重新聚焦法定基础:后莱韦森时代的媒体监管和问责制

IF 1.1 3区 哲学 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Steven Maras
{"title":"重新聚焦法定基础:后莱韦森时代的媒体监管和问责制","authors":"Steven Maras","doi":"10.1080/23736992.2020.1736076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article I revisit the debate around statutory underpinning in the context of the UK Leveson Inquiry of 2011–12 to refocus discussion on the conceptual distinctiveness of this term. Refusing the idea that it is simply a term of art for statutory control, I argue that statutory underpinning enables a strong articulation of the accountability relationship between the press and the public. The article discusses the concept and its operation in the Leveson Report. I then explore the uniqueness of the term on three levels: that of the technical specificity of the recognition criteria; the underpinning of the independence of the press; and finally the articulation of an accountability relationship. I turn to the work of philosopher Onora O’Neill to provide philosophical context on how underpinning offers a significant pathway to media accountability.","PeriodicalId":45979,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Media Ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":"83 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refocusing Statutory Underpinning: Media Regulation and Accountability post-Leveson\",\"authors\":\"Steven Maras\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23736992.2020.1736076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this article I revisit the debate around statutory underpinning in the context of the UK Leveson Inquiry of 2011–12 to refocus discussion on the conceptual distinctiveness of this term. Refusing the idea that it is simply a term of art for statutory control, I argue that statutory underpinning enables a strong articulation of the accountability relationship between the press and the public. The article discusses the concept and its operation in the Leveson Report. I then explore the uniqueness of the term on three levels: that of the technical specificity of the recognition criteria; the underpinning of the independence of the press; and finally the articulation of an accountability relationship. I turn to the work of philosopher Onora O’Neill to provide philosophical context on how underpinning offers a significant pathway to media accountability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45979,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Media Ethics\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"83 - 95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Media Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2020.1736076\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Media Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2020.1736076","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我将在2011-12年英国莱韦森调查的背景下重新审视关于法定支撑的争论,以重新聚焦于这一术语的概念独特性。我不认为这仅仅是法定控制的艺术术语,我认为,法定基础能够强有力地阐明新闻界与公众之间的问责关系。本文讨论了在Leveson报告中的概念及其操作。然后,我从三个层面探讨了该术语的独特性:识别标准的技术特异性;新闻独立的基础;最后是责任关系的清晰表述。我转向哲学家奥诺拉·奥尼尔(Onora O’neill)的著作,为其提供哲学背景,说明支撑是如何为媒体问责提供重要途径的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Refocusing Statutory Underpinning: Media Regulation and Accountability post-Leveson
ABSTRACT In this article I revisit the debate around statutory underpinning in the context of the UK Leveson Inquiry of 2011–12 to refocus discussion on the conceptual distinctiveness of this term. Refusing the idea that it is simply a term of art for statutory control, I argue that statutory underpinning enables a strong articulation of the accountability relationship between the press and the public. The article discusses the concept and its operation in the Leveson Report. I then explore the uniqueness of the term on three levels: that of the technical specificity of the recognition criteria; the underpinning of the independence of the press; and finally the articulation of an accountability relationship. I turn to the work of philosopher Onora O’Neill to provide philosophical context on how underpinning offers a significant pathway to media accountability.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
15.80%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信