During election season, journalists are both indispensable
sources of analysis and the subject of it. Observers meet with state (public)
and private (including partisan) media outlets both to gauge the extent of
press freedom and to develop a better understanding of the electoral
environment and its key actors. Many organizations engage in formal media
monitoring, coding content from major outlets and developing statistical
assessments of air time balance, bias, voter education content, and hot-button
issues in an attempt to evaluate whether candidates are competing on a level
playing field. OAS, for instance, provides its media teams with instructions on
how to survey a representative sample of coverage from newspapers, radio, and
television, isolating seven types of relevant “spaces” to be followed: news
pieces, polls, debates, paid advertising, electoral advertising, governmental
advertising, and free spaces (if granted by law).[i]
Organizations also have begun to watch social media platforms like Facebook and
Twitter for candidates’ own updates as well as the pulse of public opinion. While
social media harvesting tools suitable for election contexts already exist,
observers have not yet codified a methodology for using them as they have for
traditional media.
Whether or not a mission employs a media
expert, it must keep channels of communication open not only to absorb
information but also to ensure a platform for publicizing its own mandate and
findings. Transparent, regular coverage of an EOM can reduce suspicion and
misperceptions about its purpose and establish a direct connection between international
observers and local audiences that may be unfamiliar with the practice of
observation.
[i]
OAS, Methodology for Media Observation, 14-15.
