ABSTRACT

Professional and academic debates on the role of media accountability instruments (MAIs) have so far largely focused on Western democracies and on solving the issues of transparency and trust through press and media councils, ombudspersons, media criticism fora, and digital forms of media accountability. They have notably ignored the disruptive force of media technologies in the context of the rise of algorithm-driven platforms. This paper draws on Von Krogh [Von Krogh, T. 2012. Understanding Media Accountability Media Accountability in Relation To Media Criticism and Media Governance in Sweden 1940–2010. PhD Diss. Mid Sweden University] amended version of McQuail (2005) and Bardoel and d’Haenens’ models (2004. “Media Responsibility and Accountability: New Conceptualizations and Practices.” Communications 29: 5–25. doi:10.1515/comm.2004.007) to propose an enhanced model that takes into account the state/media relations in non-democratic societies and the disruptive force of media technologies and algorithm-driven platforms. In-depth semi-structured interviews with 12 prominent media practitioners were conducted. The findings suggest the limits of normative conceptualizations of media accountability when adopted and applied to non-democratic countries. We propose a model that explains the role of media technologies and algorithms-driven platforms as game changers in the debate on media accountability in non-Western countries.

摘要

到目前为止，关于媒体问责工具 (MAI) 作用的专业和学术辩论主要集中在西方民主国家，以及通过新闻和媒体委员会、监察员、媒体批评论坛和媒体问责的数字形式解决透明度和信任问题。在算法驱动平台兴起的背景下，他们明显忽视了媒体技术的颠覆性力量。本文借鉴了 Von Krogh [Von Krogh, T. 2012. Understanding Media Accountability Media Accountability in Relation To Media Criticism and Media Governance in Sweden 1940–2010。博士论文。Mid Sweden University] McQuail (2005) 和 Bardoel 和 d'Haenens 模型（2004 年。“媒体责任和问责制：新概念化和实践”）的修订版。通讯29：5-25。doi:10.1515/comm.2004.007) 提出一个增强模型，该模型考虑了非民主社会中的国家/媒体关系以及媒体技术和算法驱动平台的破坏力。对 12 位知名媒体从业者进行了深入的半结构化采访。调查结果表明，在非民主国家采用和应用媒体问责制的规范概念化时存在局限性。我们提出了一个模型来解释媒体技术和算法驱动的平台在非西方国家媒体问责制辩论中作为游戏规则改变者的作用。