In its new research consisting of a factual catalogue and an analytical article on the matter, the Belgian CDJ demonstrates the importance, the seriousness and the efficiency of European press and media councils’ mediation when handling complaints.
Mediation, in the specific case of press and media councils, represents the process of seeking an alternative solution between both parties (the complainant on one hand and the media and/or journalist subject of the said complaint on the other hand) with the help of the Council, in general through its office or secretariat. As many approaches exist, European press and media councils use a variety of terms (mediation, conciliation, amicable solution (or resolution), arbitration, ombudsman, reconciliation...) that are not necessarily synonymous to designate this mechanism.
Starting from a survey and subsequent in-depth interviews, Anna Vidal (author of this new CDJ research) asked herself the following question: if the handling of complaints is the main task, or even the raison d’être, of most councils, is mediation – as part of this process – rather the norm or an exception? And how do journalistic self- regulatory bodies manage or not the search for amicable solutions?
The research resulting from this interrogation splits into two independent (but complementary) publications:
- On one hand, a catalogue raisonné maps existing mediation procedures – or the lack thereof – among 37 European press/media councils and ethical commissions. Country by country and model by model, it explores in greater depth the reasons behind their choices, so as to understand them in their own context. The main objective of the catalogue is to establish a series of best practices which can serve as inspiration for councils which don’t resort (anymore) to mediation or are searching for improvements, or at least adaptations, of their own procedure – all the while bearing in mind that it will probably not be possible to apply everything identically, because of the specificity of each council.
- On the other hand, an analytical article details the common ground as well as the particularities highlighted throughout the catalogue, by summarising the various and somewhat combinable models of mediation, as well as factors which make this process effective or, on the contrary, counterproductive. In contrast to the catalogue, the article focuses mainly on the survey respondents, namely 23 organisations who declare to be practising mediation. Through their personal opinion, it stresses among other observations that the primary role of a press/media council should be as much that of an arbiter of media ethics as that of a conflict resolver.
In summary, this study – the results of which will be a useful addition to the existing presscouncils.eu database – is obviously useful for press and media councils themselves, but also for every citizen wanting to learn more about how this kind of mediation works at the European level. By raising awareness of this possibility, sometimes unknown of potential complainants, this new CDJ research demonstrates the importance, the seriousness and the efficiency of such a process when handling complaints, in particular in terms of strengthening the dialogue between media/journalists and the public.
Contact:
Anna Vidal – Project manager (CDJ)
anna.vidal@lecdj.be
Read the catalogue raisonné:
Read the analytical article:
