Where self-control works

It happened again recently: the magazine dedicated a longer story to the press councils in the Scandinavian countries. "Self-Regulation Done Right" was the title of the story. Based on the Norwegian media's coverage of the mass murderer Anders Breivik, the magazine used a number of convincing examples and was full of praise to outline why the conviction has prevailed in Northern Europe more than anywhere else in the world that functioning journalistic self-regulation is not a nuisance, but helps the credibility of journalism - provided that the media report appropriately on the work of the press councils.
 
 In the German-speaking world, Switzerland probably comes closest to the Nordic ideal, while the press councils in Austria and Germany tend to operate in the shadow of media attention. The Swiss Press Council is certainly doing its bit to establish quality awareness in editorial offices. It not only makes a genuine effort to ensure fairness when dealing with complaints. It has also always been presided over by respected journalists whom the founding father of media studies, Emil Dovifat, would have ennobled as "journalistic personalities" - since 1991 it has been Roger Blum and Peter Studer, with Dominique von Burg currently in office. Even the German media magazine Message has not only been commenting on interesting German cases for years, but also pays the same attention to the Swiss Press Council. However, Swiss editorial offices also know that the Press Council is dependent on the support of journalists if it is not to operate in a vacuum, and report on its decisions accordingly.
 
Unfortunately, it is anything but easy to develop a culture of journalism in Europe that combines the ability to accept criticism with the struggle for credibility. This is shown by initial research results from the MediaACT project (www.mediaact.eu), which systematically examines the suitability of self-regulation instruments in twelve European and two Arab countries, as well as a recently published study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, which specifically compares press organizations internationally. In Austria, meanwhile, the tabloid of the same name and previously the notorious Kronenzeitung newspaper recently sued the recently reinstitutionalized Press Council in the courts of law. Intimidation instead of promotion - that is certainly the wrong signal.
 
It remains irritating as to why journalists and media companies, who are so keen to publicly criticize others for their misconduct, find it so difficult to admit their own mistakes. In any case, this has nothing to do with the need to save money, as more transparency and credibility would be extremely inexpensive. It starts with correction columns, which editors would have to take care of if they finally set them up, but which hardly cost any money. The funds required for a press council would be distributed among the media companies - if they only wanted to, they could pay for it out of their petty cash. Ombudsmen who mediate conflicts and media journalists who continuously report on media and journalism would be much more expensive. However, if ombudsmen do their job well, they will save media companies many an expensive legal dispute.
 
And even media journalism does not necessarily require additional resources. It would suffice to set different priorities within the editorial team - simply to sensitize the public to journalistic quality. All that is really needed is the realization that credibility is a valuable asset of journalism, because only media-competent readers, listeners, viewers and users are able to distinguish between PR and journalism and will be prepared to pay for solid, properly researched journalism. Sophisticated journalism needs such audiences - precisely because in the foreseeable future it will no longer be able to finance itself from gushing advertising revenues.