One of the measures of good election reporting is impartiality. Impartial reporting is closely related to the issue of accuracy. Accurate reporting is a precondition of impartiality, but it is not a sufficient one.

The quantitative measure that media monitors use to assess impartiality is balance. They look at the variety of sources a journalist uses in a particular story, or that a media outlet uses over a period of time. Although this measure is not foolproof it usually serves as a reliable indicator. Election coverage is bedevilled by one-sided reporting that conveys the position of a favoured party or candidate without reporting the alternative positions. A news story that includes different points of view is always going to be a stronger and more balanced one.

It will often be difficult for media to establish balance within a particular story. A journalist may be assigned to a particular party campaign and will not have the opportunity to seek comment from other parties. In that case, the responsibility lies at the editorial level to make sure that the different party positions on the same issue are reported, either by compiling composite stories or by running parallel stories portraying the different positions.

One of the elements of impartiality in election coverage is the separation of fact and comment. This is regarded as fundamental principles of professional journalism. It applies even to committed, campaigning journalism. In elections this will be especially important. A media outlet might have a stated political position in favour of a particular party or candidate. But there is still an ethical obligation that news coverage be factual, even when accurate reporting might seem to undermine the editorial stand it has taken. This ethical obligation lies with the individual journalist and editor, as well as with the higher management of the media house.

Finally, an important measure of journalists’ impartiality is that they do not hold prominent office in any political party or movement. Journalists are as entitled as anyone to their political beliefs and loyalties, but a position of individual political prominence will compromise a journalist's credibility as an impartial chronicler of events.