Media monitoring involves collecting data
and carrying out analysis of elections-related content of print, broadcast and
online media, and presenting the results. As well as being a tool for
regulation, media monitoring also provides broader benefits to an electoral
process. These include evaluating the extent to which elections were fair in
terms of freedom of expression by the media, voters and candidates; acting as
an early warning system for elections-related violence; promoting the
participation of women and minorities; and enhancing media literacy of elections
officials and the public at large.
Despite the importance of media monitoring,
it has only recently become standard practice in the management of elections.
The importance of media monitoring in assessing electoral integrity and
democratic development is highlighted by these quotes from observer missions:
Armenia 2012, OSCE
/ ODIHR
In many cases, TV channels broadcast in
their news the same campaign material already used by contestants in paid
political advertising, instead of relying on their own material…Such practices
damage the credibility of media reporting, undermine the autonomy of the media
from the political sphere, and weaken the diversity of media outlets. Where
this occurred, the unclear distinction between news and political advertising
deprived the viewers of independent reporting.[i]
Cambodia 2007,
Comfrel
The
vast majority of political coverage [on state-owned media] (around 93%, equal
to 167 hours 15 seconds) is dedicated to covering the activities of the Royal
Government of Cambodia, including the Prime Minister. Additionally, [other than
two specific programs funded by UNDP and the EMB] the state media do not appear
to be open to parties other than the ruling political party: the great majority
of political party airtime is dedicated to the CPP (about 82%). This unbalanced
coverage made for an uneven playing field, meaning that other parties found it
difficult to compete with the ruling party through the media. [ii]
Comfrel also noted minimal coverage of
women in politics, and no coverage of disabled, youth or indigenous candidates
in any media.[iii]
Nicaragua 2010,
European Union EOM
The media…are not only reflecting the
profound polarisation that characterises the Nicaraguan political scene, they
are becoming active parts of this polarisation. The media appears to be one of
the battlegrounds of the next political phase. The two main newspapers in Nicaragua,
the dailies La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario, due to their historical importance
and tradition, are the media dictating the media political agenda in the
country.[iv]
Sudan 2010, SMEC
The number of hate speech cases and use of
inflammatory language in the media increased significantly as Election Day
approached, and continued after the election date, albeit with less intensity.
While defamation of political actors was the main type of hate speech prior to
the elections, calls for violence and accusations of electoral rigging were the
main types of hate speech after Election Day. Both the political actors and the
media were responsible for conjuring up hate speech.[v]
As these diverse examples from around the
world demonstrate, media monitoring is key to understanding the quality of
electoral processes.
What do media monitors do?
Media monitoring has become a common
feature of elections since the mid-1990s. Monitoring usually uses "quantitative
analysis" or "qualitative analysis" of media content, or both. The first is the least complicated and
controversial, and often has the greatest impact. Quantitative analysis simply
entails counting and measuring election coverage in the media - number and
length of items devoted to different parties, length in column inches, timing
and number of direct access programmes and so on. The amount of coverage each
party or candidate receives is usually the first criterion that will be looked
at in order to evaluate allegations of bias.
Qualitative analysis is, as the name suggests,
an approach that measures the quality of the coverage that parties and
candidates receive. This kind of analysis applies predominantly to news
coverage, although it should also be applied to voter education. Qualitative analysis will look
at language use in content as well the over all message conveyed by the content.
Qualitative analysis will provide depth and context to quantitative findings. For example, it may not be very useful to say that
Party X has received a certain percentage of news coverage, if a large part of
that coverage is biased in its content. Inevitably, the measurement of bias is
more subjective than simply counting minutes, seconds or column inches accorded
to each candidate.
Media monitoring organisations – be they
national civil society groups, international or domestic observer teams, EMBs
or others – now often use fairly similar methodologies. International NGOs,
such as the European Institute for the Media, and national organizations, such
as the Osservatorio di Pavia (Italy), MEMO98 (Slovakia), the Media Monitoring
Project (South Africa), and the National Democratic Institute for International
Affairs (United States) have popularized easy, effective and surprisingly
subtle monitoring methodologies and created a large pool of people familiar
with their use.
Media monitors usually focus on a
combination of major television, radio and print. Recently some monitors have
started to look at social media as well.
Who monitors the media?
Generally, three main groups undertake
monitoring of the media during elections:
- Electoral
Management Bodies (EMBs);
- International
electoral observation missions
- Domestic
observation groups and civil society organisations
Other
bodies that monitor media during elections can include media peak bodies (such
as Rwanda’s High Council of the Press[vi]), media regulatory bodies
(such as the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa[vii]), and internal
monitoring by media agencies themselves who are concerned with ensuring fair
coverage.[viii] The publicly-funded
Australian Broadcasting Commission, for example, sets up an Election Coverage
Review Committee prior to each national election. This Committee is made up of senior ABC
managers, which meets weekly during the election period and gives input to
editors on the ABC’s on-going performance and adherence to law and standards of
elections reporting.[ix]
The purpose in each instance may be
rather different. EMBs
and media regulatory bodies will
normally monitor the media in order to determine whether they have adhered to
the regulations or laws governing media behaviour during elections. If they have a direct regulatory function, they
will use their monitoring findings to make sure that media comply with the
required standards
and to warn or discipline media outlets if appropriate.
International observers are also
concerned with media compliance with local rules and laws. However, they are
also concerned with monitoring the contribution of media to a free and fair
election, and
ensuring that universal rights to freedom of expression are upheld. Observers have no powers of enforcement
or interference however, and will adjust the timing and tone of their
recommendations accordingly. International electoral observation missions contribute
to media monitoring by including analysis of fair media coverage into their
overall external assessments of the conduct of the elections.
Domestic observer groups and other civil society groups may have
more leeway in how they they can monitor election coverage. These domestic
bodies can utilize more varied or in-depth methodologies to determine different
types of media bias. EMBs, by contrast, are often restricted to a simple analysis of the
allocation of time to parties and candidates. Civil society monitors usually
have a strong understanding of the local contexts, actors, languages and so on.
Many have good networks with the domestic media and can communicate with them
quickly and directly about their findings. For example, the civil society group Sudan
Media and Elections Consortium published biweekly Media Monitoring results
before, during and after the 2010 elections. This means that civil society monitoring
can often be used as part of an effort to raise journalistic standards or to address other issues while the election campaign is still
going on. Some
organisations may be interested in specific issues such as hate speech,
electoral violence, or the representation of women or minorities during
elections, and focus on those issues.
Media peak bodies and media agencies will
tend to focus their monitoring on ensuring balanced coverage in order to uphold
the credibility of media outlets and the media sector as a whole, and to ensure
adherence to the law.
The efforts of these different monitoring
groups can be complementary,
coordinated and
even co-operative. In some cases, as in Malawi’s first
multi-party election in 1994, an EMB may take notice of civil society media
monitoring and use its powers to try to make media coverage fairer. In other
instances, the EMB may hire a civil society or private monitoring group to be
its eyes and ears.
The Indonesian Election Supervisory Board, the government’s broadcasting
regulator, and the independent Press Council cooperate directly by setting up a
joint committee to carry out media monitoring. In
the Ukrainian presidential elections of 2004 there was media monitoring from both
intergovernmental groups and local human rights and media freedom
organisations. Local observation groups published their findings regularly (as
well as on a broader set of issues). Their
conclusions were bolstered by findings by international monitors.
[i] “Republic of
Armenia: Parliamentary Elections 6 May 2012” (OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation
Mission, observation report, Warsaw, June 26, 2012),9,
http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/91643
[v] “Media and elections in Sudan: Monitoring the
coverage of Sudan 2010 elections, Period 13 February to 31 October
2010,” (Sudan Media and Elections monitoring report, December 2010),10
[vii] ICASA monitors
broadcasters only. For an example of an ICASA elections monitoring report see here.
[viii] Sometimes
Press Councils are officially asked to do the monitoring work, See for example,
Nepal.
