Keywords

Ombudsman, self-regulation, ethics, citizenship

Abstract

To transform an individual pain into a collective feeling of suffering is a capacity of all mass media. However, television has, in this point, a tremendous power. The capacity to join millions of TV viewers in front of itself is its most admirable merit, but it’s also its most dreadful danger. Principally when the point are the human rights, as the right of privacy or the right of not suffer in the public space, the demand of quality appears not only as an obligation of the Government but also as a duty of citizenship of all TV viewers. Although it is not properly a novelty in some European countries, the existence of a TV Ombudsman2 will be a reality in Portugal only this year. The Government has approved a legal diploma to create this figure, which will evaluate the programming and information of the public channel RTP. As the ombudsmen of press that we already know, the TV Ombudsman will be the person who receives the critics and observations of TV viewers, evaluates them and writes about them an impression to the administration of the channel. Being a self-regulatory proceeding, the TV Ombudsman is fundamentally a mechanism that implicates citizens. It is not only an entity of vigilance on ethics of Television. It is essentially a platform of dialogue between journalists, programmers and TV viewers. As in the press, the Ombudsman is a mediator. Although it is probably not an absolute guarantee of quality, TV Ombudsman is surely an argument of citizens against the bad things diffused by the box that we believe is the one by which the most important of our lives goes trough.

References

BAUDRILLARD, J. (2003): La transparência del mal: ensayo sobre los fenómenos extremos. Barcelona, Editorial Anagrama.

Link Google Scholar

BOURDIEU, P. (2001): Sobre a Televisão. Oeiras, Celta Editores.

Link Google Scholar

CÉBRIAN, J.L. (2004): «Terrorismo en el Pozo», en El Pais, 12 de Março.

Link Google Scholar

DEBORD, G. (1992): La société du spectacle. Paris, Éditions Galimmard.

Link Google Scholar

FIDALGO, J. (2001): «Entre a Televisão e o Jornal», en Público, 16 de Setembro.

Link Google Scholar

GILLMOR, D. (2005): «The end of objectivity», en

Link Google Scholar

https://dangillmor.typepad.com/dan_gillmor_on_grassroots/2005/01/the_end_of_obje.html

Link Google Scholar

MALHEIROS, J.V. (2001): «O que é que sentiu?», en Público, 13 de Março.

Link Google Scholar

MAÑERO, C. (1997): «Cuando el dolor es noticia», en ISTMO, 231, Julho/Agosto.

Link Google Scholar

MIRANDA, J.B. (1999): «Fim da Mediação? De uma agitação na metafísica contemporânea», en Comunicação e Linguagens, 25/26, Março.

Link Google Scholar

PERNIOLA, M. (1993): Do sentir. Lisboa, Editorial Presença.

Link Google Scholar

POPPER, K. (1999): Televisão: um perigo para a democracia. Lisboa, Gradiva.

Link Google Scholar

SONTAG, S. (2003): Olhando o sofrimento dos outros. Lisboa, Gótica.

Link Google Scholar

Fundref

This work has no financial support

Crossmark

Technical information

Metrics

Metrics of this article

Views: 0

Abstract readings:

PDF downloads:

Full metrics of Comunicar 25

Views: 0

Abstract readings:

PDF downloads:

Cited by

Cites in Web of Science

Currently there are no citations to this document

Cites in Scopus

Currently there are no citations to this document

Cites in Google Scholar

Currently there are no citations to this document

Download

Alternative metrics

How to cite

da-Costa-Oliveira, M. (2005). TV Ombudsman: an argument against Pandora’s Box. [Provedor do telespectador: um argumento contra a caixa de Pandora]. Comunicar, 25. https://doi.org/10.3916/C25-2005-130

Share

           

Post Office Box 527

21080 Huelva (Spain)

Administration

Editorial office

Creative Commons

This website uses cookies to obtain statistical data on the navigation of its users. If you continue to browse we consider that you accept its use. +info X