The ability of the media to perform its vital anti-corruption function depends on the extent to which journalists are free to express their opinions, are independent from undue political and economic influence, and possess the skills and resources necessary to produce professional reports. There are significant variations in media culture, size and characteristics of media markets, national legal and administrative traditions, and the nature and extent of challenges confronting media organisations. It is, however, possible to identify a number of key elements which, if implemented in an appropriate, context-sensitive manner, can contribute to strengthening the media's anti-corruption role.

An 'enabling' legal framework is a fundamental requirement for an effective anti-corruption media. Laws and regulations are needed to establish a clear basis for gathering and distributing information without risk of interference or reprisals. Moreover, appropriate rules are needed to ensure genuine diversity among public and private media sources and to regulate media ownership structures. An enabling legal environment also requires that potential restrictions on media freedom are clearly defined and kept to an absolute minimum.

Freedom of expression laws
The principles of freedom of opinion and expression are key elements underpinning all media regulation. These principles are recognised by a number of international legal instruments, including Article 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights which sets forth the right to freedom of opinion, expression and information.

Inherent contradictions exist between the right to total free speech and the protection of other legitimate societal interests, and it is therefore unreasonable to expect any legal system to uphold such principles in absolute terms. Rather, good practice holds that legal frameworks should include a clear statement of the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, plus a clear delineation of the restrictions on these freedoms permissible by law. These restrictions will typically relate to issues of national security, public order, public health or morals, and individual rights, and should be defined as narrowly as possible to avoid abuse. Important issues to be considered when delineating such restrictions in the context of developing national legislation include:

• the nature of the restrictions;
• their scope and extent;
• their duration;
• the presence or absence of effective corrective machinery to challenge the restrictions.

Access to information laws
Without free access to information held by government and the private sector, the media cannot hold these actors to public scrutiny and will most likely fail to act as an effective check against corruption. There is increasing recognition that states must take legal steps to guarantee positive obligations with regard to access to information.

Legislation in this area generally identifies those categories of information that are to be accessible, allocates institutional responsibilities with regard to the provision of access, and establishes a framework of rules by which records can be viewed. Such rules may include time limits within which requests for information must be handled by the authorities. Good practice in this area holds that a "right-to-know" approach should be adopted, whereby as much information as possible is placed automatically in the public domain (Source: Jeremy Pope, TI Source Book 2000). Quite apart from the cost benefits of publishing large amounts of data in common format, this approach benefits both holders and recipients of information by avoiding the often lengthy process of making and adjudicating individual requests.

As with restrictions on freedom of expression, there may be a number of grounds for denying access to information, for instance, in cases where the information requested relates to matters of national security, law enforcement, or personal privacy. Although it is ultimately a matter for the judiciary to decide whether such restrictions are legitimate in relation to a specific request, good practice holds that legislation should recognise the primacy of access to information held both by public and private bodies and that is required for the exercise or protection of citizens' rights.

Media sector laws define the 'rules of the game' under which the media operates in a particular jurisdiction and are, therefore, of great significance in determining the extent of its role in countering corruption. Disagreement exists about the form of regulation most conducive to ensuring an independent media. A widely held view, however, is that media law best serves the public interest when designed to ensure a plurality of voices where at least some voices will always be raised against the abuse of power.

Huge variations in media regulation exist worldwide, ranging from systems where state authorities directly supervise content, public media systems where governors enjoy substantial autonomy, to systems where the media is almost entirely privately owned but subject to some state regulation. The following section deals with some of the main types of media law of relevance to anti-corruption reformers.

Private media ownership laws are becoming increasingly important as a means to ensure media pluralism. Over the past few decades, rapid commercialisation of the media has, in many parts of the world, increased the dangers of concentration of media ownership. Media companies are usually subject to standard competition law. Nevertheless, many countries have also introduced specific legislation regulating private media ownership, recognising that general corporate law often provides insufficient protection for a sector of such importance to democratic values. Legislation in this area generally seeks to set limits on any one company's reach. Three types of concentration are typically addressed: horizontal concentration, where a media sector is dominated by a single company; cross-ownership, where a single owner has interests across several media sectors; and vertical concentration, where one company owns various stages of the production and distribution chain (Source: Price and Krug, The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media, 2000).

Criteria for determining unacceptable levels of concentration vary greatly between countries. Examples of criteria used include audience level, measured in terms of average circulation or audience numbers; market share, measured in terms of audience time; capital share/voting rights measured in terms of the percentage of capital share or voting rights held by a legal person in a particular media service; and financial turnover in a particular media sector.

Such criteria are often combined to establish ownership limits and are generally accompanied by provisions aimed at minimising cross-ownership. A single media operator may, for example, be subject to a "two out of four" rule, whereby it is barred from owning companies in more than two out of four existing media sectors (Source: Council of Europe, Media Diversity in Europe, 2003). Though it is difficult to gauge the relative effectiveness of such measures in ensuring real diversity, it is clear that regulatory regimes must reflect media dynamics in the country for which they are intended. When reviewing which regulatory mix appears to be most suitable, some important issues to consider are:

• which media sectors are covered?
• is the level of regulation for a specific sector appropriate to that sector's level of development?
• are all forms of media concentration adequately addressed?
• do the regulations address media distribution as well as production?
• do laws penetrate to regional and local level?
• what mechanisms and institutions are in place to address over-concentration?
• what is the level of involvement of foreign media companies?
• is there a clear end-game vision of the type of media model desired?

Public media laws can support the media's anti-corruption role by strengthening the independence of public media organisations dedicated to the provision of information in the public interest. There is now recognition that the existence of a robust public service can be conducive to the maintenance of media plurality. However, pluralism and the spirit of public service can likewise be achieved by making licenses for private broadcast channels conditional on fulfilment of strict quality standards in news and current affairs programming.

Creating and maintaining autonomous public media institutions is an immensely challenging task. Many former authoritarian societies must cope with transition from total state-control of the media. Some have chosen complete or partial privatisation of government monopoly broadcasters, while others have chosen to reform existing state media. In many instances the dangers of undue government influence of the media persist. Even in countries, such as France and the UK, with long public service traditions, explicit legal guarantees are required to maintain autonomy in the face of pressure from government and the commercial sector.

Where their establishment is a viable option, the independence of public media services should be protected through the rule of law. The Council of Europe recommends that legal frameworks governing public service broadcasting should "…clearly stipulate their editorial independence and institutional autonomy", especially with regard to the following areas:

• definition of programme schedules;
• conception and production of programmes;
• editing and presentation of news and current affairs programmes;
• organisation of the activities of the service;
• recruitment, employment and staff management within the service;
• purchase, hire sale and use of goods and services;
• management of financial resources;
• preparation and execution of the budget;
• negotiation, preparation and signature of legal acts relating to the operation of the service.

(Source: Council of Europe, Guidelines on the guarantee of the independence of public service broadcasting, 1996).

Media activity laws: In addition to laws that promote the existence of diverse public and private media organisations, legal frameworks should also provide explicit protection for media activities crucial to its anti-corruption role:

• Protection of sources: Without a reasonable degree of confidence that journalists will not be compelled to reveal their identity at some later stage, sources of information may be deterred from reporting on matters of public interest, thus seriously diminishing the media's watchdog role. Exceptions to the protection of journalist sources, if permitted at all, should be prescribed in law and available only for the advancement of the public interest.
• Journalist licensing: A number of countries continue to recognise the practice of journalism as a licensed profession. Such an approach can pose grave risks to freedom of expression, allowing authorities to license only those journalists who do not incur their displeasure. It is increasingly recognised that arguments forwarded in support of statutory licensing, such as the promotion of journalist ethics, are insufficient as legitimate grounds for interference with journalistic freedoms. Rather, legal frameworks should provide a supportive environment for the development of voluntary codes of conduct to promote and guide ethical journalist practice.
• Pre-publication censorship: Though direct content regulation is present to some extent in all legal systems, formal administrative censorship prior to publication is universally recognised as incompatible with the basic tenets of media freedom. Good practice holds that, in cases of perceived abuse, proper systems for the imposition of subsequent sanctions should be applied. In order to avoid self-censorship, such systems should adhere to international standards governing criminal and civil procedures.

Other laws that have an impact on the media
Those seeking to implement legal frameworks that enable the media to fulfil its anti-corruption function must also review legislation in areas apparently unrelated to media regulation. The following provides an overview of some of the most significant legislative areas to bear in mind.

National security laws: It is internationally recognised that national security interests can form a legitimate basis for regulating free expression. A major danger, however, is that government can use sweeping national security laws to stifle criticism and dissent, including muzzling of the media. The Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, highlighted earlier, establishes clear guidelines for legislation in this sensitive area.

Prevention of disorder laws: International standards recognise that inflammatory speech can be responsible for inciting violence and disorder. Restrictions on such speech can, therefore, be legitimate if imposed to protect the public interest. If these restrictions are too broad, however, they can lead to media self-censorship. An important benchmark in this area has been set by the European Court of Human Rights, which has ruled against a number of domestic legal decisions on the grounds that the statements in question did not constitute an actual appeal to violence (Source: Price and Krug, The Enabling Environment for Free and Independent Media, 2000).

Seditious libel laws: Laws that criminalise insults made against state institutions and/or officials have repeatedly been used to quash allegations of government corruption on the grounds that such reports harm state power or national unity. In most cases, such laws serve little or no purpose other than shielding the political class from often legitimate criticism.

Protection of individual interest laws: Any law dealing with the protection of individual interests should recognise the possible restrictions this may place on media freedom. Moreover, the application of such laws should be strictly limited. Insult laws, for example, should apply only in cases where the statement in question contains no information of public interest and is expressed with the sole intention to injure the victim. An alternative to addressing concerns about journalist abuse in this area is to establish a legal right to reply or correction concerning specific media content.

Institutional framework

An enabling legal framework is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for fulfilment of the media's anti-corruption role. Written laws do not automatically translate into an excellent media and require a robust institutional framework to enforce media freedom, monitor and process complaints against the media and enhance the professional skills of journalists. The following section provides an overview of key elements of an institutional framework for development of a powerful anti-corruption media.

Independent broadcasting authorities
Due to the limited availability of wavebands, television and radio are generally subject to a greater level of state regulation than other forms of mass media. Government intervention in broadcast regulation usually involves the establishment by law of a statutory regulatory authority with both licensing powers and the responsibility for establishing codes to which licensees must conform. Such authorities often have powers to sanction broadcasters who breach license conditions, including through suspension or revocation of licenses.

Given such levels of state involvement, there is a great potential risk that such authorities will be used to curb media freedoms, for example, by refusing to renew the license of a radio broadcaster critical of the current government. It is therefore crucial that measures be taken to safeguard the operational and financial independence of broadcasting authorities from the government of the day. Particular issues that should be considered include:

Appointments: The process for appointing members should be stipulated in the legal framework establishing the authority and should, as a minimum, involve the participation of civil society groups and professional media organisations.

Funding: Sources of appropriate funding should be clearly specified in law. The priority should be to devise funding methods that avoid potential government interference in financial decision-making. One possible model is for authorities to be funded by the license fees they charge broadcasters.

Frequency allocations: Decision-making regarding the allocation of frequencies should be open and participatory in order to ensure that a fair proportion of the spectrum is allocated for various broadcast uses.

Licensing procedures: Written codes for the issuing and revocation of licenses should be established. In order to ensure their appropriateness, such codes should be the result of extensive research into public opinion of the standards expected of broadcasters. Draft codes should be widely circulated among civil society and professional media organisations before being formally adopted.

Appeals mechanisms: Legal mechanisms ensuring appellate procedures on decisions taken by regulatory authorities should be established. This is fundamental to the protection of the right to a fair trial or an effective remedy for any party involved.

Monitoring: Effective monitoring procedures should be put in place to ensure the independence of regulatory authorities. Committees involving representatives of the general public, civil society and professional media organisations may be established to monitor the lodging and resolving of complaints.

Independent press councils
Appropriate regulation of the print media can be achieved via non-government bodies set up and run by groups of media owners, professionals and consumers. Over the past decades, there have been significant moves to establish such independent press councils or commissions, often in response to government proposals for a more interventionist regulatory approach.

Despite many failures due to government intransigence, a divided press, financial instability and lack of public support, the case for the establishment of self-regulatory press councils remains strong. The argument in their favour is that, in the absence of the need to regulate frequencies as in broadcasting, government influence over the press should be kept to a minimum in order to ensure media freedom. Since "nil" regulation risks the development of an irresponsible press, the establishment of press councils is seen as a means of protecting the reader while leaving journalists, editors and publishers largely in charge of their own destinies (Source: Beales, Imperfect Freedom: The case for self-regulation in the Commonwealth press, 2002). Although the exact model of self-regulation most effective in a particular country will vary, a number of common principles for success can be identified:

Composition: The involvement of media owners and professionals is a key strength of press councils. By developing and administering its own code of conduct, the press becomes its own guardian, entering a mutual covenant with other industry representatives that make transgressions of the code unlikely. Media involvement should be complemented by the moral force of lay members, whose presence may deter media representatives tempted to exercise uncritical judgement of their own actions or those of their peers.

Powers: Press councils with the power to fine or suspend publications are in danger of replicating the dangers of state control. What should be a quick and efficient means of (self-) regulation can become a time-consuming, expensive process, whereby publications seek to defend themselves at lengthy hearings. There is recognition that the prime instrument at the disposal of press councils should rather be the power of censure, where transgressions result in public castigation of the offender.

Funding: The integrity of a press council is most secure if its costs are covered by the media industry itself. Because of the sense of ownership and moral authority it provides the industry, this is undoubtedly the preferred option. In cases where complete self-financing is impossible, hybrid funding systems have been introduced with some success. These may involve a mixture of self-funding, external donor support and/or limited state funding.

Legal basis: Press organisations in many countries have sought statutory guarantees for enforcing semi-autonomous press councils, often funded by parliament. Defendants argue that such hybrids are a necessary step on the road to full self-regulation. Here, it is important to note that a main advantage of press councils is their relative simplicity and speed when compared with legislation-based systems.

Staffing: The effectiveness of a press council is largely dependent on its ability to provide quick and fair adjudication of alleged media transgressions. High levels of professionalism and integrity among its staff are therefore a key requirement.

Role in relation to other media: A common issue is whether press councils should become general 'media councils', covering all forms of press and broadcasting. It is widely recognised that press councils perform best when they stand alone, not least because of the greater government involvement required for allocating broadcast frequencies.

Other significant media actors
A supportive institutional environment for the development of a strong anti-corruption media does not rely on the existence of appropriate regulatory or self-regulatory bodies alone. A range of other actors are needed both to defend media activity against undue external pressure and ensure the integrity and professionalism of the industry itself. The following is a brief overview of some of the main actors whose existence should be encouraged and work supported:

Journalist associations and unions are important actors in defining editorial independence and building national frameworks for social stability in the media. In partnership with other media organisations, unions can help define the minimum professional qualifications expected of journalists and editors. In cases of dispute between media professionals and owners, they can also provide constructive support in line with existing labour and media legislation.

Global independent media organisations such as the International Federation of Journalists and the World Press Freedom Committee play a key role in the development of media freedom worldwide. By highlighting instances of good practice and commenting on violations of media freedom, such organisations provide an important impulse for media reform, while providing useful resources for other would-be reformers.

Media foundations such as the Reuters and Knight-Ridder foundations and the BBC World Service Trust, can help raise levels of media professionalism by providing educational opportunities for reporters in countries where journalist training is limited. Further resources related to journalist training can be found under the Good Practice section of this Resource Page.

The role of media consumer groups is often overlooked, but crucial in defining appropriate structures for the delivery of information to the public. Consumer groups can, for example, assist in monitoring levels of media concentration in a particular market, thus helping to ensure delivery of a wide range of contrasting perspectives.

Civil society organisations with a media focus, such as the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and Reporters Without Borders, have an important role to play in raising public awareness, collecting data on media ownership and formulating policy proposals to promote professional standards and pluralism in the media.

The need to set limits on state involvement in the operation of the media is a prerequisite for its development as an effective anti-corruption watchdog. This requirement places tremendous responsibility on an industry which can itself be prone to unprofessional and corrupt practice. In addition to appropriate legal and institutional frameworks that support the development of an independent media, complementary industry measures are therefore required to ensure an ethical and professional media culture. This section addresses two of the most important measures for strengthening the media's anti-corruption role from within the industry itself.

Codes of conduct
An important element of media self-regulation (touched upon in the section above on independent press councils) is the development of professional codes of conduct. In the absence of state regulation, such codes represent a form of covenant between media owners, practitioners such as journalists, editors and publishers, and the wider consuming public. By agreeing to a code, owners are furnished with a basic quality-control mechanism for the credibility of their output; practitioners receive a benchmark against which their activities can be judged; while the general public receives a guarantee that the information they are provided is a fair representation of the truth.

Although codes may be implemented at a variety of levels, including at national and media-firm level, their common denominator lies in their provision of a mechanism for media accountability. Some important principles should be considered when devising and implementing such codes:

Content: In contexts where levels of media professionalism are low while opportunities for engaging in corruption are high, there is a danger that codes of conduct will appear far removed from the realities of daily reporting. Codes that are too comprehensive or prescriptive in character are unlikely to impact upon media standards in such environments. Rather, good practice holds that the solution lies in developing an inclusive code that sets out acceptable minimum standards rather than improbable ideals. The starting point for the development of such codes should be open consultation between media professionals and the general public. Most practitioners agree that, as a minimum, codes should include reference to the following:

• the principles of media freedom, the right of the public to access information and the right of journalists to exercise their personal conscience;
• accuracy and corrections, including the public's reasonable expectation of an opportunity to reply;
• the distinction between fact and comment, as well as the right of editors to be partisan;
• respect for personal privacy, balancing the rights of the individual with the public's right to know;
• limitations on intrusive methods of newsgathering such as the use of zoom-lens photography and listening devices;
• protection of vulnerable groups such as children and the victims of crime;
• protection of journalists' sources;
• avoidance of prejudice and discrimination;
• proscriptions on the use a journalist's position to pursue personal gain.

(Source: Jempson, Codes of Conduct, The PressWise Trust, 2003)

Application: To be effective, codes must be understood by those meant to implement and monitor them. The dual tasks of training media practitioners and educating the general public about the contents of a particular code are therefore key to its successful implementation. Awareness raising will partly be achieved via consultations conducted as part of the drafting process. Further education regarding a code's practical implications should, however, become a standard part of journalist training courses. Moreover, roll-out of a new or revised code should, where feasible, be accompanied by an extensive public information campaign.

Journalist training
Long-term improvements in the quality of journalism, and thus in the ability of journalists to impact upon levels of corruption, can be achieved only through investment in programmes that teach journalists the basic tools of their trade. Training programmes must be affordable, accessible and relevant to the context in which media practitioners will apply the lessons they learn. Although a number of actors can and should be involved in journalist training, including global media foundations and international NGOs, the preference should be for "home-grown" programmes that convey the lessons of experienced journalists to future generations of media professionals. The following is a list of the most significant issues that such training should encompass:

• newsgathering techniques, including internet and documentary research, interviewing and fact-checking;
• journalist ethics, including relevant codes of conduct;
• legal concepts, including relevant international, national and regional legal frameworks;
• local/national government and judicial systems;
• national libel, defamation and access to information laws;
• writing and/or broadcasting techniques;
• newsroom management, including sound financial and personnel management techniques;
• investigative journalism techniques, including basic security principles.

• An enabling legal framework is required that provides strong guarantees of freedom of expression and access to information. Separate legislation should be considered for specific media sectors to avoid inappropriate generalisations.
• New or revised legislation, relating in particular to national security and personal/corporate privacy, should be carefully reviewed for its implications for media freedom.
• National laws should not interfere with matters that are the proper responsibility of media professionals: namely, the gathering, preparation, selection and transmission of information.
• Media pluralism should be strengthened by encouraging a wide diversity of private media ownership enforced through specific media ownership laws.
• The independence of public service broadcasters should be strengthened via specific public media laws.
• Safeguards to maintain the independence of broadcasting authorities should be introduced, including public and civil society monitoring of their activities.
• Where appropriate, independent press councils should be established to ensure self-regulation of the print media.
• The role of independent journalist associations and unions, independent media organisations, media foundations, consumer groups and civil society organisations should be strengthened by involving them in the development of national media frameworks.
• Appropriate and home-grown journalist codes of conduct should be developed in partnership between media professionals and the general public.
• Accessible and affordable journalist training programmes should be developed at national and local level.