Quantitative analysis alone will not
adequately explain strengths and weaknesses of media coverage. It is not enough
to claim that the ruling party is receiving more media coverage than the
opposition - there may be good reasons for this, such as larger public support,
and therefore interest. Similarly,
a simple count of news items
may conceal the fact that some parties' coverage "quota" may include
items that show them in a negative light
Extremely important aspects of election
coverage are not readily susceptible to quantitative monitoring. Reporting of
inflammatory speech, for example, will require close textual analysis of the
approach that the media uses.
Monitors also analyse content of voter
education material to ensure that party political messages are not being
conveyed. Often monitors compare the treatment of the same stories in different
language services. Often in post-colonial contexts, indigenous language content
that is broadcast is remarkably different that of in colonial language broadcasts.
The latter will to some extent, be for external consumption. Broadcasters and
politicians might assume that international monitors do not pay attention to
what is conveyed in local languages.
One very important consideration for
monitors to address is the extent to which media reporting is accurate. Media
monitors measure bias by comparing media reporting to their own understanding
of events, as influenced by a variety of sources. ‘Source monitoring’ is when
the media monitors attend a newsworthy event, such as a political rally or a
press conference, in order to see how media coverage compares with their own
perceptions. The Internet has made it easier for monitors to compare domestic
coverage with international reporting on an election. The two sometimes bear
little similarity to each other.
Evaluating implicit messages contained
within media coverage is at the same time important, difficult and highly
contentious. Subtleties of language and visuals convey a variety of messages
that are not always absorbed by an audience in a conscious manner. For example,
pro-government media may have a president ‘state’ something while his opponent
only ‘alleges’. Reporting does not have to be inaccurate to be an improper
influence on the audience's perceptions. In South Africa before the 1994
election, for example, monitors noticed that coverage of African National Congress
demonstrations consistently noted the amount of litter left behind by the
participants. The message was that the ANC was disruptive and irresponsible.
Foreign news items can also be used to encourage a particular interpretation of
domestic news. In Malawi in 1994, coverage of opposition parties on the state
broadcaster was placed alongside news of the Rwandan genocide. The subliminal
message was that an end to one-party "stability" would lead to
bloodshed.
Television has complex visual vocabulary.
Figures who are regarded as authoritative - such as incumbent politicians - may
be portrayed at an upward angle, while others are filmed at a level angle or
from above. Figures in authority will more often address the camera directly,
while others will address an unseen interviewer to one side of the camera and
thus will not address the viewer directly. Ordinary interviewees - opposition
members, trade unionists, or a member of the general public - will usually be
interviewed in the open air. Government members will be seen in their office,
often shuffling papers and apparently engaged urgent and important activity. An
office background tends to emphasise the authority and expertise of the
interviewee. And so on.
Graphics and logos that accompany news
broadcasts may also convey a message. In the Zimbabwean elections in 2000, a special current affairs
programme that ran through the campaign period had as its
logo the tower at the Great Zimbabwe ruins - exactly the same as the symbol of
the ruling party.
