Search results

In five European countries (Germany, France, Belgium, Great Britain, Spain) the effects of commercial TV suppliers on the labour market and the conditions of work have been surveyed. Although new posts have been created by new stations, in the majority of the examined countries this greater number of jobs is threatened by growing competition in the television market. An increasing number of jobs are being transformed from employed to casual ones. The dissolution of the characteristics of traditional jobs and the development of multi-skilled work, especially the mixture of technical and editorial tasks in the responsibility of journalists, is reported.

This book is written by media scholars from all over Europe who are members of the Euromedia Research Group. What unites the group is the joint interest of its members in the analysis of media structures and media policy in Europe against the background of contemporary communication theories and concepts. The book has two parts: First, it looks into structural changes in specific media formats such as newspapers, radio, television and online-media. Second, it analyses specific problems and challenges in a comparative way, such as the creation of public sphere(s), the relation between media and democracy, public service media, media regulation and media governance, challenges of media industries etc.The book addresses graduate students in mass communication, scholars and practitioners interested in reflecting main development trends.It follows up from four books written by the Euromedia Research Group on media policy, published in 1986, 1992, 1999 and 2007.For a member list of the Euromedia Research Group visit www.euromediagroup.org

This chapter examines the extent to which public service media can constitute a countermeasure to ongoing developments in the media market, media regulation, and journalism professionalism, some of which threaten the ideal role of the media in a democracy. Within the concept of a media ecology and with respect to the overarching dimensions of the Media for Democracy Monitor (MDM) project – Freedom / Information, Equality / Interest Mediation, and Control / Watchdog – we ask whether public service media make a difference for democracy. The findings are related to the question of whether strong public service media have an influence on the performance of other media. We consider this question – if the media sector is characterised by convergence or divergence – and compare countries with robust public service media with countries that have traditionally weak public service media. From this, we conclude that public service media are relevant for democracy due to their performance and their impact on the general media ecology.

This chapter focuses on media accountability. Because of the fundamental role that news media play in a democratic society, it is of high relevance for citizens that the performance of the news media is scrutinised, which is the overall goal of the Media for Democracy Monitor (MDM) research project. In this chapter, we investigate whether there are institutional mechanisms in place that hold the news media accountable to standards of performance. Following two MDM indicators, we look for the existence of content monitoring instruments and institutionalised mechanisms to control the performance of news media. We find that the use of content monitoring instruments is weak in many countries, while the use of institutionalised mechanisms fares better in most. ; This chapter focuses on media accountability. Because of the fundamental role that news media play in a democratic society, it is of high relevance for citizens that the performance of the news media is scrutinised, which is the overall goal of the Media for Democracy Monitor (MDM) research project. In this chapter, we investigate whether there are institutional mechanisms in place that hold the news media accountable to standards of performance. Following two MDM indicators, we look for the existence of content monitoring instruments and institutionalised mechanisms to control the performance of news media. We find that the use of content monitoring instruments is weak in many countries, while the use of institutionalised mechanisms fares better in most.

This chapter examines the extent to which public service media can constitute a countermeasure to ongoing developments in the media market, media regulation, and journalism professionalism, some of which threaten the ideal role of the media in a democracy. Within the concept of a media ecology and with respect to the overarching dimensions of the Media for Democracy Monitor (MDM) project – Freedom / Information, Equality / Interest Mediation, and Control / Watchdog – we ask whether public service media make a difference for democracy. The findings are related to the question of whether strong public service media have an influence on the performance of other media. We consider this question – if the media sector is characterised by convergence or divergence – and compare countries with robust public service media with countries that have traditionally weak public service media. From this, we conclude that public service media are relevant for democracy due to their performance and their impact on the general media ecology.

This chapter focuses on media accountability. Because of the fundamental role that news media play in a democratic society, it is of high relevance for citizens that the performance of the news media is scrutinised, which is the overall goal of the Media for Democracy Monitor (MDM) research project. In this chapter, we investigate whether there are institutional mechanisms in place that hold the news media accountable to standards of performance. Following two MDM indicators, we look for the existence of content monitoring instruments and institutionalised mechanisms to control the performance of news media. We find that the use of content monitoring instruments is weak in many countries, while the use of institutionalised mechanisms fares better in most.

Codes of ethics are one of the most widespread instruments of (self-)regulation for journalistic activity, pointing out the best professional practices and ethical standards to be followed and the need to allow some kind of scrutiny by the public. Such codes have different names, scope, authorship, range of action, and enforcement capacity, as can be seen in the various reports of the 18 countries participating in the 2021 Media for Democracy Monitor (MDM) research project. In this chapter, an historical overview of the evolution of journalistic codes of ethics in different national media contexts is given, as well as an analysis of the cornerstones such codes are built upon in various countries. We discuss the specific virtues and shortcomings of such codes, with a particular emphasis on the new challenges brought by the digital media environment. The role played by codes of ethics, compared with the laws that regulate media, is also addressed.