Media monitors – whether they be electoral administrators, international observers, civic activists or academics – will need to settle a number of methodological questions before embarking on their project:

• What media are to be monitored? Will it be just public media, or all media? Will it be just broadcasting outlets or print media too? Will it be a selection of media or all major national outlets?
• Which parts of the media output are to be monitored? Will it be specified news bulletins, all output during particular times of the day, or all output?
• What content will be monitored (and with what purpose): news, advertising, free direct access slots, special programming, voter education, or all of these?
• Will the monitoring seek to gather only data about how much time was allocated to the different parties or candidates or will it also look at other aspects of coverage, such as the use of language, the selection of news stories etc?
• Is the monitoring intended as part of an intervention into the election campaign – for example, to require the media to adhere to professional standards – or is it primarily aimed at documenting whether media coverage was fair and balanced?

The answers to each of these questions have an important impact on the monitoring methodology that is adopted.

Most methodologies used to monitor media coverage of elections draw on a technique known as content analysis. This is an essentially quantitative methodology. That is, it is concerned with elements of media output that can be measured and counted. Content analysis has been criticized for reducing media coverage to what is measurable, leaving out important aspects such as tone and language, whether spoken or visual. The criticism may be valid. There are many things that content analysis cannot do – most simply and obviously it cannot reveal whether news coverage was accurate or inaccurate. However, most organisations that have undertaken media monitoring of elections do use the content analysis, quantitative approach, at least as part of their work.

Typically quantitative monitoring of media election coverage will focus on the amount of time allocated to parties and candidates. This may then be qualified by an assessment of whether the coverage is favourable or unfavourable. Although these measures may also be quantified, they are essentially qualitative judgments.

Some monitoring methodologies introduce other types of quantitative measure in an attempt to avoid relying on monitors’ assessment of whether coverage is positive or negative. They may, for example, count the sources that journalists use, assigning them to different political or social categories. This may be a more objective measure of balance. They may classify media items by topic. This can be useful since, in an election campaign, political parties often campaign not only with different positions but also on different issues. The media’s selection of topics may therefore be a sensitive indicator of their political sympathies.

Another aim of quantitative monitoring may simply be to measure the amount, and perhaps timing, of political advertising or free direct access programming. This may be to ensure that what is actually published or broadcast conforms to the laws or regulations governing direct access.

When media monitoring findings are reported, the greatest attention is usually paid to the allocation of coverage by parties and candidates (along with an evaluation of who is favoured or disfavoured by that coverage). It will be essential in reporting these findings to distinguish clearly between allocation of time in news coverage and in the various other types of coverage – paid advertising, free direct access, opinion pieces and so on.