A single media company can also have its own ethical guidelines. Well-known examples are BBC and Associated Press (AP) guides. Governments will inevitably become more involved in supervision. However, we believe that platforms should now become more aggressive when it comes to self-regulation. To explore the feasibility of self-regulation, we examined the history of self-regulation before and after widespread adoption of the Internet. We found that corporations often risked creating a “tragedy of the commons” if they put their short-term individual personal interests above the well-being of the consumer public or industry as a whole and, in the long run, destroyed the environment that enabled them to succeed in the first place. Broadcasting is a sector with a complex range of regulatory measures, traditionally resulting from limited market entry and the need for a frequency allocation body. The sector is also typically characterised by a series of self-regulatory measures, with individual broadcasters establishing guidelines for producers to ensure accurate and accurate reporting. Like the codes used by individual newspapers, they are generally voluntary, but may be subject to a formal regulatory regime. To prevent such trends, the media community needs to put in place an effective self-regulatory system based on an agreed code of ethics and a mechanism for receiving and responding to complaints, for example by an ombudsman or media council. There is a need for a deeper discussion on how ethical journalism can be promoted, including in relation to social media and other online information. It is positive that journalists` unions have risen to this challenge. But governments also have a responsibility.
This idea is not new. A number of countries have attempted to establish a system of ethical self-regulation. Unfortunately, these efforts have not always produced the expected results. During my travels, I have seen several examples of how some media have ignored and thus undermined these ethical codes. The perpetrators were mostly in the hands of oligarchs or other sometimes anonymous business interests. They should protect media freedom and pluralism and avoid any regulation that would undermine freedom of expression, including in internet media. All boundaries should be narrowly and clearly defined and reflected in legislation. Self-regulation has been described as superior to government regulation in solving problems in new media such as digital television and the Internet. This article reviews the literature on self-regulation to define what is meant by the term, to identify the alleged advantages and disadvantages of self-regulation, and to identify the conditions required for its success. It then analyzes the effectiveness of self-regulation by examining cases where self-regulation has been used in the context of the media. After describing and analyzing past applications of self-regulation in broadcasting, children`s advertising, news, alcohol advertising, comics, movies, and video games, this article concludes that self-regulation rarely responds to claims made to it, although in some cases it has been useful as a complement to government regulation.
The article identifies five factors that may be responsible for the success or failure of self-regulation. These include industry incentives, government regulatory capacity, use of measurable standards, public participation, and industry structure. By applying these five factors to digital television`s responsibilities in the public interest and to the protection of online privacy, this article concludes that self-regulation is unlikely to succeed in these contexts. First, our leading technology companies need to anticipate when government regulations are likely to become a key driver of their business. In movies, radio and television shows, flight bookings via computers and other new industries, a regulatory void often arises in the early years. Then, in a kind of “Wild West” environment, governments intervene to regulate or pressure companies to curb abuse. To avoid problematic government regulations, platform companies must put in place their own controls on behavior and use before the government lifts all protections in Section 230, which is currently under discussion in Congress. Technology that harnesses big data, artificial intelligence and machine learning with a bit of human editing will increasingly give digital platforms the ability to organize what`s happening on their platforms. The real question is to what extent the big platforms are willing to self-regulate.
The decisions made by Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple and Google in the first week of January 2021 were steps in the right direction. Media self-regulation is the establishment of rules for the media and the monitoring of compliance with these rules by media organisations or users. Self-regulation must be distinguished from government or statutory regulation (i.e., regulation by statute or by a statutory regulatory body). Self-regulatory means include dispute resolution procedures, assessment bodies, codes of conduct, and user-level technical measures such as filtering, encryption, and PINs that govern the behavior of children and others. Newspapers generally offer one or more of the three forms of self-regulation. Press councils are sectoral bodies that apply a code of conduct that applies to newspapers. An example of this is the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in the UK. Generally, the Code of Conduct includes rules of ethical journalistic conduct, including rules relating to invasion of privacy, harassment, reporting of crimes, reporting of court cases, reporting on children, and accuracy. Some codes also set the relevant legal standards relating to the press.
A second form of self-regulation, more commonly practiced in the United States, is the news ombudsman or editor, which provides a semi-autonomous mechanism for resolving grievances and disputes within a single media organization. For example, the Asahi Shimbun in Japan established a committee to resolve complaints as early as 1922. For these internal self-regulatory mechanisms to be effective, it is generally accepted that mediators or grievance committees within the organization must be independent of any action and have a protected employment status. In addition, journalists may be subject to the code of conduct of a professional organization such as a trade union. In some cases, professional associations require compliance with a code of ethics. Self-regulation works best when there is a degree of coherence between the industry`s self-interest and the broader public interest; In other words, industry self-regulation is more likely in situations where self-regulation can increase overall demand for the industry`s product or prevent exposure to regulatory regulation. The existence of an industry-wide decision-making system (e.g., and an industry association) increases the likelihood of effective industry self-regulation. Self-regulation may be spontaneous, motivated by a genuine sense of responsibility towards media users, or may arise in response to the threat of government or legal regulation. Governments and policymakers sometimes call for or support the development of self-regulatory systems. For example, between 2001 and 2004 and again from 2005, the European Commission offered financial and technical support for the development of self-regulatory systems under the Internet Action Plan. The Italian Minister of Communications requested in 1997 that a working group composed of ISPs work on the development of a code of conduct for Internet content, and this code was adopted in 2004. In some cases (e.g.
In the case of codes adopted by advertisers), there may be a clear personal interest on the part of advertisers in promoting content standards, as the industry has an interest in promoting the view that advertisements are accurate. In many cases, self-regulation is funded to avoid costly legislation. In the literature on self-regulation, there are many attempts to isolate the conditions for the success of self-regulatory systems. The UK National Consumer Council has proposed a concise but comprehensive set of `ingredients` for a successful self-regulatory system: targets must be clear, understandable and set clear standards; The code of conduct should include clear rules, monitoring, enforcement, sanctions, consultation on the codes and a redress mechanism; and the structure of their implementation should be legitimate and sustainable. In summary, history shows that modern digital platforms should not wait for governments to introduce controls. They should act decisively and proactively now. While the costs of government action have been modest in the Internet age, the regulatory environment is changing rapidly. Given the increasing likelihood of government action, the goal of self-regulation should be to avoid a tragedy of the commons where lack of trust destroys the environment that allows digital platforms to thrive. Governments and digital platforms will also need to work more closely together in the future.
While increased government scrutiny of Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon and other platforms seems inevitable, new institutional mechanisms for more participatory forms of regulation may be crucial to their long-term survival and success. Second, we find that firms in new sectors tend to avoid self-regulation when perceived costs involve a significant reduction in revenues or profits. Managers rarely like industry regulations that seem “bad for business.” However, this strategy can be self-destructive. If bad behavior undermines consumer trust, digital platforms will not continue to thrive. Take a close look at section 230. It states that “no provider or user of an interactive IT service shall be considered to be a publisher or spokesperson of information provided by another provider of information content”. This law granted online intermediaries broad immunity from liability for user-generated content posted on their websites.
Recent Comments