professional Autonomy and Public Responsibility: accountability and
responsiveness in Dutch media and journalism, Amsterdam, The Amsterdam
School of Communication Research ASCoR.
De
Keyser, Jeroen, Karin Raeymaeckers et Steve Paulussen (2011), « Are citizens
becoming sources? A look into Flemish journalists’ professional contacts »
In Bob Franklin et Matt Carlson (editors). Journalists,
sources and credibility: New perspectives. New York: Routledge, p. 139-151.
DOMINGO David et Heikki
HEIKKILA (2011), « Media
accountability online: Constraints and opportunities for journalistic
transparency and responsiveness », Nord Media 2011, congrès annuel
des médias, Islande, août 2001,
(http://english.unak.is/static/files/Domingo%20and%20Heikkila.pdf), lien visité
le 1er septembre 2011.
ERICSON Richard V.,
BARANEK Patricia M., CHAN Janet B.L., [1987], «Visualizing Deviance : A Study
of News Organization», Toronto : University of Toronto Press.
FENGLER,
Susanne (2008), « Media Journalism… and the Power of Blogging
Citizens », in Krogh, Torbjörn
von (ed.) Media accountability today...
and tomorrow: updating the concept in theory and practice, Göteborg,
Nordicom, p. 61-67.
FENGLER,
Susanne (2012), « From media self-regulation to
« crowd-criticism » : Media accountability in the digital age »,
Central European Journal of Communication,
2, 175-189.
FINKELSTEIN, Ray,
(2012), Report of the Independent Inquiry
Into the Media and media Regulation, Report to the Minister for Broadband
Communications and the Digital Economy, Camberra, 28 février 2012.
FRANKLIN Bob et
Matt CARLSON (ed) (2011), Journalists,
Sources and Credibility: New Perspectives, Routledge, New York.
GUNNINGHAM, Neil et
Joseph REES (1997), « Industry self-regulation: an institutional
perspective », Law & Policy 1997, Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 363-414.
HRVATIN, Sandra B. (2003), « Autorégulation ou
co-regulation ? », in La
co-regulation des médias en Europe, Strasbourg, Observatoire européen de
l’audiovisuel, p. 81-87.
HUSSELBEE, Paul L.
(1999), A Question of Accountability: An
Analysis of Grievances Filed With The National News Council, 1973-84, thèse
de doctorat, Ohio University.
JARVIS, JEFF (2007), « Mahombudsman », BuzzMachine,
(http://buzzmachine.com/2007/08/18/mahombudsman/), lien visité le 24 mai 2012.
KROGH, Torbjörn
von (2008), « “Constructive Criticism” vs Public Scrutiny: Attitudes to
Media Accountability in and Outside Swedish News Media », in Krogh,
Torbjörn von (ed.) Media accountability
today... and tomorrow: updating the concept in theory and practice, Göteborg:
Nordicom, p. 119-136.
LADURANTAYE, Steve
(2012), «Globe takes action on allegations against columnist Margaret Wente», The Globe and Mail, 24 septembre 2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/globe-takes-action-on-allegations-against-columnist-margaret-wente/article4565683/, lien visité le 10 octobre 2012.
LAMBETH,
Edmund B. (1986), Committed Journalism:
An Ethic for the Profession, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.
LEVY, Alexandre
(2012), « Le Net épie l'éthique
de la presse », Libération, 20
mars 2004
(http://www.liberation.fr/medias/0101482430-le-net-epie-l-ethique-de-la-presse),
lien visité le 20 octobre 2012.
McMANUS John (1992), « Serving the public and
serving the market: a conflict of interest? », Journal of Mass Media Ethics, Vol. 7, no 4, p. 196-208.
MCMANUS, John
H. (2008), « Media Accountability in the Era of Market-driven
Journalism », in Krogh, Torbjörn
von (ed.) Media accountability today...
and tomorrow: updating the concept in theory and practice, Göteborg:
Nordicom, p. 41-45.
MEDIA STANDARD TRUST (2008), A More Accountable Press Part 1: The Need for Reform; Is selfregulation
failing the press and the public?, Londres.
MISSIKA,
Jean-Louis (1989), « Les français et leurs médias: la confiance
limitée », Médiaspouvoirs , no
16, p. 39-50.
Øvrebø, Olav Anders
(2008), « Journalism after the
monopoly on publishing has been broken », in Krogh, Torbjörn von (ed.) Media accountability today... and tomorrow: updating the concept in
theory and practice, Göteborg: Nordicom, p. 69-77.
MULGAN Richard (2003), Holding Power to Account:
Accountability in Modern Democracies, VILLE, Macmillan, p. 8-9.
O’MALLEY, Tom et Clive SOLEY Clive (2000), Regulating The Press, London, Pluto
Press.
PHILLIPS,
Angela (2011), « Journalists as Unwilling 'sources': Transparency and the
New Ethics of Journalism », in Bob FRANKLIN et Matt CARLSON (ed) (2011), Journalists, Sources and Credibility: New
Perspectives, Routledge, New York, p. 49-60.
PHILLIPS, Bill et Beverly KEES (1995), Nothing Sacred - Journalism, Politics and
Public Trust in a Tell-All Age, Freedom Forum Center.
POINDEXTER, P., D. HEIDER et M. McCOMBS, M. (2006),
« Watchdog or good neighbor? The public's expectations of local
news », Harvard International
Journal of Press/Politics, no 11, p. 77-88.
PRITCHARD, David (1991), « The Role of Press Councils
in a System of Media Accountability: The Case of Quebec », Canadian Journal of Communication, vol. 16, p. 73-93.
RAMONET, Ignacio (1995), « Citoyens sous surveillance », in
Le Monde diplomatique, Les nouvelles
armes de la manipulation, in Médias et contrôle des esprits, Collection
Manière de voir, n°27, p. 10-13.
RAMONET, Ignacio (2003), « Le cinquième pouvoir »,
Le Monde diplomatique, octobre 2003,
p. 1, 26 (http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2003/10/RAMONET/10395),
visité le 13 mai 2012.
ROSHIER, Bob (1981), « The selection of crime
news by the press », in COHEN Stanley et Jock YOUNG (eds), The manufacture of news, London, Sage,
pages, p. 40-51.
RUELLAN, Denis
(2011), Nous, journalistes: Déontologie
et identité, Grenoble, Presses universitaires de Grenoble.
STEAD, Sylvia (2012), «Public editor: We investigate
all complaints against our writers», The Globe and Mail, 21 septembre 2012, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/inside-the-globe/public-editor-we-investigate-all-complaints-against-our-writers/article4559295/, lien
visité le 10 octobre 2012.
STRANGELOVE, Michael (2005), The Empire of Mind: Digital Piracy and the Anti-Capitalist Movement,
Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
TAI, Zixue et Tsan-Kuo CHANG (2002), «The Global News and the Pictures in Their
Heads A Comparative Analysis of Audience Interest, Editor Perceptions and
Newspaper Coverage », International
Communication Gazette, June 2002 vol.
64 no. 3, p. 251-265.
TSAFI, Yaric, Oren MEYERS, Yoram PERI (2006),
« What is good journalism: Comparing Israeli public and journalists’
perspectives », Journalism, Vol.
7(2): 152–173.
UGLAND, Erik (2008), « The legitimacy and moral
authority of the National News Council (USA) », Journalism, Vol. 9, no 3, p. 285-203.
UNESCO (2011), Professional Journalism and
Self-Regulation New Media, Old Dilemmas in South East Europe and Turkey, Paris.
VOAKES, Paul S. (1997), « Public Perception of
Journalists' Ethical Motives », Journalism
& Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 74, no 1, p. 23-38.
WATSON, John C. (2008) Journalism
Ethics by Court Decree. The Supreme Court on the Proper Practice of Journalism,
New York, LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
WATSON, Tom et Martin HICKMAN (2012), Dial
M for Murdoch, London, Penguin; JUKES, Peter (2012), The Fall of the House of Murdoch: Fourteen Days that Ended a Media
Dynasty, London, Unbound.
WENTE, Margaret (2012), « Columnist Margaret
Wente defends herself », The Globe and
Mail, 25 septembre 2012,
(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/columnist-margaret-wente-defends-herself/article4565731/),
lien visité le 14 décembre 2012.
Williams, A, A, Claire Wardle et Karin Wahl-Jorgensen (2011), «The Limits of
Audience Participation: UGC @ the BBC », Bob FRANKLIN et Matt CARLSON (ed)
(2011), Journalists, Sources and
Credibility: New Perspectives, Routledge, New York, p. 152-166.
[1] This research was made possible by a grant from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The author would
like to thank Lisa Hannaford-Wong, who performed the French-to-English translation
of this study.
[2] In September 2004, with two months remaining in the
American presidential campaign, CBS aired a report on 60 Minutes. Presented by renowned news anchor Dan Rather, the
report claimed to reveal details about George W. Bush’s inglorious military
past, relying on a document supposedly dating back to the 1970s. However, citizens
quickly reacted online, denouncing the document as a fake. CBS investigated,
recognized the error, and a few months later, Dan Rather resigned. This unprecedented
event marking the rise of fifth estate is now referred to as Rathergate.
