The concepts of media accountability, media criticism and media governance are analysed and discussed in a Swedish setting; how they relate to each other and interact. This is achieved by using various methods – a survey to editors, analy- ses of parliamentary debates, interviews, direct observation and document stu- dies – in studying different stakeholders, media representatives and governance conditions in Sweden during the last 70 years. The findings point in a direction of dynamic complexities with a central role for media criticism. The type, level and intensity of media criticism may affect the functioning of the media governance structure and is a vital part of the media accountability process. The media governance structure – which in addi- tion to media criticism is influenced by international conditions, technological developments and political factors – may in turn affect the media accountability process. In this process, media representatives aim to defend obtained positions of societal influence, achieve and maintain positive PR and enhance editorial quality at the same time. Media criticism may start a substantial media accountability process if the discontent is widespread and not countered by market approval or political iner- tia. The process is facilitated if the critique is connected to more than one frame of accountability and if stakeholders see opportunities for dual objectives. Very strong and widespread media criticism may be difficult for media organizations to neglect. The accountability process in Sweden has become less dependent on corpora- tive negotiations between organized interests and political assemblies. Instead, two other tendencies seem to have emerged: on the one hand a possibility for media organizations to favour such accountability processes that they are able to control, and on the other hand the rise of a rich variety of sometimes short-lived accountability instruments that may develop for specific occasions and are difficult to control.

2017 has been described as a decisive year for the Republic of Moldova. Following years of economic and political turmoil, it is more urgent than ever before that crucial reforms are not only adopted, but fully implemented – primarily within justice, media and banking sectors. Using a theory of impartial institutions and two central theories of state intervention into media markets, this counterfactual deductive thesis sets out to investigate arguments for and against a system of state subsidies to private media as a tool to increase Quality of Government in Moldova. Through analyses of qualitative interviews with six country experts within relevant fields as well as secondary data, the conclusion of this single case study is primarily confirming previous research indicating on the one hand, that a more social responsible role of the state within Eastern European media markets is a realistic future path, on the other hand that it can hardly be expected soon. Further, the possibility of media to improve Quality of Government is perceived as low – even with sufficient financial resources – due to lack of other prerequisites such as accessibility, accountability and responsiveness; as well as low scores on crucial indicators such as corruption, law and order and quality of bureaucracy. Just like democratic institutions can be destabilizing under wrong circumstances, state subsidies given to wrong beneficiaries within a media market, could undermine democratic legitimacy and accountability. Both findings of previous research – related to state governance on the one hand and media governance on the other – are perceived as particularly relevant in this study of Moldova. However, there have been promising signs lately on economic structural reforms improving the conditions for civil society and media in Moldova, indicating for reevaluating the potential of state support in the future. Further, I recommend greater emphasis put on the distinction between political and non-political owners when examining the effects of media ownership concentration and its effects on governments and societies at large.

This academic investigation examines the intersection between International Relations (IR), data privacy laws, and social media governance. The case studies are of Tik Tok &amp; Facebook/Meta where we begin the research by taking a comparative analysis of the US congressional hearings of Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Facebook/Meta) in 2018 and Shou Zi Chew (CEO of Tik Tok) in 2023. In addition, a comparative analysis is made on the referenced or related data privacy laws amongst the EU, US, and China through the realist, liberalist, and new constructivist lens. Lastly, a practice theory approach follows the empirical data of penalties on these two social media companies, the similar corporate solutions from Tik Tok to both EU and the US, and the quantifiable lobbying contributions from both ByteDance (parent company to Tik Tok) and Facebook/Meta. The three research questions are (i) how do the IR theoretical lenses of realism and liberalism acknowledge the significance of social media and its need for regulations, (ii) how can data be conceptualized for social media governance and what are the implications of these dynamics within IR, and (iii) what is the efficacy of data privacy laws in protecting user rights while social media companies influence US policymakers? My conclusion is that data privacy laws are legal jargon that either power-maximize a state or act as a taxation mechanism. User rights are not secure, and there is a battle for accountability and a risk that algorithms may keep social media companies abstained from responsibility. / <p>New Data was released where Meta was fined $1.2 Billion by the EU. It does not take anything away from the paper but is relevant to the systemic act of data protection. Also, no exact definition of governance is given. For following papers that use this, it's important to be defined depending on how they interpet it but this paper didn't need a deep definition.</p>