Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article summarises the global state of the art of research into media accountability, using this overview as a framework for an analysis of 14 European countries’ structures and the possibilities for monitoring their media accountability landscapes. The first step shows that a model developed purely in the context of liberal Western democracies struggles to explain the diversity of media accountability instruments, actors, proceedings, and the effectiveness of these systems in different countries. When a broad understanding of media accountability is applied, different models of media accountability frameworks can be identified globally, and even within Europe. These findings on structures and actors in the field function as guidelines for the second part of the article, which analyses monitoring capabilities in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden—with a special focus, not only on the status quo, but also the capability to monitor changes and trends over time. Even in countries with generally well-developed monitoring and research structures in the media sector, much of the available literature focuses on normative questions, and available data is not necessarily comparable longitudinally or cross-nationally. International efforts have inspired key publications in a number of countries, but they are rarely followed up by continuous monitoring of developments in the field. Several cases describe a common reason for monitoring deficits: Weak professional culture among journalists leads to ineffective and often neglected media accountability measures, which in turn limits research activity and funding opportunities.

Patient satisfaction is an important indicator of health care quality, and it remains an important goal for optimal treatment outcomes to reduce the level of misdiagnoses and inappropriate or absent therapeutic actions. Digital support tools for differential diagnosis to assist clinicians in reaching the correct diagnosis may be helpful, but how the use of these affect patients is not clear. The primary objective of this feasibility study was to investigate patient experience and satisfaction in a primary care setting where general practitioners (GPs) used a visual clinical decision support system (CDSS) compared with standard consultations. Secondary objectives were diagnostic accuracy and length of consultation. Thirty-one patients with a dermatologist-confirmed skin diagnosis were allocated to consult GPs that had been randomized to conduct either standard consultations (SDR, n = 21) or CDSS (n = 16) on two separate study days one week apart. All patients were diagnosed independently by multiple GPs (n = 3-8) in both the SDR and CDSS study arms. Using the CDSS, more patients felt involved in the decision making (P = 0.05). In addition, more patients were exposed to images during the consultations (P = 6.8e-27), and 83% of those that were shown images replied they felt better supported in the consultation. The use of CDSS significantly improved the diagnostic accuracy (34%, P = 0.007), and did not increase the duration of the consultation (median 10 minutes in both arms). This study shows for the first time that compared with standard GP consultations, CDSS assist the GP on skin related diagnoses and improve patient satisfaction and diagnostic accuracy without impacting the duration of the consultations. This is likely to increase correct treatment choices, patient adherence, and overall result in better healthcare outcomes.

iiiIn recent years, the Leveson Inquiry in Great Britain, as well as the EU High-Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism, have stirred heated debates about media accountability and media self-regulation across Europe. How responsible are journalists? How well-developed are infrastructures of media self-regulation in the different European countries? How much commitment to media accountability is there in the media industry – and how actively do media users become involved in the process of media criticism via social media? With contributions from leading scholars in the field of journalism and mass communication, this handbook brings together reports on the status quo of media accountability in all EU member states as well as key countries close to Europe, such as Turkey and Israel. Each chapter provides an up-to-date overview of media accountability structures as well as a synopsis of relevant research, exploring the role of media accountability instruments in each national setting, including both media self-regulation (such as codes of ethics, press councils, ombudspersons) and new instruments that involve audiences and stakeholder groups (such as media blogs and user comment systems). A theoretically informed, cross-national comparative analysis of the state of media accountability in contemporary Europe, this handbook constitutes an invaluable basis for further research and policy-making and will appeal to students and scholars of media studies and journalism, as well as policy-makers and practitioners.

This article summarises the global state of the art of research into media accountability, using this overview as a framework for an analysis of 14 European countries' structures and the possibilities for monitoring their media accountability landscapes. The first step shows that a model developed purely in the context of liberal Western democracies struggles to explain the diversity of media accountability instruments, actors, proceedings, and the effectiveness of these systems in different countries. When a broad understanding of media accountability is applied, different models of media accountability frameworks can be identified globally, and even within Europe. These findings on structures and actors in the field function as guidelines for the second part of the article, which analyses monitoring capabilities in Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Sweden--with a special focus, not only on the status quo, but also the capability to monitor changes and trends over time. Even in countries with generally well-developed monitoring and research structures in the media sector, much of the available literature focuses on normative questions, and available data is not necessarily comparable longitudinally or cross-nationally. International efforts have inspired key publications in a number of countries, but they are rarely followed up by continuous monitoring of developments in the field. Several cases describe a common reason for monitoring deficits: Weak professional culture among journalists leads to ineffective and often neglected media accountability measures, which in turn limits research activity and funding opportunities.

The last decade has witnessed a significant, albeit understudied, increase in media reporting and media criticism in the U.S. news media. An exploratory study of leading media reporters and media critics in the United States indicates that these journalists have considerable potential as instruments of media self-regulation. Their impact on other media professionals, however, is partially left unexploited, mainly because of the peer orientation of media critics and media reporters.

No abstract Public interest in media issues has reached levels probably unseen in Europe since the 1970s. While the international media landscape is shaken by far-reaching transformations, heated debates about the responsibility and accountability of media and journalism take place that were hitherto unknown in democratic societies within Europe. Bertrand offers a wide definition of media accountability, including not only media professionals, but potentially media users to the process also, when he defines media accountability as \"any non-State means of making media responsible towards the public\". Media accountability may also subsume the concept of media transparency that has recently been discussed as another promising means to regain or preserve trust in journalism, implying that media organizations make information about editorial processes, as well as the journalistic actors involved, available to the public. The chapter also presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in this book.

This summary chapter examines and compares structures of media self-regulation and media accountability in all parts of Europe – and beyond. Emphasizing the relevance of responsible media in democratic countries granting press freedom, the summary analyses the development of established instruments of media self-regulation – such as press councils and ethics codes – as well as more recent online instruments – e.g. media blogs, online ombudsmen and participatory processes of media accountability. In order to do so, the authors summarize the key results of the first comparative analysis of media self-regulation and accountability structures in all EU member states (plus selected neighbouring countries), provided by a team of mass communication and journalism scholars from 33 different research institutions. In addition to the qualitative data, the summary presents a pilot index to measure the state of media accountability across countries, and – similar to the Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders – stimulate a wider media policy debate about self-regulation beyond academic circles. This chapter examines and compares structures of media self-regulation and media accountability in all parts of Europe - and beyond. It presents the results of a comparative evaluation of the 33 country reports. The chapter summarizes some of the findings from a comparative perspective, with a focus on: instruments of media accountability on the professional level; instruments of media accountability on the organizational level; and online instruments of media accountability. It discusses the particular situation in Turkey, Russia and Israel, all of three being neighbours of the core region of the European Union. The chapter argues that a broader European media policy debate is needed in order to promote a public discussion about the quality of media accountability in Europe. Also, more cross-border attention needs to be given to best practice cases in the field of media accountability, as well as to political, economic and professional context factors enabling or discouraging the development of sound media accountability infrastructures.

Compared to other European countries, the German media landscape is characterized by a considerable variety of MAIs. Among them, the German Press Council and its code of ethics play a central role, while self-regulatory mechanisms at the newsroom level are slowly gaining ground. Media criticism has a long tradition in German journalism; up until now, however, it has had to cope with the inevitable problems of self-referentiality. A lively German media blogosphere and other innovative accountability instruments on the social web offer new stimuli to media self-regulation, even though they still lack differentiation. Despite the diversity of the German media accountability culture, the basic problem of how to attract the attention of a larger non-journalistic audience remains an issue for many of the existing MAIs. In Germany, a broad range of instruments is serving as a means of holding the media accountable to the public. A press council was established in the 1950s, there are several trade journals and the leading quality media all maintain regular media pages covering journalism and the media business. While the concept of the news ombudsman has not been successfully implemented in German journalism culture until today, many German news outlets have started to experiment with innovative media accountability and transparency instruments online in recent years. The German media, as a consequence of journalistic professionalization, have established a wide variety of instruments of media self-regulation and accountability, both in institutionalized and non-institutionalized forms. Although media criticism has a long tradition in national journalism history, it still has to cope with the inevitable problems of self-referentiality, which impedes its bearing on the public quality discourse.