La autorregulación extrínseca en la empresa periodística. La experiencia del Grupo 16
It is not oft en that a media organization equips itself with an internal system for self-regulation such as a press ombudsman. Rarely is someone appointed from outside the editorial department (consistent with the archetype advocated by The Washington Post), and the designation of a person who is n...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2009 |
| País: | Colombia |
| Institución: | Universidad de la Sabana |
| Repositorio: | Repositorio Universidad de la Sabana |
| Idioma: | español |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:10.145.21.57:10818/14495 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://palabraclave.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/palabraclave/article/view/1565 http://palabraclave.unisabana.edu.co/index.php/palabraclave/article/view/1565/1886 http://hdl.handle.net/10818/14495 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Ombudsman Autorregulación Deontología periodística Empresa periodística Grupo 16, España |
| Sumario: | It is not oft en that a media organization equips itself with an internal system for self-regulation such as a press ombudsman. Rarely is someone appointed from outside the editorial department (consistent with the archetype advocated by The Washington Post), and the designation of a person who is not a member of the profession is an exceptional event (as in the case of Il Messaggero). There was a pioneering and unique experience in Spain that combined both these factors. Baptized as the Readers’ Correspondent, it was brought about through the creation of Grupo 16. The benefits of that initiative included, among others, the nature of the position, the selection of those chosen to occupy it, readers’ familiarization with the task of journalism and their right to information, and encouragement to interaction with the audience. The shortcomings concerned the absence of regulations, a certain amount of confusion in fulfilling the mission entrusted to the ombudsman, poor participation on the part of the public, not enough articles published, and the paltry manifestation of explanations provided by directors and writers. |
|---|