Media monitors – whether electoral
administrators, international observers, civic activists or academics –should address a number of practical and methodological questions before embarking
on their project:
- What
are the overall goals of the monitoring? Is the monitoring intended as a
process of constructive intervention in election implementation – for example,
to require the media to adhere to professional standards – or is it intended
primarily to document whether media coverage was fair and balanced? Does the
monitoring provide a broad look at the media’s contribution to free and fair
elections, or more narrowly at certain aspects?
- Who
is the target audience for results? What format will the results take? How
often will results be reported? What resources are available or needed, and
what is the best way to allocate them for the monitoring tasks?
- What
media are to be monitored? Will it be just public media, or all media? Will it
be just broadcasting outlets or print media? Will monitor social media be
monitored? Will it be a selection of media or all major national outlets? Will
we consider sub-national media?
- 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, and so
on?
The answers to each of these questions
have an important impact on the monitoring methodology that is adopted.
Most media monitors employ methodologies that
utilise a technique known as ‘content analysis’. This kind of analysis is essentially
quantitative in nature. In
other words, it
is concerned with elements of media output that can be measured and counted.
Content analysis has sometimes been criticized for reducing media coverage to
what is measurable, omitting important aspects such as tone and language, or identifiers
such as audio or visual. There are many things that content analysis cannot do
– most simply and obviously, it cannot reveal whether news coverage
was accurate or inaccurate.
Typically, quantitative monitoring of media election coverage will focus
time allocation according to the various 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 measures in an attempt to avoid relying on monitors’
assessments 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.
