MEDIA RIGHTS


press. Another model that was discussed is the self-governing model that exists in Canada.


Canada’s self-governing model of media accountability Independent self-governing bodies across Canada are responsible for ensuring that the newsprint media and journalists are acting in the best interests of the public.


The British Columbia Press Council is the self-governing body of the press in my own jurisdiction. It is one of five regional regulatory bodies governing the newspaper industry in Canada.


It describes its Code of Practice as follows: Newspapers are a vital and essential part of a free and democratic society, as history has shown time and again. That is why the Press Council created the Code of Practice – to encourage the highest professional and ethical standards of journalism, and in the belief that vigilant self- regulation is the hallmark of a free and responsible press. The Code of Practice includes such duties as accuracy, to give an opportunity to reply and to


xxxxxx


balance an individual’s desire for privacy with the requirements of a free press.


The Press Council considers unsatisfied complaints from the public about the conduct of member newspapers in the gathering and publication of news and opinion. The Council Directors, which include both members of the public and of the profession, oversee the mediation and adjudication of complaints, with input and response from both the newspaper and the complainant. Apart from press councils, individual newspapers may also have their own codes of conduct. For example, Canada’s national newspaper, The Globe and Mail, has a comprehensive Editorial Code of Conduct which is publicly available. It states that it is “designed as a road map to clarify the boundaries between ethical and unethical journalism” and that editorial staff “must not only conduct themselves honourably but must be seen to do so by the public.”


Challenges and opportunities At the CPA conference, delegates expressed concerns that the media has become less


responsible and more cynical and prone to hastiness and superficiality. One conference delegate said that a crisis of trust in traditional media is growing by leaps and bounds. Some saw this as a result of rapid technological change where digital media has sharpened the timeframes. Information is shared globally in an instant via the Internet. There is an increasing use of social media which may contribute to a tendency to focus on transitory and personality issues. In the face of this, is a self- governing model effective enough? Perhaps regulatory models need to be assessed on a regular basis to see whether they are meeting the challenges of ensuring responsible journalism in the digital age. A major Journalism Research Centre in Toronto recently published a report entitled ‘Toward Press Council 2.0: An international review of models of, and alternatives to, the traditional press council’. The authors are from a well-respected School of Journalism at Ryerson University.


The authors of the report saw the need for some action


by the Canadian news industry to be more accountable and transparent about its ethics and professional standards. They criticized Canada’s system of media self-assessment as being neither comprehensive, nor consistently effective. In Canada, there has been some discussion of moving towards a national press council that has regional representation. At a recent annual conference, Newspapers Canada, which represents more than 800 daily and community newspapers, decided to pursue a proposal put forward by the Ontario Press Council to create a voluntary national press council. Presumably a national press council would have more resources and a larger profile than its regional predecessors. This would result in increased awareness of its role and function and, therefore, greater transparency. I submit that these kinds of reviews and considerations of possible reforms of existing structures are timely and should be encouraged.


Given the breathtaking


changes in the media landscape, there is an increasing need to ensure that existing regulatory models are effective and transparent. They must keep pace with the changes in how the media is delivering information to the public and what is being delivered. Their complaints processes must be accessible. The media are key


accountability actors in modern democracies. Both members of the media and Parliamentarians must be accountable for how they carry out their role. For the sake of our democratic institutions, efforts to strengthen that accountability must be a priority.


The CPA Parliament and Media Law Conference was held in Andhra Pradesh, India between 8 and 10 April 2015.


The Parliamentarian | 2015: Issue Two | 107


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76