 In 1947, the Hutchins Commission published a groundbreaking report in which they proposed a model that was to be known as the social responsibility model. This model quickly grew in popularity all over the world. But what did it entail? And where did it differ from the old free media model? Because the model focuses on social responsibility, it stresses that media should be governed somehow, and not left loose to do what they seem fit. This form of governance is best done by the industry itself. First of all, through a collectively constructed professional code of ethics for each branch of the media landscape. So in a country that has this system, it's typical that codes of conduct were written for and by all kinds of professional groups, like advertisers, PR professionals, journalists and even more specific people that make comic books, movie makers, publishers, lobbyists. Secondly, a professional system of peer governance to uphold those codes of ethics. A committee of journalists, publishers and journalism experts to decide ethical matters among journalists. A committee of advertisers to judge over matters concerning advertisement. And so on. These professional commissions serve as some sort of court, but only because all sides agree that the commission has power. They are, for instance, able to serve out certain sanctions. Also collectively decided by the industry itself, like fines or banning someone from membership of the professional association. The exact sanctions differ of course from time to time and place to place. And this system would ideally give the media landscape a structure for governance that had been severely lacking and would serve as an alternative for a judicial system. And of course, government interference. And this system of self-governance by the industry might resemble governance by the government, but only exists because of mutual agreement among media organizations and not because of government pressure. However, the commission stressed that in every system there is a need for checks and balances. Therefore, there should in extreme cases be a room for government interference, if it turns out that self-government is not working. You can imagine that this proposal of checks and balances, professional courts, rules of conduct, the possibility of fines and other sanctions handed out by peers, and beneath it all, the possibility, in extreme cases, of government interference in media matters was quite a leap from the old free media model. It was, however, exactly what many countries recuperating from the Second World War needed at that time. And although the report received quite some criticism at first from within the media landscape, it was in the end concluded that this was preferable to the alternative, the government stepping in entirely. Because according to public opinion, the Fourth Estate model had failed dramatically. It was time for a new model to take its place. The social responsibility model was on the rise.