It is now the norm for the media to hold power to account in democratic societies. But when journalism itself fails, through misinformation, bias, and inaccuracy, who holds the media accountable? 

Over time, the same media that wields such power have sometimes disseminated false news or misrepresented information. Which begs the question, ‘Who watches the watchdog?’

Media accountability entails several principles, including fairness and respect for human life. When the media disseminates information to the general public, they are expected to be able to defend their claims if necessary.

It is best that these means of accountability are known. This is so that public trust in the media is not eroded.

Traditional Mechanisms of Accountability

Media accountability mechanisms vary from one society to another. Though it generally involves the use of regulatory bodies like the press and Ombudsmen to put the media in check. There are codes of ethics and even legal frameworks that guide the media. Some Historical Mechanisms of Media Accountability include:

Legal Frameworks:

Laws were put in place to regulate the media. In order to ensure that the media put out fair information, legal punishments were put in place for defaulters. Defamation lawsuits were carried out against media outlets or journalists who framed individuals or organisations falsely.

Legal laws and regulations have helped hold the media accountable for the information they put out to the public.

Media Standards and Ethical Codes:

Many media outlets have internal standards and ethics they work by. This helps them even regulate their actions before external bodies interfere to do so. Standards and codes of ethics are made to guide decisions and ways to handle conflicts when they arise.

Media standards and code of ethics are built mainly on accuracy and fairness. These are so important when carrying out public service, as they create a balance and enhance public trust.

Self-Regulatory Bodies:

While the media has its own set of standards and ethics it works by, there are still regulatory bodies that ensure there’s no fault. These bodies include the press. What they do is hold press councils where there is a breach of conduct, and public complaints are looked into.

The press and regulatory bodies are effective in holding the media accountable and checking the media without direct interference from the government.

Awards of Recognition:

Awarding excellence is one way the media is held accountable. When there’s a recognition for good work, it triggers other outlets to sit up, do better, and put in the work. This makes for healthy competition amongst the media.

When excellence is recognized, it sets the standard at a high bar. What this does is that it causes media outlets to aim for quality reports and prioritize facts and fairness.

Role of Ombudsmen and Critics

Role of Ombudsman

Ombudsmen are employees of a media outlet because they get their salary from the media company. But they do not operate under the influence of the media company. These people operate independently of the media organisations they work for.

Ombudsmen regulate and hold the media accountable to ethical standards internally, but publish these findings to the general public. They are simply the bridge between the media and the public, and their roles include:

Receive Readers’ Complaints: When a piece of information is published by the media, and they feel a particular way towards it. Maybe they feel it’s one-sided, or need more context, or even have questions to ask; these complaints and letters are received by the Ombudsmen. The feedback of readers is then presented to the journalist to work on.

Investigation of Complaints: While the journalists work on one end of the complaints received by the Ombudsmen, the Ombudsmen also go further to carry out their own fair investigations. These investigations are carried out without any form of partiality. This helps keep Journalists accountable for the work they publish out there.

Publish their Works: Ombudsmen publish in blogs or columns their findings from these complaints. They advocate for the readers, listeners, and viewers because, as much as they are employed by their media companies, they owe it to the general public to always respond to them. They review mistakes made, own up to them, and talk about what’s been put in place to rectify them.

Role of Critics

Critics are said to be the watchdogs of the watchdogs. They exist in different forms and take different routes. They could be internal (as employees) or external(via social media), and they could offer constructive criticism, which is mostly considered and accepted, or corrective criticism, which focuses mainly on faults and mistakes. Some specific roles include;

Watching the Watchdogs: Critics are always on the lookout for media content. They do this to evaluate, tackle, and analyze it when it’s put out. They ensure that there’s accountability for every report they give. This is very important in a democratic society as their views shape the perspective a lot.

Reader Feedback and Trust: Journalism is a public service, and the media owes it to readers to respond to their feedback because they are held accountable to them. Feedback could be as simple as a comment left on social media, down to a direct letter or complaint received through the office of the Ombudsman. Some ways reader feedback holds media accountable are:

Fact Checking: Readers who are experts in a particular field can easily spot things like inaccuracies or bias when particular information is put out. This forces them to act by demanding accuracy and facts. This media, however, owes it to the public to only put out verified information, and so feedback like this is very important.

Trust: In the media space, confidence is built when readers have a certain complaint or feedback, and the media responds immediately. Transparency is very important when it comes to journalism. A lot. If the media takes responsibility when expected of them, admits their mistakes, and shows the public they’re working on this issue, it deepens trust.

Shapes Editorial Direction: When readers keep sending feedback, complaints, or show interest in a particular type of topic, scoop, or investigation, it influences the direction the media goes with information. This is not to say that the only information put out will be what the readers want to see, but it helps the media carry out more research, explore more, and put out relevant information.

Revenues and Interests: The media is first a public service organisation, and then, as an industry, it relies on profits and interests to sustain itself. When there’s constant criticism and negative feedback from readers, the reputation of the outlet can be dropped significantly. This affects how much advertisers are willing to work with the brand. This leads to low attraction and lower revenue.

Digital-era Challenges

The historical methods of media accountability did a good job of keeping the media in check. That being said, the digital era has significantly blurred the line again, and this time, creating a huge accountability gap. 

An example of this challenge was seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was misinformation about the vaccines all over the internet. Many top outlets also reported those misleading reports. They had to issue reports after prematurely reporting claims they did not take the time to verify. This goes on to show how speed can compromise accuracy under pressure. 

Some digital-era challenges are:

Social Media: Social media is one of the leading causes of the challenges faced in this digital era. Unlike traditional media, social media lacks even regulatory oversight. This makes it easy for just about anyone to share unverified content. Traditional accountability structures are weakened because of this. Separating credible information from the wrong ones is now more difficult. 

Widespread Misinformation: Digital algorithms work in unpredictable ways; one minute, content is put out there, and the next, it’s gathering millions of views. Millions of people get to consume misinformation and also spread the same misinformation on their own end.

Cases like this are hard to tackle because the algorithms might work against the fact that there’s any put out there to counter the wrong information. False news spread faster.

Inaccuracy: There’s an unspoken pressure from the public on the media to produce information throughout the day, 24/7. This also causes media outlets to want to be the first to give out news before another outlet can. What this does is dilute and water down facts because journalists will prefer to choose speed over accuracy.

This constant need to be the first to deliver information causes the journalist to present the news in a way that can even make facts look like opinions unintentionally. This waters down trust in the long run.

Legal Gaps: It’s hard to hold the media accountable due to digital challenges because of media gaps. When information is posted, it isn’t contained in just one society but quickly spreads throughout different nations. This makes it almost impossible for legal activities in one country to cover the media in another country. This leads to false information, even though it is spread across borders to go unpunished.

Modern Accountability Mechanisms

The old ways of overseeing policies and institutions are no longer very effective. What really drives accountability in this era that we are in is a mix of technological, institutional, and audience-driven mechanisms. 

• Fact-Checking Organizations: Independent institutions that go the extra mile to check facts and verify information are instrumental to modern media accountability. Africa Check and PolitiFact are two notable examples. They verify political statements, public claims, and viral content. They do two major things. The first is to correct misinformation. The second is to pressure media outlets to continually produce accurate content.
• Social Media Transparency: News spreads faster and gets a wider reach on social media platforms today. To combat such issues, companies like Meta and X introduced features like content labeling, community notes, and limited algorithm disclosures. They are not perfect. But they help with transparency in terms of how information is distributed.
• Audience Oversight: The work of the audience now goes beyond reading. Readers now challenge stories in real time with their comments and independent investigations. To avoid being attacked by the audience, many journalists are now forced to verify information before publishing. 

Why Accountability Matters

Accountability in the media sector matters in a lot of different ways. It keeps the media in check, amongst others. When accountability is in place, the voice of the media is firm in a democracy. Some other ways accountability matters in the media are:

Accuracy in Information: When there is accountability in the media and the media answers to the public, accuracy is always prioritised. Accuracy is a must in the information sector. Without accurate information, there’s widespread misinformation.

Accuracy is so important because it influences decision-making. Readers are able to make the right decisions when they are properly informed.

Builds Trust: Trust in the media is built when accountability is in place. Trust and credibility are the foundation of journalism; the power of the media is lost. When the public trusts the media, the voice of the media is powerful enough to effect change in society and hold the government accountable. If the media can be held accountable, then the government can be held accountable.

Well-being in the Society: Accountability of the media is essential in terms of the well-being of society. This is because when the media is held accountable, and the people make informed decisions, the society is free of a certain level of chaos.

This is, however, not the case when there’s so much misinformation in the media. Misinformation does so much harm that, if left unchecked, it can disrupt the well-being of society.

Polarization: Accountability matters because a lack of it leads to polarization in society. The media is responsible for reporting factual information, but when this is not the case, it causes a divide. Perceptions are being shaped unfairly in a way that pushes people to find sources that soothe their beliefs.

The more polarization increases, the more distrust grows amongst citizens, between citizens and the government, and also between the city and the media. This creates a breeding ground for possible chaos and violence.

Future of Media Oversight

While the world is ever-changing and rapidly evolving, there’s still room for improvement in media accountability in the digital era. The future of media oversight focuses on the mechanisms that can be adopted and measures that can be taken to ensure that the media runs on fairness, balance, and accuracy. These methods include:

Social Media Accountability: The accountability of social media can foster the future of media oversight. Social media platforms now play active roles in media publication. They no longer act as the middlemen of information on neutral grounds; they now ensure that they are accountable for information posted on their platform.

Social media platforms now undergo algorithm transparency. What this does is help regulatory bodies understand the system better, to see what is most pushed out and what is being suppressed in the media. This helps to know how to tackle false information that spreads quickly.

Use of AI Tools: Another mechanism for future media oversight is the use of AI tools. AI tools can be used to check for information authenticity and accuracy. This is quite tricky because the system can work in favour of the media by limiting misinformation or against it by creating, spreading, and even amplifying misinformation.

There are other technologies that can verify information, like the Blockchain. The blockchain can be used to verify if the source of information is authentic. It can also combat deep fakes in the media and ensure that the content is credible before it is circulated in the media.

Public Accountability: This is achieved through media literacy. It involves the public acting as Watchdogs of the media by carrying out activities like comparing sources to ensure the consumption of credible information. There has been an evolution of passive readers into active consumers of information.

The public can also hold the media accountable for the future of media oversight by asking questions when they need clarity, by giving feedback, and constructive criticism where necessary. Another means of public accountability to the media is by laying emphasis on media literacy, which helps distinguish facts from sensationalism.

Conclusion

As the Watchdogs of the government, it is only right that the media is also held accountable. This is important for democratic purposes and building trust with the public. Media accountability aids society’s well-being, reduces polarization, and so much more.

A society that doesn’t hold the media accountable will remain destabilised by misinformation, and this can harm the society in the long run.