What is the role of the media as a mechanism of social accountability? This article examines media reaction to an incident of police violence in Argentina. It argues that such media debates can help to establish a form of preventive accountability. They do this by providing a forum for debate for a plurality of actors to establish who should be held accountable, what they should be held accountable for, and how they should be held accountable.
‘Vertical accountability’ consists primarily of elections, but can also be achieved through the uncoerced expression of social demands. ‘Social accountability’ is the non-electoral component of vertical accountability, and involves the activities of civil society and the media.
It has been argued that the media provides social accountability by shaming public officials and by activating state institutions of ‘horizontal accountability’, such as the judiciary or state commissions. However, media debates can also act as a form of ‘preventive accountability’. Such debates can reframe actions once deemed acceptable as unacceptable acts for which public authorities will henceforth be held accountable.
In Argentina there is a long history of violent repression of social protest by police. In one incident in 2007, a teacher was killed by a teargas canister fired at close range by a police officer. The subsequent debates in three different newspapers of different political persuasions were analysed. Findings included the following:
- The debate challenged old attitudes that view protesters as responsible for provoking the police and those that view the police as responsible for misinterpreting their superiors’ orders. Many voices called for the provincial governor to resign, and still others attributed blame to the President.
- Debates over what people should be held responsible for went beyond criminal responsibility. The media coverage expressed expectations of the establishment of democratic norms, and that the people shamed in the media should be held accountable for not adapting to those norms.
- Two key mechanisms of horizontal accountability were most commonly advocated by interviewees and journalists. The first concerned the judiciary, and challenged the legal impunity that police have enjoyed. The second was the removal of politicians from key positions, challenging the idea of political immunity for police repression of social protest.
- In addition to activating mechanisms of horizontal accountability, the media also strengthened social accountability by increasing the visibility of civil society organisations.
There was no unanimous agreement about wrongdoing in this case, and it is unlikely that all future incidents of police repression will be viewed as wrong. However, new ‘frames’ for interpreting police violence were established that can be recalled and built on in the future. In addition:
- The media do not always provide social accountability, as their political and economic interests affect what issues are covered and how they are covered.
- It is possible that in other cases coverage might not be as critical as it was in this case. Such critical moments may occur when there is perceived to be scandal, or may relate to contextual factors such as the degree of freedom of speech permitted under law.
- Social accountability performed by the media can be reactive, through shaming public officials and by activating mechanisms of horizontal accountability. It can also be preventative, by the provision of a forum for debate that reframes issues.
