Media accountability in a liberal democracy: an examination of the harlot's prerogative

Abstract

This thesis is both a normative and empirical study of media accountability in a liberal democracy. While its focus is predominantly on Australia, it contains some international comparisons. Media ethics and media performance in relation to quality of media content are identified as the two main dimensions of media accountability. They may be conceived of as the means and the ends of media work. The thesis represents the first combined survey of both external mechanisms of accountability in Australia – those existing outside the various media organisations – and the internal mechanisms existing within three of Australia’s largest media organisations. These organisations span print and broadcasting, public and private ownership. The thesis is based on substantial qualitative research involving interviews with a wide range of experts in media ethics, law, management, and accountability. It is also based on two quantitative surveys, one among practitioners of journalism and the other among the public they serve. This combination of research is certainly new in Australia, and no comparable study has been found in other Western countries. In addition to the main qualitative and quantitative surveys, three case studies are presented. One deals with media performance in relation to quality of media content (the case of alleged bias brought against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation by the then Senator Richard Alston); one deals with media ethics (the “cash-for-comment” cases involving various commercial radio broadcasters), and one deals with accountability processes (the “Who Is Right?” experiment at The Sydney Morning Herald).